I was not asking you, nor do I care for your opinion.
Well, la-di-da,
You asked, I answered. I suspect the guy you asked would say the same thing, Can’t help it if the truth upsets you.
You weren’t asked.
Wtf is with the hostility here? You asked a question and he gave the answer. You agreeing with those beliefs doesn’t make them any less idiotic.
Maybe because JAQ did not answer in the form of a question?
If you have a specific beef with @Just_Asking_Questions, I covered the “idiotic beliefs” in the other Jeopardy hosting thread (see below). If your beef is with anyone calling her out for her woo, anyone not phrasing them in the form of a question, or anyone not named @Mike_Mabes, well you won’t like my post much either.
Modnote: A little harsh don’t you think? Maybe take unrequested answers with a little more grace going forward. At least in Café.
It’s in the name? Everything I say is a question?
What is, I think she’s the most anti-science neuroscientist phd I’ve ever seen?
First of all, I asked the question of one person who used the pejorative term :“idiotic beliefs” in his/her own post. I expected an answer from him/her, not someone who presumed to know what he/she meant.
Second, I still don’t know what “idiotic beliefs” Mayim is supposed to hold, so I can’t say if I agree with them or not. It is presumptive of others to assume that I do. Even if I do, that is no one’s business but my own.
Your opinion has been noted and logged.
Not accurate. They were on an alternate schedule many years ago. And this is six years ago::
And she has been consistently for the COVID jabs.
Do you seriously think that Weinstein didn’t care about looks, or you just saying that mentioning what you know is true is beyond the pale?
Here the is the context:
Mayim Bialik: Being a Feminist in Harvey Weinstein’s World
This is what a normal middle American mother would advise her daughters. Bialik knew that girls hoping to make it in Hollywood would seek out what she wrote, and took that into consideration. It also helped make her article interesting enough to be published.
I was uncomfortable with the pressure to push out Mike Richards, even though I didn’t like what he did, on grounds of wondering what comes next. And now here it is – no centrists allowed.
If her kids got a single shot, they are “vaccinated.”
Straight from her little “Pro COVID-vaccination” video:
As of today, my children may not have had every one of the vaccinations that your children have, but my children are vaccinated. I repeat, my children are vaccinated.
By “not every one of the vaccinations” does she mean all but one, or hardly any? Don’t know and she’s not saying.
We’re not an anti-vaccine movement. We’re pro-safe-vaccine schedule.
Which disagrees with the recommendations by those people who actually have the knowledge to inform us to a proper schedule. Here’s the CDC take on it:
Children do not receive any known benefits from following schedules that delay vaccines. Infants and young children who follow immunization schedules that spread out or leave out shots are at risk of developing diseases during the time you delay their shots. Some vaccine-preventable diseases remain common in the United States and children may be exposed to these diseases during the time they are not protected by vaccines, placing them at risk for a serious case of the disease that might cause hospitalization or death.
Do I think we give way too many vaccines in this country compared to when I was a child? Yes.
Yet she doesn’t tell us which ones we can stop giving.
Do I believe that most people don’t even know what Hepatitis B is, but vaccinate their newborns for it anyway because they’re simply told to? Yes.
I’m guessing her children don’t have the Hepatitis B vaccination.
What we try to do is not to tell you whether to take a vaccine or not, but how to ask the right questions about what kind of vaccines that you want to take.
See, not anti-vax at all.
Oh, my bad. That’s not Bialik, that’s Robert F(ucking) Kennedy, Jr., whose link below is the top reading recommendation given by Bialik in her “pro-vax” video. Yep, her top reading recommendation is number 2 on The Disinformation Dozen list.
Do I believe that there is a tremendous profit made from vaccines and specifically for making sure kids show up in school? Yes.
Straight from the anti-vax playbook, and not particularly accurate either.
Remember her quote above where she said:
We’re not an anti-vaccine movement. We’re pro-safe-vaccine schedule.
While Bialik agrees with that statement, that quote is actually straight from the mouth of Jenny McCarthy, who like almost everyone in the movement claims not to be against vaccines. When I call McCarthy an anti-vax child-killer, no one seems to mind. Is it because she posed in Playboy as opposed to becoming a lovable nerd on TBBT?
Mayim Bialik is an anti-vaxxer in the traditional sense who appears to be very scared of COVID. While I appreciate her pushing the COVID vaccine (and finally, the flu for the first time for some odd reason), she can still fuck right off with the rest of her vaccine disinformation bullshit. Let’s not even get started with her role at Holistic Moms, where she rubs shoulders with the real heavy hitters. One of their sister organizations (which they describe as like minded) is the National Vaccine Information Center, which has spent decades trying to convince parents that vaccines are far more dangerous than the alternative, preventable diseases. Their primary funder? Why that would be number 1 on The Disinformation Dozen list, Joseph Mercola.
When your reading recommendations and cohorts lead the country in their anti-vax efforts, you don’t get a pass for pushing one or two vaccines.
Quite frankly, Dr. Oz is probably less dangerous than Bialik.
P.S. She has “idiotic beliefs.”
Some of your post is guilt by association. But you came up enough for me to agree that she has a case of anti-vax itch. As someone with no anti-vaccine itch, I applaud you for criticizing those views. However, as far as asking questions on Jeopardy goes, I see no justification for viewpoint discrimination. Her views on vaccines are not job related.
I didn’t see Mayim’s episodes, so I can’t comment on how good she was as a host, but I’d be uncomfortable with someone holding her views being permanent host of the show.
However, the reruns of the last week have reminded me that Alex was not exactly a rock hard skeptic: under his watch there were regularly categories about astrology that treated it more or less as though it were a science, and there was a clue in the category on Machu Picchu that referred to the supposed spiritual vortices there and at other spots in the world.
I suppose it’s possible that those kinds of clues were not done at Alex’s behest, and that he simply read them. But after a certain point, he had enough power that he could have quashed stuff like that if he had been a strong skeptic.
The point is that Jeopardy’s credentials as a bastion of hard science and fact are not unsullied. With the departure of the long-time exec producer who preceded Richards, and the to-be-hoped-for imminent departure of Richards, we can hope that all woo-like material will be banished from the show in the future. But if Bialik became the permanent host of the daytime show, that would seem less likely.
This is true. I often think that Jeopardy fans (and especially certain former contestants) over-endow the show with the idea of being a force for knowledge and truth and learning and so forth. But really, it’s just a trivia quiz, and no more “educational” than other such quiz shows like The Chase or Who Wants to be a Millionaire or The Weakest Link. It’s only distinction is that it’s been on longer.
It’s entirely relevant. It hurts the reputation of a fact-based show like Jeopardy if it is hosted by someone who believes anti-science woo. The Jeopardy audience is a scientifically literate audience. It’s the same reason Dr. Oz was a bad idea.
Plus this is 2021, where we see the fact that being antivax kills. Because of those who spread antivax nonsense, the delta variant is ravaging through so many states. The last thing we want to do is give any of them a place of prominence.
Look at how Alex Trebek was revered. That’s not a status we want for someone who spreads dangerous, anti-reality beliefs.
@commasense: Astrology, while woo, is generally harmless. Being antivax is not. Antivaxxers are killers. We are directly seeing unvaccinated people dying in this pandemic. And the risk is going up for those of us who are vaccinated.
Astrology is mostly regarded today as a bit of fun that 99.9% of people don’t take seriously. Antivax is very much not.
No, it absolutely is not what a mom would tell her children. The idea that what you wear has any relevance to whether or not you will face sexual harassment or assault has been debunked for decades now. What’s more, given how widespread the problem is, mom most likely has or knows someone who had direct experience with it.
I don’t know how you think this is a centrist position. If this is in the center, what do you consider the right wing position? That rape is acceptable? No, this is the classic attempt to paint sexual assault as something you can avoid if you just act “modestly.” Putting in some platitudes about how it’s not her fault doesn’t chance that she is flat out arguing that the way she acted is why she wasn’t assaulted.
You also seem to be ignoring the wider picture. This was specifically a response to Weinstein. It’s in the title. After hearing about her friends and colleagues being sexually harassed, assaulted, abused, etc., her thoughts jump to how lucky she was not to be pretty enough. She has all these actions she does that mean that she is protected. Throughout the whole thing, the only sympathy she shows is for other women who are “not a perfect 10.” Because apparently how attractive you think of yourself is the issue at hand here.
It is revealing, but not remotely in a good way.
Oh, and I hope you more than “don’t like” what Richards said. I don’t get why people feel uncomfortable when those who sexually harass women don’t get hired for a public facing job. Even after there was a lawsuit, he kept doing it. He recorded it on his podcast, even.
I would not consider Bialik’s essay alone a reason for her not to be on the show. But the problem is that this is one of three major issues: She uses her degree in neuroscience to push fake brain pills, putting her in the same realm as people like Dr. Oz. She is very weaselly on the antivax side, pushing dangerous nonsense and giving it credibility. And she pushes the dangerous idea that how you dress or how flirtatious you are is some sort of shield against facing sexual assault or rape.
Any one you could maybe argue is not disqualifying, but it’s hard to say all three don’t matter.
Like it or not, Mayim will be guest host for the next three weeks of shows after Richards’. (NYT, paywalled)
Sony said on Monday that Ms. Bialik would host this week’s tapings of “Jeopardy!” in Culver City, Calif., 15 episodes in all. The company said it had resumed its search for a permanent replacement for Mr. Trebek, it but has not revealed a formal list of candidates.
“As we move forward with production on this season of ‘Jeopardy!’, additional guest hosts will be announced,” Sony said in a statement on Monday.
Agreed, and neither have any place on Jeopardy.
What the heck? Do you have a problem with mythology categories too? Or clues about the history of science that mention phlogiston or the luminiferous ether? Because Jeopardy never has.
It seems to me that what has or does not have a place on Jeopardy is up to the producers of Jeopardy, not you.