…and this is a 
Dr Hall had a gig writing for Oprah's woo-laden magazine, and I didn't even know it (that tells you how often I've looked at O), and it was a good plan: she'd be writing a skeptical column for them that would address common medical myths. Unfortunately, reality smacked hard into the jello of pop pseudo-medicine, passed through quickly, and Dr Hall now finds herself not writing for Oprah. She didn't belong in that den of inanity anyway.
One amusing thing, though: compare the comments discussing her departure at Science-Based Medicine with those on Gawker. Right out of the gate, the Gawker commenters are whining that science doesn't know everything, and wondering what's wrong with Reiki, and accusing Dr Hall of all kinds of egotistical perfidy.
Comments
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
September 8, 2010 12:28 PM
Oh, those arrogant people, relying upon the collective skepticism and intelligence of the science community, rather than the authoritarian maunderings of gurus and talk show hosts.
Nothing egotistical about quacks. Never.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Damian
|
September 8, 2010 12:38 PM
Of course science doesn't know everything... If it did we would stop.
Posted by: myama
|
September 8, 2010 12:42 PM
There's actually a lot of skepticism and quality scientific advice in Oprah's magazine. Even Oprah's biggest critics have praised her magazine for offering excellent information. Notice that Harriet Hall does not criticise any of the content of the magazine, only that they required her to cite her claims in ways that could be verified. Sounds to me that Harriet is the one who has a problem with good scholarship.
Posted by: otrame
|
September 8, 2010 12:53 PM
Damian, it is considered proper to cite someone when you quote them.
Posted by: hyperdeath
|
September 8, 2010 12:57 PM
Examples please.
Examples please.
Did you actually read the article?
That statement would have carried more weight, had it had not been preceded by two bare assertions, followed by a blatant falsehood.
Posted by: gussnarp
|
September 8, 2010 1:01 PM
The difference in comments on Gawker is about more than just the audience, look at the tone of the initial piece on Gawker, it does an amazing job of making Dr. Hall sound like a jerk, a tone that really doesn't exist in Dr. Hall's piece. Sure, she showed a bit of naivete about the publishing industry, but sometimes naivite is important. She wasn't particularly nasty about it. But I think the final line in Dr. Hall's piece is the one that is telling:
Anyone think the editors ever do any real content checking on Dr. Oz? Or that he waits more than a day before his email is returned?Posted by: ERV
|
September 8, 2010 1:15 PM
I dont think Dr. Hall is naive about the publishing industry. Shes written for Skeptic. Ive written for SEED. The experience was nothing like what Dr. Hall described when dealing with Oprah.
Posted by: clausentum
|
September 8, 2010 1:23 PM
comment #3 looks like a polished PR job with all the correct spin: perhaps from a source not far from the magazine itself.
It's possible the whole the exercise was designed ab initio to engineer this situation, with press release à la #3 waiting in the drawer.
..or have I been reading too many conspiracy theories?
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
September 8, 2010 1:29 PM
@3
Sounds like you've never read any of Dr. Hall's work or even the original article referenced here. Her problem was that they asked for citations and evidence for UNREASONABLE things, especially with a 250 word limit. One can be rigorous or concise, but it's pretty tough to be both.
(for reference, her article could be no longer than 5x that of the above post)
Posted by: ERV
|
September 8, 2010 1:31 PM
clausentum-- No one by the name of 'myama' has ever commented anywhere on ScienceBlogs before that #3. What a crazy random happenstance!
Also, Epic Douche at Gawker moderates his comments. I literally dont know of any blog with comment moderation that is not a flame-baiting POS.
Posted by: myama
|
September 8, 2010 1:38 PM
hyperdeath, an example of Oprah's magazine being praised by her biggest critics comes from the Feb 9, 2009 issue of Newsweek which wrote:
"If you want a much more balanced and accurate view of hormone therapy, check out the February issue of … O, The Oprah Magazine. The risks and benefits are clearly spelled out. Which raises the question: does Oprah read her own magazine?"
Btw, the criticism of Oprah is NOT because she promotes pseuodscience (Oprah's show focuses on relationships, emotions, literature and celebrity and almost never even discusses science at all); it's because doctors who appeared on her show with Sommers were outraged that they were seated in the audience while Sommers got to sit on stage with Oprah and decided to take their revenge by smearing her in various forums including Newsweek. But what these doctors don't understand is that celebs give Oprah high ratings so she has to give them preferential treatment.
Posted by: ERV
|
September 8, 2010 1:42 PM
... it's because doctors who appeared on her show with Sommers were outraged that they were seated in the audience while Sommers got to sit on stage with Oprah and decided to take their revenge by smearing her in various forums including Newsweek...
Oh my god! Ur an idiot! ROFL!!!!!
... celebs give Oprah high ratings so she has to give them preferential treatment...
So shes a whore.
Posted by: myama
|
September 8, 2010 1:46 PM
clausentum, thank you for saying my posts sound polished and professional, but I assure you, I have no connection to any part of Oprah's empire. I'm just a Canadian citizen who doesn't like seeing successful blacks or women smeared (unless they deserve it and Oprah most certainly doesn't). I was on way out to get a sub but took the time to register and comment because I'm uniquely qualified to comment since I know an enormous amount about both Oprah and science and have a deep understanding of the psychology of those who bash her.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 8, 2010 1:47 PM
Riiiiight. That's why she's a fan of The Secret, and has shilled for it on her show.
That, my friend, is pseudo-science claptrap.
Posted by: ERV
|
September 8, 2010 1:53 PM
I was on way out to get a sub but took the time to register and comment because I'm uniquely qualified to comment since I know an enormous amount about both Oprah and science and have a deep understanding of the psychology of those who bash her.
Successful troll was successful.
Touche.
Posted by: gussnarp
|
September 8, 2010 1:53 PM
@Myama - Were they angry that they didn't get to be on stage near the fabulous Oprah, or were they perhaps angry that they were invited to talk about medicine, a field they had spent years training and working in, and were given second class treatment to a celebrity who knows nothing about medicine, lies (or has convinced herself of untruths) about her own medical treatment, and promotes unproven, useless, and sometimes downright dangerous "treatments"? Sommers shouldn't be invited to talk about medicine at all, let alone given more screen time than doctors on a segment on medicine. They had every right to be furious.
Posted by: Sastra
|
September 8, 2010 1:55 PM
myama #11 wrote:
Ok now, look at this. First you say that this isn't about pseudoscience, Oprah "almost never discusses science at all" -- and then you bring up the show with Suzanne Sommers.
No, this is very much about pseudoscience, and dangerous pseudoscience at that. Are you trying to imply that Sommers had a legitimate scientific viewpoint which actually merited the support she got? She was treated like a Brave Maverick Activist fighting for womens healthy by bucking the mainstream. That is not what's going on.
Posted by: myama
|
September 8, 2010 1:56 PM
"Oh my god! Ur an idiot! ROFL!!!!!"
On the contrary, my analysis is spot on. I know a lot of Doctors (including family members) and they tend to have a God complex, so the notion of them being relegated to the audience while some celeb they look down on gets to share the stage like a world class expert made them absolutely ballistic. Even one of the writers of the Newsweek hit piece said in an interview that after the show her phone was ringing off the hook with furious doctors demanding something be done.
"So shes a whore."
No. Just an incredibley smart business woman.
Posted by: rn.massey
|
September 8, 2010 1:56 PM
#13
I'm both black and female and think Oprah has done rather well for herself, but that her mag and show tend to lean towards woo and bullshit (Hello, The Secret, for example).
But please, do elaborate on your super-special understanding of the psychology of us peons who have valid criticism. I look forward to the ensuing feeding frenzy. Maybe I should grab a sub too.
Posted by: ambulocetacean
|
September 8, 2010 2:00 PM
If only the stupid magazine demanded citations for reiki, anti-vax bullshit and all the other crap Oprah peddles.
Myama, am I right in guessing that, as someone who knows "an enormous amount" about science, you're extremely disappointed that Oprah endorses Jenny McCarthy's anti-vaccination lunacy?
Posted by: gussnarp
|
September 8, 2010 2:00 PM
@myama - They should be furious. Suzanne Sommers knows nothing about medicine. She argues that people shouldn't get life saving treatment for their cancer. She spreads the lie that people can be cured of cancer by using dangerous quack treatments. She should not have been treated like a world class expert, because she's not one. She's a world class fool. Every doctor in the world, and everyone who really cares about women's (or anyone else's) health care should have been furious.
Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death
|
September 8, 2010 2:03 PM
Ah, well, you didn't mention that you had such high credentials. Thanks for clarifying.
Don't we feel silly now?
Posted by: Sastra
|
September 8, 2010 2:04 PM
myama #13 wrote:
Those criticisms of Oprah Winfrey's connection with and promotion of pseudoscience which come from the science blogs are unlikely to have anything to do with her being black, or a woman, or successful. If you had as "deep" an understanding of these issues -- and our psychology -- as you say you have, you would have left that part out, as an obvious red herring.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 8, 2010 2:05 PM
Two words
The Secret
She's not being smeared, she's being criticized for promoting bullshit.
Posted by: Free Lunch
|
September 8, 2010 2:05 PM
Just an incredibley smart business woman.
An incredibly smart businessman from the 19th Century observed "There's a sucker born every minute." The population of this country is much greater these days (so the rate that suckers are born is substantially higher) and Oprah is one our fine citizens who is taking advantage of Barnum's observation.
Posted by: ambulocetacean
|
September 8, 2010 2:09 PM
And how does Oprah pick her pet quacks, anyway?
The wisdom of Christiane Northrup, OD*:
*Oprah Doctor
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 8, 2010 2:10 PM
Well, as myama has gained his uniquely extensive and comprehensive knowledge of both Oprah and science from reading Oprah magazine, I'd guess not.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 8, 2010 2:11 PM
that made me choke
Posted by: MrFire
|
September 8, 2010 2:12 PM
Why don't you go fuck yourself sideways with a rusty strawman?
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 8, 2010 2:13 PM
Ooo. Best go have your thyroid checked.
Posted by: ambulocetacean
|
September 8, 2010 2:17 PM
Nigel is quite right, Reverend. You have to stop swallowing your words and start saying what you really think.
Posted by: Free Lunch
|
September 8, 2010 2:17 PM
I'm just a Canadian citizen who doesn't like seeing ...
Does this mean there's a whole country out there that practices Minnesota Nice®?
Posted by: myama
|
September 8, 2010 2:21 PM
To those commenting on Sommers, I’m not an expert on hormone therapy so I can’t evaluate the validity of her claims, however, like many doctors, Sommers has also spent years researching and studying hormone treatments and experimenting and is well known for her role in popularizing the field.
It is true that a lot of what Sommers asserts has not been validated by placebo controlled double blind studies, however such large scale studies are extremely expensive and Sommers might argue that the pharmaceutical industry has a vested interest it not validating the individualized hormone therapy that Sommers advocates because they make more money from the one size fits all model that can be mass produced.
And yes the doctors were specifically upset about being relegated to the audience seating because they specifically singled out Oprah for attack even though she’s only hosted Sommers once while other shows have her on all the time.
As for those who call "The Secret" pseudoscience; I suspect that peer reviewed academic journals have studies supporting the benefits of positive thinking and external locus of control, and such studies should not be dismissed just because someone has disdain for the latest pop culture best seller.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 8, 2010 2:26 PM
Google =/= medical school.
Posted by: cameron
|
September 8, 2010 2:29 PM
myama #33:
Perhaps with your unique qualifications and your massive knowledge of science you could actually pull some evidence out of your ass instead of just speculating out loud.
Posted by: randydudek
|
September 8, 2010 2:30 PM
One of Oprah's servants@33
I did not realize that she had received her doctorate. Where from? What was her doctorate in? What was her dissertation about? Because it is bullshit. Which is still a slap in the face to science. Citation needed. Also claiming that The Secret is just about positive thinking in the standard sense shows either lying for OprahJesus or that you never read the book you are extolling.
Posted by: myama
|
September 8, 2010 2:31 PM
"Myama, am I right in guessing that, as someone who knows "an enormous amount" about science, you're extremely disappointed that Oprah endorses Jenny McCarthy's anti-vaccination lunacy?"
Actually Oprah NEVER endorsed any anti-vaccination position, and such libel makes my point that those who bash Oprah are actually the ones who are not informed (and actually just grasping at straws to find an excuse to not like her). What actually happened was that Oprah was just one of many mainstream shows McCarthy appeared on, and she appeared on Oprah to discuss what it's like to be a mother of a child with autism. It was only during the last 30 seconds of the show that McCarthy mentioned her view that vaccines might have some connection to her son's autism, and Oprah immediately responded by reading an official statement from scientists debunking McCarthy's assertion.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 8, 2010 2:32 PM
Wait. Did you just compare Sommers' education with that of a specialist in the field?
Thanks for demonstrating your level of science education.
The Secret is not simply about positive thinking. There are hundreds of worthwhile self-help books on positive thinking. The Secret is pseudo-science because it makes specific claims about the workings of the universe that are neither supported by science, nor even in the realm of possibility. It also encourages a "blame the victim" mentality in the victims themselves. If you don't get something you desire, you're just not wishing hard enough.
And then there's still the problem of her pushing the whole anti-vax bullshit.
Posted by: browne.as
|
September 8, 2010 2:32 PM
And I suspect you're pulling things out of thin air. See how it works?
Posted by: randydudek
|
September 8, 2010 2:33 PM
And then giving her air time on Oprah Radio.
Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death
|
September 8, 2010 2:34 PM
*head asplosion*
Perhaps instead of suspecting, you should try researching.
Positive thinking ain't all it's cracked up to be. (Don't worry, it's a pop journalism article, not a hard-to-read journal citation [though those are provided in the body of the article].)
Posted by: Sastra
|
September 8, 2010 2:36 PM
myama #33 wrote:
They were upset about being relegated to audience seating because Suzanne Sommers is grossly wrong. They should have been invited to refute her, just as experts in history would be on the podium with a holocaust denier or other conspiracy theorists.
Bringing up the fact that Sommers defends her views by claiming an unlikely conspiracy doesn't count against this. She isn't qualified -- not just because she doesn't have a degree, but because she doesn't understand how "personal experience" and confirmation bias are likely to be misleading.
There is a world of difference between the true-but-trivial claim that positive thoughts are often psychologically beneficial and the extraordinary-but-false contention that the physical universe magically responds to our thoughts. The Secret, however, deliberately blurs the distinction, in hopes that the supernatural view will gain credibility by riding on the back of the common sense view.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 8, 2010 2:40 PM
Good grief this is the dumbest thing you've written.
OH NOES!!! It's the Big Pharma Gambit!!
The Secret isn't just about the power of positive thinking and how it can effect how you interact with the world. It actually makes claims of thinking positively about something you want will make it happen because it is a scientific Law, namely the Law of Attraction. Something that does not exist.
It's not just about an attitude adjustment it claims a force of nature that rewards those who have the right attitude. A law, meaning it works no matter what. Every time.
Please provide these peer reviewed studies from reputable journals and organizations that support the idea that if I think about wanting something enough that I can get it and that there is a natural Law that supports this and it works every time.
And then recognize that the dark side of this is that bad things happen to people because they didn't think about it correctly. I assume the victims of Katrina weren't thinking positively enough when trying to save their grandmother from the rising waters in the 9th ward. Or pick any other time something bad happens.
Victim blame much?
Posted by: myama
|
September 8, 2010 2:42 PM
"And then there's still the problem of her pushing the whole anti-vax bullshit."
It was discussed for 30 seconds on her show, one time, in nearly a quarter century on the air, and she immediately read a statement debunking it.
Posted by: gussnarp
|
September 8, 2010 2:42 PM
This!As for the rest of Myama's arguments: I'm too crippled with paroxysms of laughter to respond.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 8, 2010 2:43 PM
Dude, Oprah is giving Jenny McCarthy her own fucking show.
Posted by: Orac
|
September 8, 2010 2:44 PM
No, Oprah does promote pseudoscience and quackery on her show:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=497
Perhaps the most egregious example is her promotion of Jenny McCarthy, anti-vaccine queen.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
September 8, 2010 2:45 PM
myama (#33)
Well, my father has spent decades "researching and experimenting" with THC. Does that mean that his pronouncements on the subject, or those of any other pothead, should be favorably compared with those of neurochemists and pharmacologists?
She might argue that, but it would be just another unsubstantiated load of bullshit she pulled out of her ass. (Though, really, this came from your ass and you're putting it in Sommers' mouth. How unsanitary.)
Way to not address gussnarp's criticism for the second time in a row. Around here, argument by assertion will get you as far as a jellyfish can throw an elephant. How do you know the doctors weren't angry that Oprah was promoting pseudoscience?
You seem to have no clue at all what the Secret is about. Funny, that. I thought you were an Oprah expert.
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
September 8, 2010 2:46 PM
Wow, this is one of the most laughably self-righteous trolls we've had in a while. Our so called expert on science, psychology and.... oprah seems to have spent most of her time studying the latter. Myama, you might want to review the First Rule of Holes (though, maybe there should be a "First Rule of Claiming Expertise You are Clearly Lacking").
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/SaqGVG0xvJEQVwURVamS3DTCdvov0BLhXK1jOsYPPJQ-#b4893
|
September 8, 2010 2:49 PM
Doctor Hall refers to an article in Newsweek that I found absolutly horrifying. I just want to repeat Hall's reference to it here, in case anyone missed it.
http://www.newsweek.com/2009/05/29/live-your-best-life-ever.html
Never take medical advice from Suzanne Somers. Ever.
So, of course, Oz runs with it. Appalling.
Please, read the above Newsweek article.
MikeM
Posted by: myama
|
September 8, 2010 2:49 PM
"Please provide these peer reviewed studies from reputable journals and organizations that support the idea that if I think about wanting something enough that I can get it and that there is a natural Law that supports this and it works every time."
Please provide an exact quote from Oprah endorsing the philosophy you describe. Just because Oprah personally could relate to The Secret does not mean she endorsed every single claim in the book let alone whatever twisted interpretations people give to said claims. It's like someone says they like the NY Times and then getting blamed for every single thing they wrote. It's just guilt by associan.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 8, 2010 2:49 PM
Signing Jenny McCarthy and her incredibly ill informed and dangerous anti-vax nonsense to a deal is essentially endorsing that position.
If its only a money making deal for her, then shame on her for promoting dangerous pseudoscience for an extra couple of bucks.
What does that say about the morals of Oprah that she would take either position on this?
Either she's was hiring her because she supports the bullshit McCarthy is promoting or she was hiring her to make a buck off the dangerous anti-science that McCarthy and her ilk have tricked millions of scared and concerned parents into believing.
Which is it?
Your love of Oprah clouds your ability to reason.
Posted by: gussnarp
|
September 8, 2010 2:50 PM
So glad Orac weighed in.
Posted by: Katharine
|
September 8, 2010 2:51 PM
Gawker's a bunch of fucking hipsters, you honestly think they're going to have much grasp of anything?
Posted by: sqlrob
|
September 8, 2010 2:52 PM
She had three shows on it. That sounds like a pretty damn ringing endorsement of most of the book.
Go read the article in #50.
Posted by: Jolo5309
|
September 8, 2010 2:53 PM
mayama, take it from one Canadian to another, using the "It's a conspiracy by Big Pharma" is not an accurate way to argue. Anti-vaxxers, like Jenny McCarthy, use that as well.
Posted by: Orac
|
September 8, 2010 2:56 PM
No, she is known for promoting "bioidentical hormone" pseudoscience and cancer quackery:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/11/from_the_ridiculous_to_the_sublime_a_jou.php
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/11/blogging_suzanne_somers_knockout_part_2.php
Not quite. More like: It is true that a lot of what Somers claims has been refuted by clinical trials and scientific studies.
however such large scale studies are extremely expensive and Sommers might argue that the pharmaceutical industry has a vested interest it not validating the individualized hormone therapy that Sommers advocates because they make more money from the one size fits all model that can be mass produced.
Oh, goody. The attacks on big pharma begin. How pathetically predictable.
As well they should be, given the level of quackery that Somers promotes.
Uh, I got news for ya. "The Secret" makes a lot stronger a claim than that "positive thinking is good." "The Secret" basically says that if you want something bad enough the universe will bring it to you:
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2007/03/oprah_secret.html
Of course, that implies the converse, which is that if you are not doing well it must be your fault for not having a positive enough attitude. Be that as it may, here's the result of Oprah's promotion of The Secret, a woman who decided to forego treatment for her breast cancer in favor of quackery:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/01/a_horrifying_breast_cancer_testimonial_f.php
Posted by: randydudek
|
September 8, 2010 2:56 PM
Gayle King@51
So just because she endorsed the book, that doesn't mean that she endorsed the book?
What is the First Rule of Holes again?
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 8, 2010 2:56 PM
Seriously? You're really going with this defense?
This article on Oprah's website seems to contradict your weak-tea defense. This is a glowing review, which is an endorsement.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
September 8, 2010 2:56 PM
myama (#51)
You first. The issue you brought up is whether the Secret can fairly be called pseudoscience. If it really isn't pseudoscience, then cough up some references to support that or admit you don't know enough to criticize those who say it's pseudoscience. Shifting the goalposts to whether or not Oprah really truly actually honestly completely and totally endorses it is dishonest.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/SaqGVG0xvJEQVwURVamS3DTCdvov0BLhXK1jOsYPPJQ-#b4893
|
September 8, 2010 2:56 PM
By the way, everyone:
"Somers".
MikeM
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 8, 2010 2:58 PM
Good grief you're dense.
It's only guilt by association because she was promoting the fucking book and the movie and didn't take any time to single out the bad parts of the book.
And that's not a twisted interpretation of the book. It's what the book says.
Just find quotes from the book and tell me it isn't woo laden magical thinking.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 8, 2010 3:02 PM
Blockquote fail there.
Quotes should be the, um, quoted part.
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
September 8, 2010 3:05 PM
"I know an enormous amount about[...]science"
Dunning-Kreuger strikes again! I don't think you would find most people on this site saying something like that. As someone with a lifelong active interest in science, a science degree, and a job in a scientific field, I would never claim to know "an enormous amount" simply because I know people who know so much more than I do and I can see how deep the subject gets. I'm a production chemist (a grunt in the medical science business) and I work with people whose depth of knowledge floors me. I always strive to know more. Our little troll should maybe strive for a bit more humility in regards to subjects which she clearly is not educated on.
As for her encyclopedic knowledge of Oprah, I'll let her get away with that claim. It's about as useful as a doctoral degree in hula-hooping.
Posted by: randydudek
|
September 8, 2010 3:06 PM
Also, Rev. Chimp, you typoed the word 'like' into the last sentence @62.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/xaStVywarZ6R9nrlSjv4D8_6GGA0PWmf#765c4
|
September 8, 2010 3:06 PM
Oh my! I'm supposed to be doing homework for my ethics class but this is waaaaaay more entertaining! Too bad I'm all out of popcorn!
Oprah's influence over her viewer/readers is such that if she has a celebrity on her show that endorses a certain viewpoint, to her viewers it means she endorses that viewpoint as well. I distinctly remember stopping while channel surfing during one of her shows on The Secret and I was appalled at how she was literally fawning over how true it was! I also had the privilege of having forgotten any reading material at my husband's last MRI and being stuck with O! I felt my IQ dropping with every article I flipped to! It was torture!
Squigit
Posted by: myama
|
September 8, 2010 3:07 PM
How do you know the doctors weren't angry that Oprah was promoting pseudoscience?
Because Oprah was singled out for attack, even though Sommers and McCarthy have expressed their views far more frequently and explicitly on other shows hosted by white and male broadcasters who conveniently got a pass. It was personal, or worse.
Signing Jenny McCarthy and her incredibly ill informed and dangerous anti-vax nonsense to a deal is essentially endorsing that position.
From what I read, Jenny McCarthy is a very talented comic and she's popular with a lot of the mothers who watch Oprah (that's why Oprah had her on), and contrary to all the libel against Oprah, her vaccine views were only discussed for 30 seconds and contradicted by an official statement read by Oprah. As for Oprah offering her a deal, from what I read it was only a development deal and so far nothing has come from it. Oprah just announced that the latest syndicated talk show she's creating is by Nate Berkus (a home designer) and Oprah's network is starting in January and McCarthy doesn't appear to be a part of it.
Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic).
|
September 8, 2010 3:08 PM
Whoa! What kind of paranoid world do you live in? Folks are so desperate to dislike Oprah that they find shitty excuses to do so? Is that how your brain works?
Most folks here find some of Oprah's actions to be wrong, even dangerous, but they don't dislike her, personally. Probably. Speaking for myself, at least.
Did Oprah wink and grin? Did she personally put her own opinion forward? Did she give balanced time? McCarthy is a strong spokesperson for anti-vaccine nonsense, and blames vaccines for her son's autism, as is well-known. Her being onstage was an anti-vaccine showcase, and Oprah giving 30 seconds to a statement from the scientists that McCarthy so often derides was not a balanced show, let alone a truthful show. Where does Oprah herself stand on the importance of vaccines?
Posted by: randydudek
|
September 8, 2010 3:11 PM
http://www.oprah.com/relationships/Jenny-McCarthy
What's this? A McCarthy link on Oprah's website?
Okay, so here is a link about McCarthy on Oprah's website, specifically mentioning her anti-vacc stance.
This also is not an endorsement of that position, I'm sure. Please explain, Capt. Nutjob.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 8, 2010 3:12 PM
Depends on ones definition of very, tallented and comic.
Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death
|
September 8, 2010 3:13 PM
Not true. HuffPo gets a regular lashing when it pulls that shit, whether the author is male or female.
But one thing you may be overlooking is that Oprah is an extremely influential person. With her level of exposure, the level of pushback is going to be more intense. As it should be.
Posted by: Richard Smith
|
September 8, 2010 3:14 PM
@myasma (#13):
I'm just a Canadian citizen who doesn't like seeing Canadians smeared by association. I've decided to take the time to comment because I'm uniquely qualified to comment since I know an enormous amount about Canadians and have a deep understanding of the psychology of those who make the rest of us look bad. (How deep? Well, how deep is a hole? So there!)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 8, 2010 3:14 PM
I'm making a freaking mess of blockquotes today.
Posted by: ERV
|
September 8, 2010 3:14 PM
Great moments in /b/ history:
Jenny McCarthy Rickrolled at Oprahs after party
Posted by: Ewan R
|
September 8, 2010 3:15 PM
From the Jenny McC section - we don't endorse this crazy shit, but here's an A-Z on how not to be a parent. For the sake of courtesy. Don't blame us when your kid wipes out a preschool - we have a disclaimer.
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
September 8, 2010 3:17 PM
@67
Maybe Oprah was singled out because she has massive influence and uses it to promote utter BS. Without her, people like Jenny McCarthy would reach a much smaller audience. If the doctors involved were mad it was probably because they thought they would get an equal chance to promote actual science and were disappointed that they were relegated to second-tier status in favor of a famous no-nothing promoting dangerous nonsense. then again, you think Somers did "research and experiments" so it's no wonder you have almost no understanding of the views of doctors and scientists.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 8, 2010 3:19 PM
myama reminds me of Josh of Drake and Josh.
And now I'm sad because no one will even get that reference and I can't find a youtube clip except the one where Josh runs into Oprah.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 8, 2010 3:19 PM
Exactly.
It's the fucking height irresponsible broadcasting to be promoting the bullshit she promotes.
Claiming it's because she's a great business woman is reprehensible.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 8, 2010 3:23 PM
Hm. How effective was the CDC letter? Let's find out.
Not very, it seems.
Posted by: SC OM
|
September 8, 2010 3:23 PM
Something from Orac's first post about Somers' book has been bothering me since I first read it (well, many things, but this particularly has been gnawing at me):
It just doesn't seem right to me that people are able to do this. If she's misrepresenting her diagnosis or prescribed treatments, well, it's not exactly libel, and it's not exactly fraud, but it's...something. I don't know what the solution to the problem should be, but there's something wrong when people are able to publish books making claims about what doctors told them (and using these as the basis for promoting alternatives) without having to substantiate those claims anywhere and without the doctors being able to provide evidence to the contrary if it exists.
***
I'm astounded at the $500 per article rate. I know Hall didn't need the money, but this is a magazine run by an extraordinarily wealthy woman with a circulation of nearly three million, and she's a professional with a writing "presence." Two bucks a word?
Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic).
|
September 8, 2010 3:27 PM
Worse? What worse? Come on, Chuckles, accuse the entirety of scientific-minded folks of being racist and chauvinistic. Leftists, mostly, I'd say. You really are crawling for an excuse, aren't you?
Folks who are kicking Oprah for this are respecting her for exactly what she is, a well-known spokesperson. The white males who assist in the crazy are getting slammed exactly in proportion to their fame and influence--which is less because they are white and male, maybe?
Oprah is freaking famous! Even I have heard of her. White male talk-show hosts? Who? Is Phil Donahue still in business?
Posted by: Sastra
|
September 8, 2010 3:31 PM
myama #13 wrote:
I don't know, somehow I think that this here from #13
has something to do with the above claim. We're sending her links of information he or she doesn't seem to be aware of, both on the science and on what has been said and done, and yet we keep hearing that no, critics really just have some sort of personal grudge against Oprah herself.
Project much?
Posted by: myama
|
September 8, 2010 3:32 PM
The theme of the Secret is that if you wish for success and believe you have the power to make it happen, you have a better chance of achieveing it. This appears to be supported by the empirical literature and Oprah was correct to promote the central theme of the book:
Data from a large, representative sample of U.S. high school students were analyzed using path analysis, a nonexperimental research technique. The results suggest that locus of control has a meaningful impact on high school seniors' achievement, that is, more internal students also achieve at a higher level. Self-concept, however, had no meaningful effect on achievement.
http://jpa.sagepub.com/content/4/1/61.abstract
Oprah's influence over her viewer/readers is such that if she has a celebrity on her show that endorses a certain viewpoint, to her viewers it means she endorses that viewpoint as well.
That’s actually not true at all. Even when it comes to book sales where Oprah’s impact has been most empirically documented, publishers have noticed that Oprah has to explicitly and enthusiastically endorse the book before it makes the best seller list. Simply having someone on her show does not qualify as an endorsement; if it did then that would mean Oprah endorsed Satanic worshippers when she devoted a show to them in the 1980s.
Posted by: gussnarp
|
September 8, 2010 3:34 PM
@Myama - Oprah wasn't singled out by doctors and skeptics. Follow Orac's links above and search around Orac's blog and Science Based Medicine. You'll find anyone supporting McCarthy and Somers gets a sound thrashing. The reason she was "singled out" for a major news magazine piece is pretty simple: Oprah is huge. Her level of celebrity and influence is unequaled in modern America. She is richer, more powerful, more influential, more loved, and more watched than just about anyone, white, black, male, female or anything else. No one cares about other hosts who have Somers on because they aren't watched by as many people as Oprah, and their viewers, unlike Oprah's, don't see them as a major influence in their lives. What Oprah says or shows is the gospel truth to many of her fans.
And seriously, when you are as big as Oprah, people aren't attacking you because you are black and female, they are attacking you because you are the biggest thing in the media universe. The cop who pulls her over and doesn't recognize her may racially profile her, but to the world who knows her she's not black or female, she's Oprah, a brand that goes beyond sex or race or anything else.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 8, 2010 3:35 PM
Uhm, no.
The theme of The Secret is that the Universe wants you to be happy, and wants to give you what you desire. All you have to do is desire it, and the Universe will give it to you. It's called "The Law of Attraction" in the book, and it's entirely what the book and film are about.
You really have no fucking clue what you're talking about, do you?
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
September 8, 2010 3:38 PM
myama (#67)
First, dear jellyfish, simply asserting she was singled out doesn't do any good. Maybe that's so, but I'm neither taking your word for it nor going to go around looking for support for your position. That's your job; if you want to convince me (or any of us), then some references would be nice.
Second, have you accounted for the fact that the more popular a person is, the more coverage criticism of that person gets? And that if you sympathize with a person, you're more likely to notice criticism of that person than you would criticism of those you care less about? Perhaps the singling out you think you see is merely an effect of increased reporting and/or how you identify with her.
Third, even if she was singled out, why wouldn't you interpret that focus as, say, her having vastly more influence over women's health choices by promoting pseudoscience than other talk show hosts? Or maybe that her promotion of it was particularly uncritical?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 8, 2010 3:38 PM
You are completely ignoring the Law of Attraction that the Secret claims to use thereby making your above statement reek of someone trying desperately trying to defend their hero.
It's magical thinking wrapped up in a feel good message that has dangerous consequences and less that adequate results to support the claims it makes.
In other words, it's complete bullshit.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 8, 2010 3:40 PM
lots of trying
Posted by: gussnarp
|
September 8, 2010 3:40 PM
@Myama - Oprah had Satan worshippers on in the 80s when she was competing with every other trashy talk show and that's supposed to be a meaningful statement about her show today? It's pretty clear when Oprah has a guest that she likes and likes what they are saying, and it has a tremendous influence. Just because Tom Cruise comes on and spout crazy doesn't mean that Oprah endorses Scientology and her followers are going to convert. But had Tom sounded a little less crazy, and Oprah been glowing over him, it might be a different story. When Oprah uncritically presents her celebrity friends promoting dangerous medical quackery and phony self help books with a smile on her face, it influences her audience.
Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief
|
September 8, 2010 3:42 PM
The theme of "The Secret" is that if you want it enough, you will get it. So, presumably, people living on a dollar a day don't want to feed their children as much as middle-class Americans want fancy cars, and people with chronic pain just need to somehow concentrate enough to think "I want to be healthy" [positive] rather than "I want the pain to stop" and all will magically be well.
It's a belief designed to comfort the already comfortable, and let them blame the afflicted.
Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic).
|
September 8, 2010 3:45 PM
Oprah's site (bolds are mine) says:
Oprah's site has info about McCarthy. The site's language, is at best, weaselly. Jenny says this and that, but Oprah doesn't commit herself in any legally-binding sense.
Posted by: Damian
|
September 8, 2010 3:50 PM
@ otrame sorry, but I cannot find one, help? credit due where credit is due.
Posted by: myama
|
September 8, 2010 3:51 PM
Did Oprah wink and grin? Did she personally put her own opinion forward? Did she give balanced time? McCarthy is a strong spokesperson for anti-vaccine nonsense, and blames vaccines for her son's autism, as is well-known. Her being onstage was an anti-vaccine showcase, and Oprah giving 30 seconds to a statement from the scientists that McCarthy so often derides was not a balanced show, let alone a truthful show. Where does Oprah herself stand on the importance of vaccines?
As far as I know, Oprah’s never given any opinion on vaccines (and I watch her all the time) and her show has virtually never discussed it except for the last 30 seconds of the McCarthy episode which was devoted to raising a child with autism, and not autism’s eitiology, and since the discussion was so brief, all it took to offer balance was a brief statement. You can always argue that just having McCarthy on at all elevates her, but that’s just the price we have to pay for a free press.
Okay, so here is a link about McCarthy on Oprah's website, specifically mentioning her anti-vacc stance.
So telling people who she is qualifies as an endorsement? For a science blog, the level of discussion is so superficial.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
September 8, 2010 3:52 PM
myama (#83)
The Secret isn't about achieving anything. It's about wishing real hard and expecting the universe to cough up what you want without you having to lift a finger. Or, rather, it's about justifying after the fact what fortune or misfortune you experience by assuming you either wished the right or wrong things. That's completely different than having reasonable expectations about how increasing your effort towards a goal might increase your success in achieving it.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 8, 2010 3:53 PM
Nice way to ignore Menyambal's direct quote from Oprah's site, there.
You can keep on saying "30 seconds on one show" all you want, but type "vaccination" into Oprah's website and you get several entire articles that promote an antivax agenda.
Posted by: Ewan R
|
September 8, 2010 3:57 PM
'nuff said
Posted by: myama
|
September 8, 2010 4:09 PM
The theme of The Secret is that the Universe wants you to be happy, and wants to give you what you desire.
Ah, the old let’s shift the goal posts because we’re losing the debate gambit. First the Secret was criticised for promoting the idea that wishing and believing creates success. When I provided empirical data showing that the Secret was correct in this assertion, it’s suddenly no longer enough. I now must prove your strawman chacature that the universe actually wants us to be happy. And so what if the Secret did claim that? It seems a lot less harmful than the hell and damnation drible I see coming out of organized religion and last time I checked the Bible sold way more copies than the Secret. At least new age self-help books give people alternatives to the dogma of organized religion and have arguabley done more to secularize America than most contemporary scientists. Bottom line: The only meaningful and actionable aspect of the Secret is scientifically correct and its critics are grasping at straws.
Btw, for people who claim to hate the Secret so much, you sure know a lot about it.
Posted by: randydudek
|
September 8, 2010 4:10 PM
No, idiot. Devoting a whole section of your website to an anti-vaccination moron, however, does. That isn't a mere link to one story, it is a section break. With multiple links contained therein.
You're either a fucking moron or...
No. You're a fucking moron.
Posted by: AndrewTheEternal
|
September 8, 2010 4:24 PM
You know, whenever I see someone attack 'Western medicine' AKA science at places like Gawker, it always reminds me of Nazi Germany denying Einstein's work as 'Jewish physics'. You can't compartmentalize a process like science and ignore what you don't like. You will fail, and show your own little ugly beliefs in the process.
Western medicine does not exist. Alternate/Eastern medicine does not exist. There is only medicine validated by scientific trials and experiments. Everything else is no more than debris of failed ideas and shattered beliefs.
(/wanting to contribute to the conversation, but unwilling to feed the troll)
Posted by: myama
|
September 8, 2010 4:24 PM
No, idiot. Devoting a whole section of your website to an anti-vaccination moron, however, does. That isn't a mere link to one story, it is a section break. With multiple links contained therein.
Wikipedia has a whole article devoted to McCarthy too (with multiple links therein!!!) so by your brilliant logic, Jimmy Wales must be endorsing the anti-vaccine movement too.
You're either a fucking moron or...
No. You're a fucking moron.
Keep trying. Even stupid people can be witty sometimes if they put in enough effort.
Posted by: Sastra
|
September 8, 2010 4:25 PM
myama #97 wrote:
No, we're not shifting any goalposts, and we're not losing any debate. You need to read our specific criticisms again.
It provides even further evidence that Oprah is happy to endorse magical thinking, and is sloppy on scientific evidence -- as long as there's some way to interpret an anti-scientific view as "empowering" people. But a credulous, ill-informed, anti-rational position does not empower anyone.
On the contrary, the meaningful and unique message of The Secret is deep nonsense hiding behind a superficial gloss of plausibility, and you are the one grasping at straws.
Maybe that's why we hate it so much.
The world view and methodology The Secret promotes is on a continuum with the mystical, elitist, dogmatic views of the "organized religions." It's not a departure or even an improvement. Are you under the misapprehension that New Agers are in any way more open minded and tolerant of dissent than the more traditional forms of religion? In many ways, they are less -- and even more hostile to science.
Posted by: gussnarp
|
September 8, 2010 4:27 PM
@Myama - No one is shifting goal posts. Your citation did not support the contention that "wishing and believing creates success", it supported the contention that those who think positively are more likely to be successful. Do not confuse correlation and causation. Everyone criticizing The Secret here has, from the start, made clear that the problem with The Secret is that it argues that positive thinking is sufficient, that if you think positively good things will happen and if bad things happen you weren't thinking positively enough. This has been phrased a lot of ways, but that's the issue, always has been.
Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief
|
September 8, 2010 4:27 PM
Myama--
I know a lot about some things I really do hate: some of it is self-defense, some of it is morbid fascination, and some of it is that it's natural to pay attention when things, even horrible things, are happening to people you care about.
If a random person knows a lot about lung cancer and isn't a doctor or researcher, they probably have a relative who has, or had, the disease. And they'll hate or fear it more than someone who hasn't lost anyone to lung cancer.
I dislike The Secret and the way it feeds into a culture that tells people that the way to improve things is wishful thinking, not collective action or even specific, concrete individual action. But hate? No.
Posted by: Gaebolga
|
September 8, 2010 4:29 PM
and
and
and
[sarcasm]
myama the Canadian Telepath sees all! She knows an "enormous amount" about science! And Oprah!
Fear her!
[/sarcasm]
See the problem here is that no matter how many times you read The Secret, just saying something is true doesn't actually make it true.
Let's try it this way: myama is upset about the attacks on Oprah because she claims to be Oprah's love child and hopes to inherit the entire Harpo empire soon.
What proof have I, you say? It's obvious because you're singling out Oprah critics for attack. Why aren't you out attacking Rush Limbaugh critics? You can deny it all you want, myama, but I know the truth. And you're lying if you claim otherwise.
My claim has as much support as yours regarding the motivation of the doctors in question, after all.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 8, 2010 4:29 PM
Hardly, you rationalizing ass. The Secret was criticized for being pseudo-science (and calling it that is degrading to respectable pseudo-science everywhere), and Oprah was being criticized for promoting it. You brought your deep and exhaustive knowledge of science and Oprah to bear on the problem, and concluded, first, that Oprah didn't promote it; and then when it was demonstrated she did indeed, you are the one who said The Secret was merely preaching positive thinking.
I will stand by my first statement: Oprah promoted The Secret, and in doing so, promoted pseudo-science. Worse, The Secret promotes harmful attitudes. It is an exercise in "blame the victim."
All of this was pointed out to you. However, in your contortionistic hero-worship, you have either ignored or misrepresented the arguments arrayed against you.
That's because it's fucking harmful. You have to know your enemy, and woo-filled harmful bullshit like The Secret is the enemy of rationality and good sense. It is my enemy because it's fucking with society.
Posted by: randydudek
|
September 8, 2010 4:30 PM
Witty? I was being serious. Either provide some of the proof that has been asked of you or shut up.
You ramble on and on with false equivalences yet have had nothing to say about any valid questions anyone has asked.
For an alleged atheist you sure argue like a religious fundie.
Posted by: Gaebolga
|
September 8, 2010 4:31 PM
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 8, 2010 4:34 PM
Thanks for continuing to ignore the facts about the Secret's use of the fictional Law of Attraction.
It's not a strawman. The Law of Attraction is exactly that. You can keep ignoring that if you want but it will continue to bolster the appearance of you being a completely star struck cult member.
This has been explained to you but I'll do it again.
If the secret claims that wishing for something enough will make it come true, the corollary to this "Law" must mean than people who have bad things happen to them were asking for it.
That's dangerous and is a cosmic version of blame the victim.
Plus it's total bullshit on both sides.
SO because one book full of bullshit sells more than another book also full of bullshit, we should ignore the lesser selling one?
Logic, you're doing it wrong.
You are a fucking moron. Trading in one irrational belief for another does not benefit anyone. New age self-help is as irrational as old age religion.
Only if you continue to ignore, handwave and deny the points that have been shown up to you.
If you actually are honest about it and don't let your cult like love for Queen Oprah get in your way, you'd see the critics are right on the money.
You aren't real good at the whole argument thing are you?
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
September 8, 2010 4:35 PM
*facepalm*
Posted by: myama
|
September 8, 2010 4:36 PM
Western medicine does not exist. Alternate/Eastern medicine does not exist. There is only medicine validated by scientific trials and experiments. Everything else is no more than debris of failed ideas and shattered beliefs.
Actually there's a third category. Evidence that might be validated by scientific trials and experiments but such studies have not been funded, and the only way they will be funded is if people are free to popularize them in public forums without being attacked as quacks for doing so.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 8, 2010 4:39 PM
I'm glad you keep posting because I almost felt bad about calling you a fucking moron. This above relieves me of any guilt I might have felt.
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia
Oprah is a show that has built its reputation giving advice.
Please do try understand the difference.
Posted by: randydudek
|
September 8, 2010 4:41 PM
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
September 8, 2010 4:42 PM
Myama, why are you really all Chris Crocker over Oprah? Don't make another laughable claim about how you hate seeing black women entrepeneurs attacked (you knew that was bullshit when you wrote it). You've got some agenda, some interest, you're not disclosing, and it's so obvious the whole thread reeks of it. Just know people around here aren't buying that this is genuine.
Posted by: randydudek
|
September 8, 2010 4:42 PM
Blockquote fail. As has been said by people better at this than I am, only the quoted part should be quoted.
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
September 8, 2010 4:43 PM
Ok, so Myama is just a repetetive moron who ignores any hard questions and is completely clueless about how science works. Yawn. Can we please send this troll back to the Oprah fan fiction site from whence she came?
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
September 8, 2010 4:46 PM
Eeewwwww. . Oprah slash fic!
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
September 8, 2010 4:47 PM
@116
You don't want to know what "the secret" is...
Posted by: Ewan R
|
September 8, 2010 4:48 PM
On Jenny Mckillyourkids and Wikipedia
Here's another difference - wikipedia essentially states that McCarthy is a dangerous whack-a-loon, Oprah does not, rattling off a piss poor disclaimer and giving her radio time, web space etc etc.
Posted by: magicJay
|
September 8, 2010 4:54 PM
Rev. BDC
Wait, what?
Like attracts like? That's not how (fucking) magnets work! If we really are like magnets then I should think all sorts of really bad things to attract all the good stuff....
Come to think of it I am a pretty cynical bastard...and my life is actually pretty good.....
OMFG! IT WORKS!!!!!!!
So do I get my book deal now?
Posted by: Ströh
|
September 8, 2010 4:55 PM
Myama appears to be weathering the storm well. Too bad her arguments are being ripped to shreds. I wonder how that works?
The facts are still:
- Oprah has indeed promoted McCarthy and by proxy the views she has built her late fame on. McCarthy was invited to the show when the anti-vax movement experienced a growth spurt and it is obvious that she was invited due to this very reason. Collaborations after that only solidified the obvious.
- The Secret is, has always been and will always be complete bunk. Since Oprah endorsed it for so long she must either have endorsed the concept of "the law of attraction" or been so incredibly dense to not have understood it properly.
Which is more likely?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 8, 2010 4:56 PM
And NIH-CAM is running those studies. You know what the success rate with real double blind studies is? Essentially no alterntive medicine has been found to be superior to what is presently practiced, and in most cases, all they match in efficacy is Placebo. Ever heard of Placebo Myama? It's just a sugar pill that makes you think is does something. Still haven't presented a shred of evidence for your case. I don't even think you have an idea of what evidence, and especially scientific evidence, means or how it is gathered. Try looking in journals like Science, Nature, JAMA, et alia.Posted by: howdini
|
September 8, 2010 4:58 PM
#6@gussnarp
I didn't read that tone at all. Hamilton Nolan even links to Harriet Hall, because he likes and agrees with her. I mean, c'mon: his last paragraph
is written snarkily, but seriously.#10@ERV
Citations re: Gawker?
#99@AndrewTheEternal
If you read through the comments, you'll find plenty of defense of science and good ripostes to woo-informed comments.
IN DEFENSE OF GAWKER
I've been reading it for about a year, and have been a starred commenter for about as long. Starred commenters are the first line of defense against trolls and imbeciles: we can decide whether to promote noob commenters or not. It's an ok system.
But ultimately, Gawker is an amazingly entertaining website. The writers and commenters are consistently sharp and often very, very funny. As a longtime skeptic and fan of ScienceBlogs, I can tell you all that Gawker is pro-science and anti-woo. I've read many Oprah-related posts where the writers slam her for her woofullness.
Some of the Gawker commenters are into woo, but when they express their views, they're almost always confronted by science-based responses from other commenters.
Let's be sciencey here, and look at the evidence before forming opinions and conclusions, shall we?
Posted by: Randy (not Randy)
|
September 8, 2010 4:58 PM
I don't know, Ströh, s/he's weathering the storm with fingers in ears going, "La la la la la. I don't hear (read) anything you are saying. La la la la la." And I don't think that counts.
As for your other question, why does it have to be one or the other? Oprah could easily be in the exact same boat as Myama and be both dense and not understand it properly.
Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic).
|
September 8, 2010 5:06 PM
The Secret was criticised for promoting the idea that wishing and believing ... that the Universe wants you to be happy, and wants to give you what you desire.
Posted by: kca
|
September 8, 2010 5:12 PM
Another article for myama is by Martin Gardner, written shortly before he died:
Oprah Winfrey: Bright (but Gullible) Billionaire
Posted by: Sastra
|
September 8, 2010 5:15 PM
myama #110 wrote:
O rly? Honest scientists do not feel free to popularize unproven treatments in public forums in hopes of getting funds -- and avoiding just criticism from their peers. They do small, tightly controlled trials which warrant larger studies, all while staying the hell away from a public which will too eagerly latch on to anything that sounds good to them, and a political system that is more interested in popularity than science.
There is more longterm money in valid treatments than in invalid ones, but the money for invalid treatments is quicker and easier. Give us an example of some poor, abused treatment that probably works, but the mean scientists won't look at it. That will be hard -- and it won't include anything promoted by Warrior Moms on Oprah. Sometimes the scientific process is slow, but it works.
Many alternative treatments which claim that they "can't get funding" have already been adequately tested, and failed. It's still their complaint. They trade upon exaggerated fears of Big Pharma suppressing them when, if their remedy actually worked, they ought to be more afraid of Big Pharma stealing from them.
Big Pharma is also Big Supplement, Big Vitamin, and Big Natural Herbal Remedy. There's money to be found in what can be marketed without pesky rules regarding trials, evidence, publication, and so forth. Testimonials are easy.
I have personally found that Pharyngula boosts the immune system, rids the body of toxins, aids in healing, and restores natural balance.
Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic).
|
September 8, 2010 5:22 PM
How come Big Pharma is bad, but Big Harpo is being run by "an astute businesswoman"?
Who stuck Somers on stage and the doctors off stage because the money forced her to?
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
September 8, 2010 5:24 PM
The Secret is that wishing and believing create success because the universe wants you to be happy. No goalposts were moved; you're just confused by your own failed understanding of the Secret. And you didn't provide empirical evidence for anything except that, according to the abstract of one study, existing data suggest school children achieve better academically when intervention focuses on the message that their success depends on their actions rather than being determined by fate or chance. Which is nothing at all like what the Secret claims.
You do realize we criticize the hell out of religion here, right? And, no, I'm not going to agree that New Age victim blaming is magically better than traditional victim blaming. It's utterly despicable. And your false dichotomy is false; we can choose to reject both the irrational thinking of religion and the irrational thinking of New Agey bullshit in favor of empirically validated knowledge.
"The only meaningful and actionable aspect of the Secret" is your own invention. The rest of us are working from what the book actually promotes.
Knowing what you're talking about is something held in extreme importance here. Why would you put that down? Shouldn't it be the same everywhere?
(#100)
As well as a commitment to neutrality. While it doesn't always succeed, anyone who feels an article violates neutrality can call that article into question. Anyone who questions Oprah's neutrality, on the other hand, gets slobbered on by fans like you working themselves into a tizzy of special pleading.
~*~*~*~*~*~
magicJay (#119)
Good catch!
Posted by: myama
|
September 8, 2010 5:33 PM
It provides even further evidence that Oprah is happy to endorse magical thinking, and is sloppy on scientific evidence -- as long as there's some way to interpret an anti-scientific view as "empowering" people. But a credulous, ill-informed, anti-rational position does not empower anyone.
Every public figure who mentions God or the sacred book of any organized religion is promoting magical thinking. And positive thinking and external locus of control actually does empower people, but you’re only interested in focusing on your narrow interpretation of the book to detract attention from its central message that positive thought creates positive outcomes.
On the contrary, the meaningful and unique message of The Secret is deep nonsense hiding behind a superficial gloss of plausibility,
No it’s plausible empirically backed common sense with a little bit of spirtual rhetoric thrown in to make interesting. Don’t make the perfect the enemey of the good.
No one is shifting goal posts. Your citation did not support the contention that "wishing and believing creates success", it supported the contention that those who think positively are more likely to be successful. Do not confuse correlation and causation.
They did a path analysis which is specifically done to determine causation.
Everyone criticizing The Secret here has, from the start, made clear that the problem with The Secret is that it argues that positive thinking is sufficient, that if you think positively good things will happen and if bad things happen you weren't thinking positively enough.
Do you have a citation for the Secret saying positive thinking is sufficient?
I will stand by my first statement: Oprah promoted The Secret, and in doing so, promoted pseudo-science. Worse, The Secret promotes harmful attitudes. It is an exercise in "blame the victim."
First of all, the Secret is not pseudoscience. It’s a mixture of proven science (as the study I cited above shows) and spiritual philosophy that is open to interpretation.
As, for blaming the victim, you could apply that argument to any self-help idea: Exercise and eating right makes you healthy? Oh but that’s blaming all the unhealthy people for being unhealthy. Going to school makes you educated? Oh but that’s blaming all the unschooled people for having less education. Quit smoking reduces the risk of cancer? Oh but that’s blaming all the cancer victims because they smoked or had exposure to second hand smoke. I guess we should never promote any positive behaviors at all because we wouldn’t want to "blame the victims".
Thanks for continuing to ignore the facts about the Secret's use of the fictional Law of Attraction.
The law of attraction is so vaguely defined and elusive that it could mean anything to anyone so I don’t consider it a substanitive point. It gives the Secret a vaguely spiritual feel but it doesn’t change the fact that the Secret is correct to advise people to think positive, wish for success and believe they can make it happen because an internal locus of control has proven benefits.
SO because one book full of bullshit sells more than another book also full of bullshit, we should ignore the lesser selling one?
When one changed and continues to change the course of history and the other was just one of millions of passing fads, then yes.
Trading in one irrational belief for another does not benefit anyone. New age self-help is as irrational as old age religion.
New age self help is too vaguely defined to be irrational. You can’t attack it on logical grounds because it doesn’t actually say anything concrete; it’s just feel good rhetoric that makes people less rigid and dogmatic in their spiritual outlook. To the extent that it does say anything concrete, it’s empirically validated.
You aren't real good at the whole argument thing are you?
Seeing as its 20 against one, and I have the much tougher job of defending a position that is extremely unpopular on this blog while you just jump on the "bash the newage pseudoscience" bandwagon , I’d say I’m pretty decent.
Posted by: AccentAigu
|
September 8, 2010 5:40 PM
Gawker's commenters seem to be doing a fine job of shredding the few alternative medicine defenders in their midst. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them all as "a bunch of fucking hipsters."
Considering that it's not a skeptic-oriented website, I'm very impressed. Gawker is no Huffington Post.
Posted by: Peapoh
|
September 8, 2010 5:42 PM
Oh goody. The Secret. I had a roommate a few yeard ago who essentially told me the law of attraction debunks the entire science of genetics. Because illness is self imposed and brought on by negative thoughts you send out into to universe. Wtf is the "universe" anyway?
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 8, 2010 5:49 PM
What is it about our culture that promotes this sort of woo-filled pap addressed to women? I don't see men fed a steady diet of "If you want it badly enough, you'll get it" bullshit. This message that success, comfort, health, and happiness are all up to you totally ignores systemic factors that make those things more difficult for females and at the same time encourages females to remain oblivious to those systemic factors.
Oprah has done a great job of profiting off of this ugly societal memeplex. The fact that she's black makes it worse in some ways, because she's totally absorbed into the corporate propaganda machine. There's a reason why an actual black feminist like bell hooks,is not making a bazillion dollars teaching women to fight back.
McCarthy and Sommers are nasty side effects and incredibly harmful in and of themselves, but the whole women's magazine woo-brain bullshit is (at least for me) the central issue.
Posted by: myama
|
September 8, 2010 5:49 PM
I'm glad you keep posting because I almost felt bad about calling you a fucking moron.
You're one to talk. Your repetitive ad hominem attacks are such a shining example of intelligence that I'm sure Einstein is rolling in his grave with envy.
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia
Oprah is a show that has built its reputation giving advice.
Please do try understand the difference.
Is her webpage the same as her show? Was that article giving advice? And wikipedia built its repuation on providing information.
Please do try to understand the similarity.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 8, 2010 5:52 PM
Was that Loki's wager I see?
The Law of Attraction. First claiming it is a "Law" is claiming that it always works, no matter what. So if the Law of Attraction is like begats like, then anytime something bad happens to someone, it is there fault. And any time something good happens to someone, its because they deserve it.
This is such ridiculous woo, complete bullshit and totally blaming the victim. I'm not even going to address you're completely stupid analogy of blaming the victim you used above.
The Secret actively promotes this very thing. And your hero Oprah did he best to promote The Secret
More from Loki.
So because of the Holocaust we can ignore the crime down the street.
Great logic there.
You are defending a position not based on facts but based on your own happy feely ideas about your hero Oprah while ignoring the facts of the situation.
And you're sucking at it.
Be there 20 or 1000 people arguing with you has nothing to do you how good or bad your arguments are or should be.
Either they're good or they're something like this
and this
Posted by: Travis
|
September 8, 2010 5:54 PM
Peapoh,
I often wonder similar things about what people think the universe is. Often new age thinking seems to talk about us being somehow connected to the universe but I find these same people often disconnect us as much as possible from it. We are in the universe right now, humans always have been. Earth is a part of it, it is every bit the universe as anywhere else. But often people act as though the universe is something "out there" somewhere.
Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic).
|
September 8, 2010 5:55 PM
Posted by: myama
|
September 8, 2010 6:00 PM
This message that success, comfort, health, and happiness are all up to you totally ignores systemic factors that make those things more difficult for females and at the same time encourages females to remain oblivious to those systemic factors.
And the message that success, comfort, health, and happiness is totally beyond our control so we should accept our status and not question it, totally ignores individual factors and encourages fatalism which has kept the poor in their place for centuries. Isn't it fun to create straw men? So easy to knock them down.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
September 8, 2010 6:00 PM
Writing for Oprah was old news indeed.
"Science doesn't know everything, therefore acupuncture works!" Uh, no - science knows acupuncture is a load of crap.
"Science doesn't know everything, therefore god!"
What is it with this "science doesn't know everything, therefore my favorite bullshit is true" thing?
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 8, 2010 6:03 PM
@ myama -
You might want to look up what locus of control really means. (It's Wikipedia, but a brief perusal jibed with what I recalled from my doctorate coursework in clinical psychology.)
External locus of control means that you believe that powers outside yourself control what happens to you. Internal locus of control is the "everything is up to me" crap that The Secret, Oprah, and other women's magazine brainwashing promote.
Both styles have their uses, but it is extremely harmful (and hurtful) to announce that one style is better than the other. Bad things happen to people just because that's the way the world is. Positive thinking does not prevent bad things from happening. It might, in some cases, make one better able to deal with some sorts of bad things.
Oh, and one other thing.
You're an idiot.
Posted by: myama
|
September 8, 2010 6:04 PM
external locus of control actually does empower people
an internal locus of control has proven benefits
Wow, you caught me in a typo while I responded to 20 different people. Onviously I meant internal in both cases.
Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death
|
September 8, 2010 6:07 PM
myama @129
You did cite a study earlier. I cited an article before that. One that had links to multiple studies saying the "positive thinking" may not be so positive after all. Did you read it? It's an approachable article, and you can check out the links for the studies abstracts for yourself if you want more detail.
Posted by: Peapoh
|
September 8, 2010 6:09 PM
@135
"I find these same people often disconnect us as much as possible from it. "
I like that. I may use it one day.
I've speculated it could mean god or some other dubious concept. Never been inclined enough to ask. The debates never seem to be worth it in the end. I have a tendency to attract macaroons. Needless to say tolerance is a skill I have.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
September 8, 2010 6:13 PM
No, she doesn't. She chooses to, but she doesn't have to.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
September 8, 2010 6:15 PM
myama (#129)
It's what the entire book is based on. Of course it's somewhat vaguely defined and elusive; that's one of the hallmarks of New Age pseudoscience. The purveyors of woo need as much weasel room as they can get for when their bullshit doesn't work as promised. But it's not so vague as to be entirely incomprehensible (I mean, all of us seem to understand what it's claiming), and you don't get to ignore what it says and go on pretending the Secret is something entirely different because you want to protect your mistaken idea that it's based on something empirically valid. Either support the Law of Attraction or admit there's no substance to the central premise of the Secret.
Vaguely defined things are not rational by default. Rather the opposite. If no one can make enough sense of something to talk about it in a reasoned argument, it's irrational by definition.
No doubt it also fleebles their storggons and makes their vacindrols more splathomonic.
If you're getting overwhelmed, stick to a single argument and finish hashing that out by responding to criticism before jumping to another point. To us, it looks like you're avoiding having to substantiate anything you say. Your original point was that Oprah's magazine has lots of quality scientific advice and Dr. Hall is probably the one with a problem. You could return to that or pick one of the number of other ridiculous claims you've made since.
(#137)
Um, what you've written is a straw man, but what Mattir wrote wasn't. It's right there in the excerpt from the Secret RBDC posted up at #62. See numbers 3, 4, 6, 9, and 12.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 8, 2010 6:15 PM
You are misusing ad hominen, showing your stupidity. If they explain why you are stupid, like I did, it isn't ad hominem, but the truth. You want to convince us you are right? Try citations to the real, not the O-world, literature. Try Google Scholar. Maybe you will find that the O-world is a place of fantasy, and those of us here live in the real world.Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 8, 2010 6:20 PM
Yet another person who needs to learn what an ad hominem is.
Me calling you a fucking moron is not ad hom. That's just an observation.
Me calling you a fucking moron and then telling you why your argument is stupid is not ad hominem. That's an observation and an explanation why your arguments suck.
If i said you are a fucking moron and so there is no way your argument could be right without addressing your argument, that would be ad hominem.
That's not what I did.
Seriously, you should stop.
Stop now. This is a moronic line of argument that you show ball up and toss in the trash immediately.
If you want to argue that Oprah's website is similar to Wikipedia ignoring what the brand "Oprah" is all about, please do. But it's just making you look like a total fool.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
September 8, 2010 6:22 PM
And offering her a TV show.
Posted by: myama
|
September 8, 2010 6:23 PM
The Law of Attraction. First claiming it is a "Law" is claiming that it always works, no matter what. So if the Law of Attraction is like begats like, then anytime something bad happens to someone, it is there fault. And any time something good happens to someone, its because they deserve it.
"Law" simply means rule. Every rule has its exceptions so your argument is wrong. You couldn't prove your straw man claim that the Secret claims positive thinking is sufficient so you tried to play word games and failed. Meanwhile I provided empirical support (with facts, citations) for the positive CAUSAL benefits of positive thinking as validated by path analysis. There's really no more that needs to be said. I'm right and all of you scientists are wrong. I had the courage to take on the lynch mob and I emerged surrounded by carnage without a hair out of place. Fun debate. Now I'm off to enjoy my sub.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
September 8, 2010 6:25 PM
I think this troll is even more entertaining than the Srobelbot from last week.
Posted by: No One
|
September 8, 2010 6:26 PM
A thread about Oprah?
OPRAH!?!
Give me a fucking break.
* goes to the Hitchens thread *
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
September 8, 2010 6:27 PM
That's not what it means in a scientific context, and "The Secret" presents it as a scientific law.
Isn't "The Secret" also the book that claims that the native Americans on Hisapnolia literally couldn't see Columbus's ships because their culture didn't have ships?
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 8, 2010 6:27 PM
I guess in the myamaverse, as in the O-verse, a grasp of what is and is not within one's control is not considered important. Here in the Reality Based Universe™, however, it helps to know what one can and can't fix so as to adjust one's efforts to focus on the right things. In any given situation, the right things could be more personal effort, more acceptance of the suckiness of the situation, or more political action. Even something as potentially woo-ish as AA's Serenity Prayer suggests that there are indeed "things we cannot change." Or does the Oprah self-help movement leave that part out?
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
September 8, 2010 6:31 PM
I don't know, but nothing pisses me off quite as much as when people encourage women to be credulous and superstitious and then accuse anyone who calls them on it of trying to keep women down.
I guess Oprah is exploiting women in a way that has traditionally been a male venture, so in that sense she is a feminist - women can keep other women down and take advantage of them too!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 8, 2010 6:35 PM
truthspeaker #149
Oh yes, this is one of the best trolls we've had in a good while. It's trollishness could equal or exceed Graeme Bird, J*hn Kw*k, and even (dare I say it) Pilty. It's literate yet stupid, a true believer but utterly clueless, fond of logical fallacies yet quick to accuse others of their use. What more could we ask for in a troll?
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 8, 2010 6:36 PM
I think law does not mean what you think it means. Will you please point me to the exceptions to the laws of thermodynamics?
You, however, are doing an excellent job of demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger Effect, which under your careful testing may advance to the status of law.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
September 8, 2010 6:41 PM
Indeed, I haven't seen any misspellings, just an errant capitalization of Doctors. That's an impressively low typo count for even a regular pharyngula poster, myself included.
Posted by: DaveL
|
September 8, 2010 6:46 PM
I hate to be pedantic*, but the verbal abuse doled out by Rev. BigDumbChimp and others is not an ad-hominem attack.
An ad-hominem attack seeks to discredit your argument by attacking you. The attacker must imply that your arguments must be unsound because of some perceived personal flaw on your part.
If they don't attempt to make that connection, it's just plain old** invective.
*Not really.
**Or, on occasion, very colourful and/or novel invective.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 8, 2010 6:46 PM
looks around nervously
Posted by: myama
|
September 8, 2010 6:52 PM
I guess Oprah is exploiting women in a way that has traditionally been a male venture, so in that sense she is a feminist - women can keep other women down and take advantage of them too!
The only woman Oprah kept down was Hillary, when she endorsed Obama instead to be president. Other than that, Oprah's track record on empowering women is pretty good. She encouraged millions of women to read great literature, has put countless female authors on the best seller list, created thousands of jobs for women, started a trend for women to start their own book clubs, encouarages women to leave abusive relationships, promotes female owned businesses all the time, provided thousands of hours of positive entertainment for women.
You argue she exploits women because she promoted one book that your hyper-male overly scientific literal borderline autistic mind can't comprehend, and because you all are just too dumb to understand how important it is for women to take back their power and believe in the power inside themselves, you accuse Oprah who is lightyears more evolved than you of exploiting women. It's enough to make a cat laugh.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 8, 2010 6:53 PM
Um, yes. Was that supposed to be a trick statement?
The patriarchy. If you're oppressed, it's your own damned fault.
No kidding. A black woman who fights for herself and other women in a way opposite to societal demands would be fucking scary. Instead, Oprah can talk about drinking acai berries for weight loss and doing electrical skin treatments to get rid of wrinkles and thinking your way to life satisfaction and all's well with the world.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
September 8, 2010 6:55 PM
I argue she exploits women because she encourages them to be gullible, encourages them to get medical advice from Suzanne Somers and Jenny McCarthy, and encourages them to believe in magic.
That's harmful, and it's degrading to her audience. Women deserve better. They are every bit as capable of thinking rationally as men are, but people like Oprah give them the idea that it's not feminine to use your brain.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 8, 2010 7:02 PM
Not when talking about scientific things, which the Law of attraction pretends to do.
One more thing you need to study up on.
No, I attacked the very thing that the Secret claims even naming the very "Law" they try to assert as valid.
You ignored this and instead built up a convenient version of The Secret that saves your hero from criticism.
And was made to look like a fool in the process.
No you provided one study that didn't say what you claimed it did. But that doesn't matter because that STILL isn't what the secret claims.
The classic ploy of the cult following pseudo-scientist. Stick your fingers in your ear and claim victory.
Just keep telling yourself that dumbass.
You came and and got your fucking dishonest Oprah toe sucking ass handed to you.
And just like many before you, you claimed victory after being demolished and run away like a good little cultist.
Posted by: rn.massey
|
September 8, 2010 7:06 PM
Hi again, random boob owning lurker delurking again. While watching the regulars school you is fun, I must say that probably more than a few of us ladyfolk have no need to "take our power back"...we never gave it away in the first place. And for the most part, we did it without having to read a self-help bligde filled with creamy woo.
As truthspeaker pointed out, what women need more is to be further encouraged to use our rational minds to see through the crap peddled by daytime talk shows and smelly mags. I'd rather have more Women Thinking Freely groups start up than an entire station dedicated to preach the word of Oprah, thank you very much.
As an aside, I find it odd that while stuff like The Secret gets tons of attention on her show, I'm pretty sure that Oprah got to where she is now through hard work, not woo.
Posted by: realinterrobang
|
September 8, 2010 7:12 PM
"Law" simply means rule.
No it doesn't. You don't get to redefine words just because you're losing an argument. The Secret presents itself as scientific (which it isn't) and appropriates the (basically) vernacular use of "Law" in a scientific context, which is to say of an inviolable physical principle that is true regardless of your frame of reference. In other words, the writer of The Secret is positing that the Law of Attraction is a fundamental force like gravity (which is also sometimes referred to as a "law").
Oprah herself clearly wants to believe that her success was almost entirely up to her and in her control, and is more than willing to push that line to the rubes (as are most billionaires, I've found), but doesn't actually believe it all the way down, as is abundantly illustrated by the anecdote about her wanting to talk the cancer patient out of trying to use The Secret to cure her cancer.
Also, arguendo, even if what you're saying is absolutely true (it isn't, but we'll roll with it for the sake of argument), and The Secret is strictly about positive thinking and hippy-dippy newagey feelings stuff, if people are watching Oprah's show and picking up the message that you can use The Secret to cure your cancer, Oprah herself is doing a terrible job of communicating the point, which equals a huge FAIL for her.
Either way, you lose.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 8, 2010 7:13 PM
And Oprah isn't scientific, nor knows what the word really means. She thinks it means testimony, not true testing with controlled experiments. So we laugh at the major gaps the size of South America in her knowledge, but that doesn't stop her from promoting something in that gap. Which is why the O-verse is meaningless to reality. The Venn diagrams don't show an overlap...
Posted by: Susan
|
September 8, 2010 7:14 PM
@myama
Pretty unfortunate for you, eh? Folks here actually read the things they criticize which, as has been clear from your first post, you don't.Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 8, 2010 7:18 PM
Oh, and using autistic as an insult! So clever of you.
You can fuck off now.
Posted by: myama
|
September 8, 2010 7:21 PM
No kidding. A black woman who fights for herself and other women in a way opposite to societal demands would be fucking scary
Not as scary as a powerful black woman who defiantly throws all her influence behind a black alleged Muslim man's right to occupy the most powerful position in America, despite the fact the two most admired white women in America (Hillary & Palin) were running against him. Oprah would never do anything defiant and daring like that. Oh wait!
Posted by: Robert H
|
September 8, 2010 7:23 PM
myama @159
...Oprah who is lightyears more evolved than you...
And this is manifest how? I trust you mean Oprah is more spiritually evolved, since to all outward appearances she still resembles the rest of humanity. What, pray tell, are the hallmarks of this evolutionary advance? Frankly, you do her a disservice when you put her on a messianic pedestal while simultaneously you are diluting any merit to your own arguments. In short, you sound like a member of a cult.
Posted by: Coleslaw
|
September 8, 2010 7:26 PM
How defiant and daring was it to back Obama, seeing as how he won the election?
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
September 8, 2010 7:29 PM
Yeah, it's really defiant to back the front-runner in an election, especially when he's a fiscal conservative and social moderate.
And I don't think Hilary Clinton was one of the most admired white women in the country. She'd have been lucky to be in the top million.
Posted by: myama
|
September 8, 2010 7:30 PM
As an aside, I find it odd that while stuff like The Secret gets tons of attention on her show, I'm pretty sure that Oprah got to where she is now through hard work, not woo.
Oprah got where she is through hard work? Oh but you're blaming the victim. Are you saying that all those non-billionaires deserve their status because they are lazy? Are you ignoring all the systematic issues that kept them down and blaming their lack of individual effort and actually implying that personal responsibility might actually exist? How dare you keep people down and exploit them with your evil rhetoric(sarcasm).
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 8, 2010 7:31 PM
myama, forget the sarcasm stuff, you're not very good at it. In fact, you're downright bad at it.
Posted by: SteveM
|
September 8, 2010 7:33 PM
re
I don't know about The Secret, but I do know this claim was made in the movie What the (bleep) Do We Know?"
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
September 8, 2010 7:38 PM
OK, then it's not in the Secret. I'm getting my superstitious nonsense confused.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 8, 2010 7:38 PM
You're disgusting.
Keep it up dumbass.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 8, 2010 7:39 PM
You're kidding, right? There's a much better case to be made, based on the evidence, that they're two of the most hated women in America.
Posted by: sasully60
|
September 8, 2010 7:40 PM
From 'The Secret':
"The only reason any person does not have enough money is because they are blocking money from coming to them with their thoughts."
And the 'Law of Attraction' is NOT the same as the psychological concept 'locus of control', no matter how much you 'wish' it to be. The 'Law' says that thinking about being riches magically *attracts* wealth to you. It also says you 'attract' misfortune, -- even natural disaster -- by the 'wrong' sort of thinking. And it says the 'Law' works *all the time*.
Which, of course, is *despicable bullsh*t.
By coincidence -- or was it wishing? -- 'The Secret' in the subject this article in the latest issue of The New Yorker:
Power Lines
What’s behind Rhonda Byrne’s spiritual empire?
by Kelefa Sanneh
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2010/09/13/100913crbo_books_sanneh?currentPage=all
Posted by: Sastra
|
September 8, 2010 7:40 PM
myama #129 wrote:
The New Age rhetoric in books like The Secret is not just vague: it talks out of both sides of its mouth. First it says one thing ... then it says the opposite, drawing conflicting ideas together through superficial similarities, and using the reasonable interpretation to give credibility to the irrational one.
This does not "empower." It confuses people into thinking that dicey, unproven, implausible ideas are really well supported. To the extent that it says anything empirically validated, this is used to grant credibility to a similar-sounding claim which is not validated, or even right.
And out of this comes the belief that know-nothings like Somers and McCarthy can be trusted because they're women and strong and fighting back against The System. All the right buttons are pushed, and skepticism has been ruled out in advance as "negative energy" which won't get people what they want. It's a messy recipe for disaster.
Oh, is it a hyper-male thing to be "overly-scientific?" Was Dr. Hall not feminine enough for Oprah, what with her male-like skepticism and clarity of thought, her masculine need to sift through details and understand issues when really, what's needed is a feel-good way of being less rigid and more spiritual, loosey-goosey blendings of all distinctions into a mush of empowerment where women can take back control from hyper-male things like science, reason, and logic?
What if we comprehend the book -- and the problem -- better than you do?
And do consider the possibility that saying that it's "hyper-male" to think that the book The Secret is not just about women taking control, but pseudoscientific nonsense, is sexist. I hadn't realized I was hyper-male.
Do then give us your definition of what is "hyper-female." I'd like to know.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
September 8, 2010 7:40 PM
Apparently only believing claims that are backed by evidence is borderline autistic. And also hyper-male. I'm not sure which of those assertions is more offensive.
Posted by: myama
|
September 8, 2010 7:40 PM
Yeah, it's really defiant to back the front-runner in an election, especially when he's a fiscal conservative and social moderate.
At the time she endorsed him he was way behind in the polls (including among black women) and he would have lost to Hillary in a million vote landslide had Oprah not jumped in:
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/so-much-for-one-person-one-vote/
A social conservative who supports a Mosque at ground zero and a fiscal conservative who passed health care and wants to ends tax cuts on the rich. Interesting.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 8, 2010 7:44 PM
1. He doesn't support it. He weaseled out of giving an opinion.
2. It's not a mosque
3. It's not at Ground Zero
Do you know anything besides what Oprah tells you?
Posted by: John Morales
|
September 8, 2010 7:46 PM
[meta]
myama, you're meandering ever further from the topic, even as you blithely ignore people's points.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
September 8, 2010 7:48 PM
No, he supports their right to build it there and realizes the whole thing is a non-issue invented by Fox News.
Obama's health care bill is a pathetic joke. It's almost identical to the ones proposed by Mitt Romney and Arnold Schwarzenegger, both Republicans. Obama also made sure it didn't include a public option, which was the only liberal part that was ever discussed.
Posted by: Randy (not Randy)
|
September 8, 2010 7:48 PM
Now what on Earth does President Obama's race and religion have to do with you being a fucking moron?
I'm repeating myself but you argue like a religious fundie. Do you tithe to Oprah regularly?
Posted by: snurp
|
September 8, 2010 7:48 PM
myama @181
It's an Islamic YMCA-equivalent in a building they own, health care reform was about as toothy as a chicken beak, and Obama wants to end tax cuts for the rich like he wants to end warrantless wiretapping.
Also, freakonomics? Seriously?
Finally: I understand that, as the offspring of a culture that's created barriers to your participation in empirical reality by stereotyping you out of science and into the warm fuzzies of nonsense, you might have the urge to hug your pseudo-scientific chains. I realize that when people attempt to tear you away from them, you will interpret that as a threat. But no amount of fearful lashing out excuses using autism as an insult.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 8, 2010 7:49 PM
Wait, so now endorsing Obama is an anti-establishment racial politics radical thing? Are you freaking crazy? Obama is a center right pragmatist who has been tremendously disappointing to actual progressives on just about every issue. And I say this as one who supported him from the beginning and voted for him. I'm less disappointed than most, since I didn't expect him to be divine, but even I think Hillary might have been a better choice at this point.
Women's friendships and book clubs existed LONG before Oprah, but I see you will give the Big O credit for having invented them. Some of us, however, don't think that the lowest-common-denominator fiction that comprises a lot (note - I said a lot, not all) of Oprah's book choices is a gift to women's intellectual lives. After a couple of utterly horrid experiences, my book club enacted a rule that an Oprah endorsement was not sufficient justification for selecting a book that one hadn't read. Criticism of the Winfrey's power over the fiction market in the US is pretty widespread, or did you miss that?
And WTF is with the overly scientific hyper-male autistic brain insult? First of all, autistic and male are not insults, and second, many of your critics are cis-gendered (big word, look it up) vagina-owners. Lastly, unless you are talking about the humanities (literature, poetry, music, art, drama), there is no such thing as overly scientific. One is either scientific or not. The fact that many of the posters think the book is destructive bullshit is that it pretends to be science. Things that pretend to be science and aren't cause untold amounts of human suffering.
Overall, you seem to mistake succeeding within the system for changing the system. One makes things better for other people by teaching them to identify what they can and cannot control and what the system really is (bell hooks), one makes other people think the system has changed radically when it has simply opened the door a sliver to let in a token member of the excluded group who obeys preexisting rules without challenging or even identifying them (Oprah Winfrey).
You can fuck right off now.
Posted by: stevieinthecity#9dac9
|
September 8, 2010 7:53 PM
Eat. Pray. Love.
Anyone?
I hear retching. Yeah, Myama you came to the wrong place to espouse your woo power.
Posted by: SC OM
|
September 8, 2010 7:54 PM
At about 34:00 in, Joe Vitale talks about Haiti and then soon-to-be-tried James Ray expounds on the Holocaust.
(I don't know if you can watch it in Canada:
Feeling good yet?
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
September 8, 2010 7:55 PM
Fuck that. Hillary is also center-right, also supports torture and wireless wiretapping, and she voted for the Iraq War.
There was no better candidate than Obama. That's not because he was a good candidate, but because our political system is so corrupt that every election is a choice between two or three crooks and our electorate is to lazy to notice.
Posted by: Sastra
|
September 8, 2010 7:55 PM
myama #181 wrote:
Translation: Hey! Look out the window! Over there --- yeah!"
I'm still wondering what it is to be "hyper-female," if being "hyper-male" means being "overly scientific."
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 8, 2010 8:01 PM
Apparently, Oprah.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
September 8, 2010 8:02 PM
myama (#148)
The mechanism supposedly at work in the Secret, having a high internal locus of control, and positive thinking are not all the same thing. There's some overlap, certainly, but your study doesn't show what you think it does because while positive thinking and the Law of Attraction require one to have a high internal locus of control, having a high internal locus of control does not necessarily make for any sort of positive thinking. Assuming for a moment that it the study was well designed and the abstract is accurate, it merely shows that school kids do better academically when they believe their actions affect their success. It doesn't say anything about whether the kids use positive thoughts as encouragement for success or negative thoughts as deterrent against failure. So no, your study doesn't support what you're saying.
This is what positive thinking really does. It makes you irrationally overconfident in your own abilities and unable to see the flaws in your arguments even when they're pointed out by a dozen different people. Congratulations on being content with the empty victory of declaring yourself winner.
(#159)
The "power" inside me is not magical fairy farts and wishful thinking, nor is not something that women have and men lack. Selling me such ideas is not empowering, nor does it empower me to promote women who are vociferously anti-science, like Rhonda Byrne, Jenny McCarthy, or Suzanne Somers. Critical thinking and science, however, are some of the things that truly empower me. They keep me from falling for the feel-good bullshit that makes people like you into complacent, overconfident jellyfish dreaming they're juggling elephants.
(#172)
She's saying that Oprah is ignoring the importance of individual effort by promoting things like the Secret. There were other factors to her success than just hard work, certainly, but the hard work she put in was a large part of it. And now Oprah is saying that work didn't mean anything because how you really get what you want is to wish for it real hard, not to work for it.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
September 8, 2010 8:17 PM
Not all women buy Oprah's crap. Take for example Barbara Ehrenreich, who wrote Bright-sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America. She's quite self-empowered. It's kinda sad that Oprah has far more influence than her.
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
September 8, 2010 8:26 PM
Oh that's cute. Male=science=cold=analytical=intellectually imperialistic
compared to:
Female=intuitive=flexible=emotionally aware
What shit. Women the world over thank you for relegating their intellectual capacity to the odds-n-ends bin at the local craft store. I can't tell what infuriates me more: the fact that you equate rational thinking with Bad Males or the fact that you're the living embodiment of the false feminine stereotype you espouse.
Posted by: JeffreyD
|
September 8, 2010 8:30 PM
myama - if the Secret was right and there was a power to positive thinking, you would probably be leaving here in a toothpaste tube. However, fangs need sharpening and I am positive that you are an entertaining fool. Please continue. I will pray for you.
Posted by: Cheezits
|
September 8, 2010 8:36 PM
I'm right and all of you scientists are wrong.
ROFLMAO! Talk about a God complex. You're just pulling our legs, right?
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
September 8, 2010 8:40 PM
Not only what Everyone Else Already Said, myama, but Oprah isn't "empowering" anyone but happy, comfortable middle class women and deluded, underprivileged people who need a fuck of a lot more practical help than "just wish for it." She (and her idiotic guests, such as the author of "The Secret") are the Platonic essence of rich, corporate privilege.
She's a comforting blankie to middle class suburban women with nothing better to do than gaze at their navels and wonder how their comfortable lives could be more "enriched" (when they're not busy hovering over their children with antibacterial wipes).
To the extent that working class or poor women watch her (or even have time to watch her), she's nothing but a televised version of the lottery syndrome - she urges people to spend what precious little money they have on shit books, with shit advice, leaving them poorer for the effort. And totally bereft of any practical skills to improve their lot.
She does all this in the service of her friends and colleagues - the richest fucking people in the history of the world.
You think of her as an empowering feminist? You think of her as a "strong black woman" going up against "the man?" She's one of the most amoral uber-capitalist tools the world has ever seen, and she could not be more establishment. She is The Man.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 8, 2010 8:53 PM
myama:
Goodness me, yet another one perpetuating the myth that there are no women on Pharyngula. You might want to watch where you step, myama. Around here, the women have sharp, sniny brains. And fangs.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
September 8, 2010 8:54 PM
Before today this level of Dunning-Kruger only existed in theory.
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
September 8, 2010 8:56 PM
Now I'm calling Poe on you.
Posted by: Randy (not Randy)
|
September 8, 2010 8:59 PM
Not necessarily, Josh. S/he might be bald.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
September 8, 2010 8:59 PM
Feynmaniac wrote:
If nothing else can be said for internet discussion forums, at least they give Dunning and Kruger the satisfaction of knowing just how damn right they were.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 8, 2010 9:18 PM
Maybe now Oprah will send you an autographed copy of one of her magazines. You know, the one that has a picture of her on the cover of every single issue.
Posted by: Randy (not Randy)
|
September 8, 2010 9:24 PM
The only way Oprah is doing anything nice for anybody other than herself would be if there were cameras rolling.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 8, 2010 9:27 PM
The stupid is strong in this one.
Posted by: Katharine
|
September 8, 2010 9:29 PM
Oprah-nut:
Bitch, I am female and a member of the scientific community and your whinging about men being 'overly scientific' not only makes you look like an anti-intellectual dipshit, it makes you look like a misogynist.
Yes, that's right. I called you a bitch.
I hate you New-Agey earth-mama fuckheads.
Posted by: Ompompanoosuc
|
September 8, 2010 9:31 PM
Josh @198
nice
Posted by: MrFire
|
September 8, 2010 9:32 PM
Sssssssh. Don't jinx it.
Myama is using the power of The Secret to wish our rebuttals away.
Posted by: seculargaytheist
|
September 8, 2010 9:33 PM
LOL! I'm loving this evisceration of yet another troll/nut. Pharyngulites do good.
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
September 8, 2010 9:35 PM
My hyper-male, literal brain (which just happens to reside in my female body) is hyper-pissed off by this blame-the-poor-for-their-poverty crap. I wonder how this plays in flood-ravaged Pakistan? Maybe the poor of Pakistan blocked themselves from being born in Oprahland, and that was their first mistake.What bollocks!
Now that myama has shown me the light, I will depend on positive thinking and fatal attraction (okay, Law of Attraction) to pay next month's bills.
Sounds so much like prosperity preaching that I'm surprised myama doesn't ask us to send a little cash her way to prime the Law of Attraction pump.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 8, 2010 9:39 PM
I wonder if our lovely troll has even heard of either bell hooks (actual black feminist) or Dunning-Kruger, which she has elevated damn close to scientific law in just one day.
And what Josh said about the middle class women. I wonder if our troll has ever met any non-middle class women? They're not Oprah's demographic.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 8, 2010 10:01 PM
Really? *sigh*
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 8, 2010 10:09 PM
Actual feminists generally don't use sexually derogatory insults. There are plenty that don't rely on vagina-ownership as an integral part of their insult-value - you might want lurk for a while and make a list.
Posted by: rn.massey
|
September 8, 2010 10:11 PM
@210
It's entertainment! *passes seculargaytheist some popcorn*
btw, troll, have you managed to finish your sub between all your delusional Oprah ass-sniffing? Don't confuse the hole where you've yanked your facts with your feed hole, okay?
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 8, 2010 10:18 PM
Katharine:
Yes, and you're still providing us with the sterling example of an incredibly ugly human being. Your "I'm the nastiest thing ever with an unending hatred of every putrid, icky human on the planet with the exception of myself" shtick is old, tired and unattractive as ever.
What you actually need to learn is how to shut the fuck up.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 8, 2010 10:22 PM
Mattir:
Hahahaha, Mattir, this is Katharine you're attempting to talk to, she prides herself on her misanthropy, there's really nothing she doesn't hate (at least when it comes to people) and she is a classic example of ugliness. She's also been hanging out here and spitting her various hatreds for quite a long time.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 8, 2010 10:29 PM
@Caine - And she spread her nastiness over to Dr. Isis, where she intimated that people with vaginas who have post-doc fellowships probably shouldn't reproduce. She makes you, me, DaughterSpawn, and the rest of the Pharyngulistas look like Peace Pilgrim.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 8, 2010 10:36 PM
Mattir:
Ah. Well, I don't have anything nice to say about Isis, so I'll shut up. As for Katharine, yes, she likes to parade the ugly. Definitely a piece of work.
Posted by: Robert H
|
September 8, 2010 10:42 PM
I emerged surrounded by carnage without a hair out of place.
Maybe she's bald.
Posted by: Randy (not Randy)
|
September 8, 2010 10:45 PM
Robert,
I've been pondering that all night. As s/he was totally scalped, would it be accurate to say that none of the hairs are out of place, they just are no longer on her/his head.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 8, 2010 10:49 PM
@ Caine - I don't read Dr. Isis regularly, but someone here linked to it - she was discussing a post doc who was given (how generous) 5 days of paid leave to give birth. Katharine suggested that women post docs should consider not getting pregnant. Way to change the system...
Posted by: AndrewTheEternal
|
September 8, 2010 11:01 PM
@howdini, #122
I did read through the comments. I was confused at first because at the time the first few comments were all good ones.
Then I saw the bad ones they were commenting on.
Still, I was only commenting on that particular turn of phrase. Not condemning the site.
@myama #159
My literal autistic mind comprehends it just fine. She is putting intellectual poison in the hands of everyone who listens to her and profits from doing so. She is giving people an ephemeral mental cushion for the cost of a bit of their money and a lot of their intellectual integrity. That is exploitation, no matter how morally advanced you think she is.P.S. Groups evolve. Not individuals.
Posted by: myama
|
September 8, 2010 11:10 PM
Overall, you seem to mistake succeeding within the system for changing the system. One makes things better for other people by teaching them to identify what they can and cannot control and what the system really is (bell hooks), one makes other people think the system has changed radically when it has simply opened the door a sliver to let in a token member of the excluded group who obeys preexisting rules without challenging or even identifying them (Oprah Winfrey).
I think playing an extremely instrumental role in making a black man (and an alleged Muslim to boot) the most powerful person on the planet in arguabley the first time in recorded history who then goes on to pass a historic (though not perfect) health care bill is a far more radical achievement than writing post-modern feminist literature (although that’s great too). You revere Bell Hooks because she allows you to feel all pro-black feminist without actually having to like a black woman who actually dares to crash the glass ceiling and succeeds brilliantly and takes other blacks with her (the Obamas).
The mechanism supposedly at work in the Secret, having a high internal locus of control, and positive thinking are not all the same thing. There's some overlap, certainly, but your study doesn't show what you think it does because while positive thinking and the Law of Attraction require one to have a high internal locus of control, having a high internal locus of control does not necessarily make for any sort of positive thinking.
Internal locus of control is itself a positive thought. What could be more positive (and more relevant to the Secret) than thinking you control your own destiny and that you have the power to make your wishes come true? Clearly the the Secret encourages this type of thinking and to the empirically demonstrated extent that this type of thinking helps people succeed, the Secret is empowering.
She's saying that Oprah is ignoring the importance of individual effort by promoting things like the Secret. There were other factors to her success than just hard work, certainly, but the hard work she put in was a large part of it. And now Oprah is saying that work didn't mean anything because how you really get what you want is to wish for it real hard, not to work for it.
What difference does it make whether Oprah attributes her success to hard work or positive thinking? Either way she’s crediting something she did (thought positively, worked hard) for her success so it’s intellectually inconsistent for you people to say that the latter is blaming the victim while the former is legitimate. If anything, attributing success to hard work does far more to blame the victim because it implies that unsuccessful people are lazy and unproductive while attributing success to positive thought only implies that unsuccessful people had not learned the right technique or suffer from clinical depression (something beyond their control).
Oh that's cute. Male=science=cold=analytical=intellectually imperialistic
compared to:
Female=intuitive=flexible=emotionally aware
What shit. Women the world over thank you for relegating their intellectual capacity to the odds-n-ends bin at the local craft store.
I don’t know. I think cognitively flexibility and intuition signals higher intelligence and creativity than robotic linear analytical thought, although both are oversimplifications.
Not only what Everyone Else Already Said, myama, but Oprah isn't "empowering" anyone but happy, comfortable middle class women and deluded, underprivileged people who need a fuck of a lot more practical help than "just wish for it." She (and her idiotic guests, such as the author of "The Secret") are the Platonic essence of rich, corporate privilege.
She’s actually empowered quite a lot of people, as much as it pains you to admit it. A Yale study found that the trashy talk shows Oprah popularized in the 1980s did more to bring gays into the mainstream than any other development of the 20th century. The number of women and minorities in media exploded after she hit the scene. Her book club did more to bring great literature (including femenist and black literature) to the masses than almost anything since the printing press, and since many of her viewers are mothers, the habbit got passed down to the next generation; and she played a pivotal role empowering a member the black race (Obama)all the way to the apex of global power for the first time in recorded history.
In addition she’s given hundreds of millions of her own money to charity, raised of tens of millions more for charity, sent 250 black men through college, gave hundreds of girls in South Africa the best school money can buy, built homes in the aftermath of Katrina and convinced countless businesses to give free stuff to her audience.
She's a comforting blankie to middle class suburban women with nothing better to do than gaze at their navels and wonder how their comfortable lives could be more "enriched" (when they're not busy hovering over their children with antibacterial wipes).
What’s wrong with a black woman creating comfort for middle class suburban women? Anyone who can bring the races together is doing something positive and it’s a beautiful thing to see.
You think of her as an empowering feminist? You think of her as a "strong black woman" going up against "the man?" She's one of the most amoral uber-capitalist tools the world has ever seen, and she could not be more establishment. She is The Man.
I get it. You hate capitalism. Thus when you see capitalism doing something positive (turn a poor black girl into the multi-billionaire Queen of all media) this creates cognitive dissonance. The only way you can resolve the cognitive dissonance is by demonizing Oprah.
Posted by: Randy (not Randy)
|
September 8, 2010 11:16 PM
Again with the Obama is a Muslim strawman. Whether he is or he is not, and he is not, doesn't make The Secret any less of woo filled bullshit. Of course you go on in the next paragraphs to reconfirm to those of us who are not fucking morons that you either never read The Secret or understood any of it.
Posted by: Katharine
|
September 8, 2010 11:16 PM
Way to misread what I wrote on the Isis thread, Mattir.
Actually, I meant something more on the lines of 'whose decision was it to get pregnant?'. It seems to me that postdoc years are probably hectic enough without the addition of a mouth to feed. I don't think an advisor for a postdoc should be expected to pony up as much as a permanent job. Pregnancy is, after all, a choice, not a disability, and it can be timed.
And no, I don't hate Everybody But Myself. If I did I'd have perpetrated Suicide By Balloons Full of That Delightful Gas That Makes Your Voice Sound Squeaky. My heart's not a coal-black shriveled-up ball of nastiness, just a pleasant shade of gray. :P
Posted by: myama
|
September 8, 2010 11:19 PM
My literal autistic mind comprehends it just fine. She is putting intellectual poison in the hands of everyone who listens to her and profits from doing so.
Intellectual poison eh? Care to cite any double blind placebo controlled experiments proving that reading the Secret makes one's IQ drop or has any negative effect at all?
Posted by: Katharine
|
September 8, 2010 11:24 PM
It's not so much reading the Poorly Kept Secret (fun fact: sure, positive thinking helps, but insofar as it makes one more likely to carry out a helpful action because it instills more confidence) as listening to much of the rest of the dreck she spews.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 8, 2010 11:25 PM
The woomistress still showing her head isn't on straight? And evidence for her woo still is nowhere to be seen. Here's a hint woomistress of the O-verse: Your opinion isn't evidence. Try third party material, preferably from good academic sources. Until you can back up your vacuous opinions with evidence, you have nothing.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 8, 2010 11:28 PM
myama:
You seem to be in love with word salad a la Oprah more than you are with any type of thought. You seem to have bought right into the whole "ooh, male and female brains are different!" garbage. Perhaps if you weren't so busy soaking in that puddle of Oprahesque "expertise" you'd be able to think properly.
Every single one of your posts has come down to "you meanies are demonizing Oprah, waaaaah!" You haven't once shed the silliness, the unending word salad or the nonsensical rhetoric to address what people have said.
Oprah has one interest - herself. She does not care about endorsing or promoting things which are actually harmful, any more than she cares about setting up fake doctors ("Dr." Phil, etc.) as long as it nets her money and attention.
Promoting harm is not empowering. Promoting ignorance is not empowering. Promoting the spread of stupidity is not empowering.
People who are in the habit of spreading such things, various types of woo, alt-med, and so forth come in for harsh treatment here. Oprah is far from the only one. There's a nifty little search box at the top left of the page - check for yourself.
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
September 8, 2010 11:35 PM
myama:
It's gotta sting to be stuck in The Octagon&trade with people that are smarter and better read than you are. I would feel bad about you, except you're just digging yourself a bigger and bigger hole.
What is your stake in this? I mean, there's entertainment* out there that I love to pieces, but I'm not willing to get into a day-long internet argument over it if someone disagrees. You're in crazy-town now, my friend.
*Calling Oprah/her empire "entertainment" is being generous, I know.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 8, 2010 11:39 PM
No, I admire bell hooks (who, by the way, does not capitalize her name) because she is an actual black feminist who writes about the ways in which race, class, and sex interact in shaping or stunting actual people. Oprah promotes a fairy tale fantasy that is as realistic for many of her audience as Snow White is for my daughter. She did not crash the glass ceiling, she slipped through a tiny pore in the glass and left the ceiling pretty much unchanged. Her advice is vague to the point of uselessness. If you'd like to disprove this assertion, please explain to me exactly how I can use Oprah's example to become a famous geneticist. Famous is important, apparently, because it's one of the criteria that makes Oprah so totally special.
Hero worship is an ugly thing.
Posted by: Gaebolga
|
September 8, 2010 11:45 PM
Okay, I'll bite: how exactly would one go about running such a study?
Are the control group given a string of random letters and told it is The Secret?
Dumbass.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 8, 2010 11:48 PM
ODS, MoD:
Seriously. It's like if someone said "Aaron Spelling's idea of a good television show is three pairs of big breasts attached to 20something year olds" and someone like myama breezed in to argue that Spelling is really very literate and intellectual and doesn't care about breastses at all! Eeesh. Mattir's right, hero worship is ugly. With amazing brain rotting power.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 8, 2010 11:56 PM
myama:
You're the Oprah/Secret pusher here. Care to cite any double blind placebo controlled experiments proving that reading The Secret makes one's IQ increase or has any positive effect at all?
Or does that sound incredibly silly?
How about the Law of Attraction, which The Secret claims is really, really true, the universe is just waiting to hug you, love you and grant all your wishes! Really!
How about more than just a suggestion* that there is such a thing and it works? Seems to me it works as well as homeopathy.
*suggestion: that overwhelming whiff of scam in the air.
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
September 8, 2010 11:58 PM
Caine:
Somehow I think that argument would be more tolerable than this clusterfuck.
At the very least, myama needs to learn that Oprah is first and foremost an entertainer. One with huge influence and vast wealth, sure, but not someone who should be any type of role model.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 9, 2010 12:03 AM
ODS:
QFT.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
September 9, 2010 12:15 AM
Caine wrote:
Or possibly scamola!
</TheSimpsons>
Posted by: MrFire
|
September 9, 2010 12:21 AM
You brought in the issue of race from completely out of the fucking blue, practically the first chance you got, even though no-one had implied any desire to take it in that direction. Here you are, still doing it 200 posts later.
Reality-based thinking would be infinitely more positive. And productive.
That at least one of them was wrong.
If you must insist on that false dichotomy.
Strawman, since the former most certainly does not necessarily imply the latter.
I'd be interested to read that study, and how in the living fuck Stonewall doesn't feature in that.
Bonus points for the casually bigoted implication that gays are tied up with 'trashy talk shows'.
Yeah, who the fuck is Simone de Beauvoir anyway?
OMFG you have got to be kidding me. Your delusions are off the fucking scale.
Something positive, as in, making one person obscenely wealthy while making a thousand other people, that you conveniently forgot to include in your equation, dirt-poor? Sure.
No, just the sneaking suspicion that you are being disingenuous with your examples.
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
September 9, 2010 12:54 AM
Myama: you're an idiot.
I have some cheesy noodles to attend to before bed.
Posted by: Chgo_Liz
|
September 9, 2010 1:00 AM
Can I go back to basics here?
Miasma - I mean, myama - are you laboring under the assumption that the posters here are all white, male and American?
Your pathetic arguments are all fruit from a poisoned tree.
Posted by: myama
|
September 9, 2010 1:06 AM
You seem to have bought right into the whole "ooh, male and female brains are different!" garbage. Perhaps if you weren't so busy soaking in that puddle of Oprahesque "expertise" you'd be able to think properly.”
You don’t think there are differences between the brains of men and women? A professor of psychiatry at Harvard medical school begs to differ:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Health/story?id=424260&page=1
Promoting harm is not empowering. Promoting ignorance is not empowering. Promoting the spread of stupidity is not empowering.
Simply asserting that something is harmful, ignorant, or stupid does not make it so.
It's gotta sting to be stuck in The Octagon&trade with people that are smarter and better read than you are.
You guys are so smart and well read that you can’t refute a single point I’ve made despite outnumbering me by orders of magnititude and I’m the only one who can provide facts and empirical research to support my arguments while all you guys can do is rant insanely about how “The Secret”and whatever you assert to be “woo” will lead to the end of civilization.
No, I admire bell hooks (who, by the way, does not capitalize her name) because she is an actual black feminist who writes about the ways in which race, class, and sex interact in shaping or stunting actual people. Oprah promotes a fairy tale fantasy that is as realistic for many of her audience as Snow White is for my daughter. She did not crash the glass ceiling, she slipped through a tiny pore in the glass and left the ceiling pretty much unchanged.
She made herself a black woman billionaire and helped a black man become president and a black woman become first lady. How is that an unchanged glass ceiling?
Her advice is vague to the point of uselessness. If you'd like to disprove this assertion, please explain to me exactly how I can use Oprah's example to become a famous geneticist.
Can bell hooks make you a famous geneticist? And I’m not even arguing that Oprah’s advice is of significant pragmatic value to most individuals, only that her overall influence on the world has been positive, but then that’s subjective so you’re free to disagree; but those who claims that her promotion of the Secret is harmful really should back that up or simply admit that it’s only their opinion especially since actual empirical research proves the benefits of an empowered belief system.
You're the Oprah/Secret pusher here. Care to cite any double blind placebo controlled experiments proving that reading The Secret makes one's IQ increase or has any positive effect at all?
No, you guys the ones who are claiming it’s intellectual poison. You’re the ones making accusation of harm so the onus is on you guys to defend your smears. I already did show a study proving that internal locus of control has benefits.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
September 9, 2010 1:10 AM
This Secret Oprah Troll is one of the best chew toys to have shown up in a long time. Dozens of pelts are going to be extra sniny. I was laughing out loud on the train while reading parts of this.
Who knew that Oprah has achieved the king making power that the first Richard Daily had? Who knew that Oprah was such a stickler for scientific accuracy?
That reminds me, please go back to your first point. The one where you claimed that O is more scientific than what Hall could handle. You never backed it up. Please get on it. After that, we can revisit every other baseless claim you have made.
If no hair was out of place, it must either be Jack Lord's hair or one of Devo's wigs.
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
September 9, 2010 1:15 AM
Janine! Fake Wife O'Mine, how you durring, honey?
Girl, I know what you mean. This one is gonna get so chewed, and chewed. . . .
Posted by: Chgo_Liz
|
September 9, 2010 1:15 AM
OK, I've read further (glass or two or three of red wine in hand...this has been an entertaining evening of posts!).
Miasma, are you seriously claiming that Obama won the election because of Oprah's stamp of approval?
You know nothing about the Obamas, or politics, to claim that.
Oprah made a big deal about backing him once it was obvious that there was a ground swell of voters already in place.
And (while he is new to DC, which has its difficulties), Obama had been working on his political career for a while. He seized the moment...as did Oprah.
Here's a hint: HE's not riding HER coat-tails.
Posted by: desertfroglet
|
September 9, 2010 1:26 AM
If you can bear with me for a moment while I ask Igor to fetch a 'hyper-male overly scientific literal borderline autistic' brain to help my hyper-female etc etc brain ...
Ah, here it comes.
Thanks, Igor
Myama, Rhonda Byrna is the author of The Secret. She's an Australian woman. Yet you keep harping on the importance of Oprah in this and do not acknowledge the originator of the idea. Why do you hate Australian women so much?
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
September 9, 2010 1:30 AM
myamyamya wrote:
Well, this much I agree with 100%. No-one's refuted a point you've made; they have, however, done a great deal to demonstrate that you've failed to make any.
Sucks to be you.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
September 9, 2010 1:33 AM
Helen Keller Fan Girl! Sweet fake hubby of mine! I am a bit tired and ready for sleep. But I had to finish catching up with this thread. I feel bad that I missed out on the time of great activity. And Sastra was simply smashing today. (Not to denigrate the other regulars.)
I do hope this Secret Oprah Troll sticks around. So many fangs needs to be sharpened and so many pelts are not sniny enough.
Posted by: Kamaka
|
September 9, 2010 1:37 AM
I've been following your foolish comments all day. You are not doing quite as well in the debate here as you think you are.
Your points have all been refuted, you have provided assertions, not facts, the empirical research you cited does not support your argument, and the criticisms of "The Secret" aren't rants, they are quite reasonable.
"Winning" the debate is all in your mind, a mind rotted by watching too much television.
Give your television away, read some books, (about a thousand of them) and then, perhaps, you will be able to engage in debates with intelligent adults.
Here's your first reading assignment:
"Philosophical Explanations" by Robert Nozick
It's way over your head. I doubt you can get through it, but trying to read it may help sweep some of the rubbish out of your mind.
Posted by: Autumn
|
September 9, 2010 2:07 AM
Well, If Oprah really had the media influence to "crash the glass ceiling" by endorsing Obama, thus bringing equality to every race and gender on America, did FoxNews use the secret to bring utter, ruinous fucktards into office?
Don't black women have only themselves to blame for not visualizing non-racist, non-sexist fucktards hard enough?
Why is myama not out-visualizing the anti-Oprahites?
It's scientifically proven that she can defeat them with her thoughts.
Posted by: Autumn
|
September 9, 2010 2:09 AM
Oh shit, responding to myself, I forgot that she would need to have an actual thought.
I apologize.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
September 9, 2010 2:14 AM
myama (#224)
An internal locus of control is not necessarily a positive mode of thought. One might feel negatively towards the idea of holding oneself responsible for the events in one's life. Say, for instance, that you're a doctor whose last few patients had a bad outcome after you treated them. Is it really positive thinking to blame yourself for those outcomes? Or suppose, as I mentioned before, you're a student who recognizes that your effort will be a significant factor in whether you succeed in school. Rather than framing this optimistically, you could choose to deter yourself from slacking by punishing yourself for failure.
Nor is an internal locus of control inherently good. Building it could be beneficial, but only to the extent that control actually exists. Since everything is under your control according to the Secret, it's exactly that belief in a universal level of control that you need to show is beneficial in order to defend the concept.
So no, an internal locus of control does not necessitate positive thinking. Nor can you claim a study about an appropriate application of beliefs in one's control over one's success has anything to say about inappropriate beliefs in one's control over one's success, whether that's the Secret or "positive thinking" in general.
What's more positive? Succeeding moderately but consistently because you have a realistic understanding of what you have control over and work hard within your limitations while not beating yourself up over misfortune you couldn't reasonably prevent. Or, better yet, using your success to help tear down the obstacles faced by people not so lucky as yourself so they don't have to work twice (or ten times) as hard for the same level of success you enjoy.
Clearly no such thing. You're still misrepresenting how Byrne claims the Secret works. Why is it so hard for you to read RBDC's post at #62 and form an argument based on Byrne's actual claims? Either that, or admit you don't know what the Secret is and give up trying to defend it.
"Positive thinking" is the opposite of doing something. If Oprah worked hard for what she has and then claims she just thought happy thoughts to get where she is, she's lying. She's using her position of wealth and influence to encourage women to try something unproductive at best and that could kill them at worst (if they try to wish their cancer away instead of getting treated, for instance).
I didn't do that. In fact, I explicitly said there were certainly "other factors to her success than just hard work." Try using an argument based on what I am saying.
Not if you have realistic expectations over what can and cannot be achieved through hard work. (Here's more evidence you don't understand the locus of control thing. You're trying to link an internal locus of control to victim blaming here, while promoting it as positive thinking above. Which is it?)
Positive thinking, on the other hand, always assumes that failure is the fault of the thinker. It's inherently victim-blaming. It doesn't matter if you didn't know the proper magical happy thought incantations yet. Your lack of success still comes from your failure to think the right things, rather than stemming from circumstances beyond your control--circumstances that could perhaps be altered by others if they were acknowledged.
Oh, and as someone who suffers from clinical depression, let me tell you that it's not something beyond my control. It's a handicap I have many ways of dealing with, none of which owe anything to magical thinking. So fuck you and your idiot's level comprehension of mental illness.
(#242)
If you still don't realize how that study doesn't support anything you've been saying, you're egregiously and unreachably stupid.
Posted by: ambulocetacean
|
September 9, 2010 2:20 AM
Myama, I don't think anybody here has an irrational hatred of Oprah, much less a problem with her being black and/or a woman.
I think we know all know that she has done a lot of good in a lot of different areas. But her good works don't make her immune from criticism for her bad ones.
Sending poor South African girls to school: Good.
Helping Jenny McCarthy frighten people away from vaccinating their children: Bad.
See? A boquet for the school thing, a brickbat for the lethally irresponsible anti-vaccine thing.
Unfortunately, Oprah sits happily at the centre of a web of stupidity and woo that she has woven herself.
She gives reiki clown Dr Oz a show. Dr Oz uses the show to promote that notorious quack Joseph Mercola, who has spread the idea that all cancers are a type of fungus that can be cured with baking soda.
Oprah popularises Christiane "Timidity causes Thyroid Problems" Northrup. Oprah popularises Somers, McCarthy, The Secret.
Snake-oil sellers and deluded cranks flock to Oprah like flies to a turd because they know she will make them millions. She has zero powers of discrimination so she promotes them all indiscriminately.
It's tragic that she is doing so much ill when she wants to be doing only good, but there it is.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
September 9, 2010 2:20 AM
This has been nagging at me in the short time I have tried to sleep. Secret Oprah Troll, thank you for degrading the efforts of LGBT people by claiming that Oprah was the best thing to happen for their acceptance in mainstream society.
Yeah, that meant more than the gay community organizing in the eye of the AIDS epidemic. That meant more than the lesbian community organizing when it was insulted and/or ignored by the gay and the straight feminist community.
SOT, you are an ignorant and condescending assclam.
Posted by: circleh
|
September 9, 2010 2:51 AM
Perhaps myama somehow thinks that Oprah is an infallible prophet of God who should forever be held above criticism.
Such an attitude is arrogance, idiocy, and not worth dealing with. Fuck her!
Posted by: myama
|
September 9, 2010 3:21 AM
Miasma, are you seriously claiming that Obama won the election because of Oprah's stamp of approval?
First you guys claims that Oprah is so vastly powerful that she must be severely criticised for associating herself in anyway with promoters of pseudoscience, even if she never explicitly endorses it or even mentions it, because just being connected to her is enough to start a massive trend. But then when Oprah not only explicitly endorses but actively campaigns for something positive (i.e. Obama) suddenly you assert that she has no influence at all and her endorsements are irrelevant. The lack of intellectual consistency is noted.
And Obama won the election for a wide variety of reasons not least of which was his own brilliant campaigning, but an excellent study by two economists at the University of Maryland proved he would have lost the democratic primary to Hillary in a million vote landslide had it not been for Oprah’s endorsement and Obama’s chief campaign manager David Plouffe credits Oprah with playing an especially crucial role in delivering the black female vote right before the South Carolina primary and for being especially useful in the all important Iowa victory that changed the trajectory of the race.
Oprah made a big deal about backing him once it was obvious that there was a ground swell of voters already in place.
Oprah made a big deal out of campaigning for him even while he was still trailing Hillary by double digits in the polls and even losing to Hillary among blacks and she endorsed him at a time when he had very little high profile support and the pundits were all calling Hillary inevitable and constantly praising her ability to win every single debate. It was only after he announced that Oprah would be campaigning for him in critical early states that the media narrative began to change in his favour and he achieved his largest campaign crowds of 2007. In addition she enthusiastically promoted his book on her show months earlier and publicly asked him to run for president.
Oprah was most certainly not riding Obama’s coat-tails. Just the opposite, she sacrificed part of her popularity, especially among Hillary and Sarah Palin fans, by choosing Obama over the most admired white women in America (as measured by Gallup).
Posted by: sasully60
|
September 9, 2010 3:22 AM
Isn't funny that myama derides supposedly 'male' modes of rational/scientific thinking, yet repeatedly cites scientific work to try to bolster her argument?
That the once cite I've checked doesn't actually support myama's argument the way myama claims, makes it all the more amusing.
Posted by: sasully60
|
September 9, 2010 3:29 AM
And btw, this woman scientist looked at the literature and concluded the popular 'male/female' physiological brain dichotomy has grossly oversimplified and exaggerated. She's even written her own book about it.
Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference by Cordelia Fine
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/books/product.aspx?r=1&isbn=9780393068382&itm=1&usri=delusions+of+gender&afsrc=1
Interview here:
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2010/09/07/sexism_neuroscience_interview/
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 9, 2010 3:31 AM
First you guys claims that Oprah is so vastly powerful that she must be severely criticised for associating herself in anyway with promoters of pseudoscience
wrong, we're equal opportunity haters of pseudoscience, no matter who is pushing it.
suddenly you assert that she has no influence at all and her endorsements are irrelevant
because of course, your two strawmen are equatable...
but an excellent study by two economists at the University of Maryland proved he would have lost the democratic primary to Hillary in a million vote landslide had it not been for Oprah’s endorsement
NOW I'm laughing at you.
as to whether Oprah endorses woo...
i just have two words to say:
The
Secret
take a hike, fangirl.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
September 9, 2010 3:49 AM
Ichthyic wrote:
Do you think if we provided directions to the nearest decaying porcupine she'd take the hint?
Posted by: myama
|
September 9, 2010 3:50 AM
This has been nagging at me in the short time I have tried to sleep. Secret Oprah Troll, thank you for degrading the efforts of LGBT people by claiming that Oprah was the best thing to happen for their acceptance in mainstream society.
I sincerely apologize. I did not mean to degrade the efforts of LGBT people. I was trying to describe the research by a brilliant gay Yale sociologist named Joshua Gamson who concluded that the socalled trashy talk shows (as they were called by the elitist media)of the late 20th century, pioneered by Donahue, but turned into a huge industry by the success of Oprah, and later taken to extremes by Springer, played an instrumental role in bringing gays ino the mainstream.
Of course Oprah alone does not deserve the credit; indeed Gamson credits Donahue as the father of gay media visibility. But more importanttly, these talk shows were not really trying to help gays, it just so happened that gays made good TV so these shows provided the forum, so it is the gays themselves who deserve the credit for organizing to get themselves on the shows, being entertaining enough to become regular guests, and then using the exposure to advance the gay cause.
And as you very intelligently point out, there were extremely important developments in the mainstreaming of gays that had nothing to do with television. Thank you for taking the time to correct me.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 9, 2010 3:57 AM
I sincerely apologize.
nobody cares.
just go.
Posted by: sasully60
|
September 9, 2010 3:58 AM
Oprah's endorsement certainly did *boost* Obama's numbers significantly, though it would foolish to claim he 'rode her coattails'; he was *already* shooting up in the ranks of candidates.
(Btw, was Garthwaite & Moore's 'excellent' 2008 paper on the Oprah Effect that myama refers to ever actually published in a peer-reviewed journal? I can't find a cite, though I can find a PDF of the paper on Dr. Garthwaite's umaryland website.)
Incidentally, one wonders, is Oprah going to help the Democrats along this November? They sure could use it. Or are her 'powers' only deployed in politics when something already has a foundation of positive hype? She seems a person who flits from cause to cause and enthusiasm to enthusiasm; she 'cooled' on 'The Secret' after people started criticizing its more idiotic claims.
Not exactly a deep thinker, our Oprah. But a canny entertainer and businesswoman.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
September 9, 2010 4:00 AM
myama (#256)
The supposed lack of consistency on anyone else's part is a figment of your relentless strawmanning, nothing more.
We should be the ones demanding you explain the critical difference in the way Oprah promotes various ideas on her show such that she could endorse Obama to the point where he owes her his presidency, yet not be responsible for encouraging her audience to embrace victim blaming and vaccine denialism by giving so much attention to the Secret and Jenny McCarthy.
Posted by: nejishiki
|
September 9, 2010 4:00 AM
myama, #129
from http://luna.cas.usf.edu/~mbrannic/files/regression/Pathan.htmlGot yer 'path analysis' right here. Yeah, you're a scientist all right...
Now, write on the board 100 times,
CORRELATION IS STILL NOT CAUSATION
Posted by: myama
|
September 9, 2010 4:11 AM
Oprah popularises Christiane "Timidity causes Thyroid Problems" Northrup. Oprah popularises Somers, McCarthy, The Secret.
All three were already popular before they were on Oprah and that's why they were on Oprah. Oprah provides a forum to discuss all relevant ideas and Oprah simply providing someone with a forum is not an endorsement anymore than PZ Myers is endorsing me by providing me with this forum.
Oprah is no more responsible for everything her guests believe than PZ Myers is responsible for what I believe. Just because you feel a particular idea is dangerous does not mean people should not be invited on TV to express sincerely held views. There is such a thing as a free press. In the 30 seconds that McCarthy mentioned her vaccine views, Oprah was quick to read a disclaimer contradicting said views and McCarthy has expressed the same views far more explicitly on the Today Show, Larry King, the View etc.
Now if Oprah gives her a show and she uses that show to promote those views, then I would agree that Oprah deserves blame for any misinformation she spreads, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen.
As for Somers, she was on Oprah only once. Virtually every American celeb has been on Oprah at least once.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
September 9, 2010 4:29 AM
I think there's probably a few differences. For one, does Oprah let her woo-crazed loon guests get used as chew-toys for amusement purposes, or does she present them as people holding valid opinions?
So, it isn't actual validity of a claim that's important, it's sincerity? Yeah, that sounds sensible.
Posted by: myama
|
September 9, 2010 4:36 AM
We should be the ones demanding you explain the critical difference in the way Oprah promotes various ideas on her show such that she could endorse Obama to the point where he owes her his presidency, yet not be responsible for encouraging her audience to embrace victim blaming and vaccine denialism by giving so much attention to the Secret and Jenny McCarthy.
Because she actually endorsed Obama for president in an extremely close Democratic primary where even the smallest edge was decisive; she never endorsed McCarthy's vaccine views, she simply had her on the show to discuss being the mother of an autistic child, and vaccines were only mentioned in the last 30 seconds with a disclaimer read for balance. And she certainly endorsed The Secret (though the book was already a best seller) but to equate the Secret with victim blaming is not rational, because by that logic, advocates of any form of self-help (exercise, hard work, healthy eating) are blaming victims.
Posted by: myama
|
September 9, 2010 4:41 AM
just go.
To bug people like you I stay. Because there are many people like you who want me to leave, me stay.
Posted by: Peapoh
|
September 9, 2010 4:55 AM
"And she certainly endorsed The Secret (though the book was already a best seller) but to equate the Secret with victim blaming is not rational, because by that logic, advocates of any form of self-help (exercise, hard work, healthy eating) are blaming victims."
It depends on the premise of the self help book. They are clearly not all created equal. Especially The Secret. That "logic" you're accusing people of is being misapplied.
It's been rehashed and gone over but the secret promotes that positive thoughts going out into the "universe" become things and negative thoughts in turn have a negative impact on our daily lives. This is by definition victim blaming. If one doesn't quite get what they want, etc. it's because of a negative thought or one wasn't being positive enough.
It's absurd. And not comparable to exercise/hard work/healthy eating. Those are all clear factors that may stifle a goal. Not because one wasn't wishing hard enough or being a dour dora.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
September 9, 2010 5:00 AM
Oh, don't be so sure. Plenty of us want you to stay because you're presenting us with bucketloads of exactly the kind of woo-soaked loonery we love to take the utter piss out of.
In other words, we love people who can't dig up!
Posted by: ambulocetacean
|
September 9, 2010 5:01 AM
So? Oprah made them much more popular. Oprah made her audience much more likely to waste their money and risk their health on that bullshit.
Providing a forum for someone with no medical knowledge to spout dangerous lies about vaccines is the height of irresponsibility. If you don't immediately smack her down by saying "Miss McCarthy, you are full of shit" that's endorsing it.
Lose the 30 seconds thing. There is the radio time, the website stuff, the TV deal that eventually (and mercifully) fell through.
That weaselly disclaimer doesn't balance anything. Since 99.999 per cent of people who know anything about vaccines agree that Jenny McCarthy is full of shit, to provide proper balance, Oprah would have to give 99,999 doctors and scientists 30 seconds each to explain why McCarthy is talking dangerous nonsense.
Well then those shows are a fucking disgrace too. Nobody said it was just Oprah.
Posted by: Truckle
|
September 9, 2010 5:02 AM
Actually Ichthyic is probably in the minority, especially amongst the lurkers here like myself who are really enjoying watching you flail around from one fallacy to the next in your attempts to protect your own particular sacred cow.
Its a great example to all of us to remember to seriously analyse our positions and our arguments before developing opinions because when you come here and espouse them, you better be able to back it up with reason and evidence, something im afraid your anecdata just hasn't done.
The few attempts to site sources were nothing more than the occasional appeal to authority (ironically of scientists who you have also attempted to claim you know more than)
You are a shining example of the game us pharyngulite lurkers love to call: Name that Phallusy [sic]
Posted by: Andyo
|
September 9, 2010 5:04 AM
Damn it. An Oprah troll in an Oprah thread and I miss it... now to read 270 comments. Gotta give it to her (him?) though, s/he stayed right through the whole thread. Doesn't happen often with creotards or catholics anymore.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
September 9, 2010 5:17 AM
It's only victim blaming if it fails to accurately denote the extent of control that practicing the method grants. If I was to advocate healthy eating while claiming that it gives a 100% guarantee against ever falling ill, that would be potential victim blaming.The victim can only be blamed to the extent he or she had control of the situation. This is the crux: does the particular self-help method correctly estimate the amount of control each of us has? It is incorrect to group together all self-help methods that lay some responsibility on the practitioner, because the the relevant question is "how much responsibility?", and the answer to that varies.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
September 9, 2010 5:27 AM
Oh no, do stay. The pharyngulistas' coats and teeth are becoming dull to due to a lack of chew toys. Your grandstanding and smugness will be an excellent play thing.
Posted by: myama
|
September 9, 2010 5:28 AM
It's been rehashed and gone over but the secret promotes that positive thoughts going out into the "universe" become things and negative thoughts in turn have a negative impact on our daily lives. This is by definition victim blaming. If one doesn't quite get what they want, etc. it's because of a negative thought or one wasn't being positive enough.
And as I explained, by that logic, advocates of healthy eating are blaming the victim. Good food we put into our body and creates health and bad food we put into our body and creates sickness. Conceptually there's no difference. Both philosophies are claiming that the individual caused the outcome they experience so it's hypocritical and incoherent to argue that one is blaming the victim and the other is not.
Posted by: John Morales
|
September 9, 2010 5:43 AM
myama, you're a welcome chew-toy.
You can't tell the difference between wishes and deeds.
Hint: it's a bit like "words vs. sticks and stones".
Posted by: myama
|
September 9, 2010 5:47 AM
Providing a forum for someone with no medical knowledge to spout dangerous lies about vaccines is the height of irresponsibility.
But at the time, McCarthy's views had much wider acceptance and she was not considered the fringe figure she is today. She was a frequent guest on mainstream shows and a hero to many mothers with autism. Even today, there are people who have studied the issue and agree with McCarthy:
http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=10&SubSectionID=10&ArticleID=11369
Has this article been discussed/debunked here?
Posted by: Truckle
|
September 9, 2010 5:47 AM
Logic fail by false equivalency, as has been explained to you already...
Healthy eating is something that has erm whats the word... EVIDENCE that "healthy" eating keeps people "healthier" and eating "bad" food creates "sickness" (im using the scare quotes as the words you are using aren't particularly accurate, but lets just go with it for now)
The Secret however has no evidence backing up its claims, despite your many anecdotes, the evidence in the preponderance of peer reviewed literature as a whole suggests there is no support for its claims.
Also its a poor analogy due to contol of the factors again, with "healthy eating" quite often being more expensive to un-healthier alternatives, leading to the choice to eat healthily being dictated by other factors outside a simple yes/no choice, peoples financial situations may affect the quality of the food they are able to afford.
Also we have issues over the actual education and information available over what is healthy and what is not healthy. A large portion of the population being unaware of the hazards of what they eat, and the reccommended daily amounts of vitamins and minerals that should be consumed, so its again, is not a straight choice, yes or no.
Were it to come down to a straight choice with food being free and people simply choosing the unhealthy over the healthy alternative with all of the facts and consequences of eating each item of food fully explained and understood by the poplace, then sure, its the persons own fault for eating the unhealthy choice. The world isn't so clear cut, hence why your logic fails.
Most healthy eating advocates are trying to educate people on the facts of what is healthy and un-healthy, advocates of "thinking happy thoughts and the universe will give you a cookie" are lying.
Posted by: myama
|
September 9, 2010 5:55 AM
You can't tell the difference between wishes and deeds.
Regardless of whether you are saying a person's thoughts or deeds caused something, you are still holding the person responsible for the outcome he experiences.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
September 9, 2010 5:59 AM
Truckle wrote:
Oh, myama's already made it clear that things like 'facts' and 'evidence' aren't anywhere near as important as the sincerity of the person making the claim.
That's how you know something's true or not; everything else is just what, according to her at least, the hyper-male overly scientific literal borderline autistic mind can't comprehend.
Posted by: John Morales
|
September 9, 2010 6:05 AM
myama:
No. Thoughts cause deeds, deeds cause effects.
"Sticks and stones will break your bones, but words will never hurt you."
Your advocacy of the concept of thought-crime is noted, however.
Posted by: myama
|
September 9, 2010 6:09 AM
The Secret however has no evidence backing up its claims, despite your many anecdotes, the evidence in the preponderance of peer reviewed literature as a whole suggests there is no support for its claims.
I haven't provided any anecdotes. I provided a study concluding that internal locus of control (i.e. believing that you can get what you wish for) causes success. IF you have a cite showing that the preponderance of peer reviewed literature says internal locus of control has no benefit, please provide it.
As for your claim that people don't know what food is unhealthy; I think such people are a pretty small minority among the adult U.S. population. And the same argument could be made much more correctly about THE SECRET. Most people don't know (including many scientists apparently) about the benefits of empowering belief systems so they can't be blamed.
Posted by: John Morales
|
September 9, 2010 6:19 AM
myama, no amount of interpretation changes the fact that believing that you can get what you wish for may work when what you wish for is what you can get, but not otherwise. ;)
(Apparently, hardly anyone wishes to win the lottery, or to become President.)
Posted by: lykex
|
September 9, 2010 6:27 AM
When comparing the statements "thinking bad thoughts will result in you getting mugged" and "eating too much will result in you getting fat" is the fact that we can show a causal chain in the latter case relevant to the matter at all?
In your opinion, is that important?
Please explain how you get from that to "you get what you wish for simply by wishing for it".
It's not too surprising that people who think they can get a job are hired more often than people who think they aren't going to get it, so why bother applying.
However, I see no reason why the explanation needs to involve magic.
Posted by: ambulocetacean
|
September 9, 2010 6:29 AM
Myama, are you an anti-vaccination kook yourself?
You describe McCarthy as a fringe figure but then link to some pathetic dollop of anti-vax propaganda. I'm confused.
Bullshit. Her stupid fucking child-killing lies gained much greater acceptance - not just in the US but around the world - precisely because Oprah gave her the platform from which to spew them.
Posted by: myama
|
September 9, 2010 6:32 AM
myama, no amount of interpretation changes the fact that believing that you can get what you wish for may work when what you wish for is what you can get, but not otherwise. ;)
And no amount of healthy eating (or exercise) will turn a 300 lb couch potato into a world class athlete, but that doesn't mean healhy life styles should not be advocated.
Posted by: John Morales
|
September 9, 2010 6:41 AM
myama:
Yes, it will, in most cases. It will take several years, but it's doable.
You overestimate the power of intention, and underestimate that of correct action.
Your perspective is skewed.
Posted by: Andyo
|
September 9, 2010 6:43 AM
Shit, and now troll is defending The fucking Secret?! Hold on, gotta get my popcorn.
Posted by: Truckle
|
September 9, 2010 6:52 AM
Oh Really?
The opinion of one scientist reported on a news station is now scientific consensus? I missed that memo...
Erm, no im not falling for that bait and switch. I said that the Secret has no evidence. It claims that if you think really hard that the universe gives you a cookie, and if you dont think hard enough (and buy my book) the universe will shit on your head, and you bring that upon yourself. There is definitely a difference, which is what we have been trying to explain to you.
The Secret claims this is 100% effective, and that if you think hard enough the universe will obey your every whim. This is the harmful assertions it makes. The universe is a harsh mistress, it cares not what you or I think, ask the people in Pakistan, I bet there were plenty of people wishing really hard to succeed, but the secret didn't seem to help them.
There is research seeming to suggest that thinking positively does improve outcomes in recovering from illness or improving mental states, however thats not what I said.
Nice try though.
Posted by: Andyo
|
September 9, 2010 6:53 AM
This is all the refutation The Secret needs. Sometimes I feel for the Scientologists cause they get all this nonstop ridicule about their ridiculous beliefs, while many of the same people take shit like The Secret seriously.
I was talking to my catholic younger cousin not long ago, who I was told was gonna become a priest, and he made a snark about some cult here (US) that believes in aliens and such. "Yeah, there's all kinds of crazy. There's another one who believes that some guy resurrected 2000 years ago..."
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 9, 2010 6:56 AM
You do understand that Oprah is not the press, right??? Her show is not a news show. Her show is a showcase for whatever strikes her fancy. And to call antivax and other pseudoscience "relevant" is ridiculous. Your claim is actually that she doesn't care how dangerous an idea is, she'll still invite someone with it on just for the ratings because they're popular?
Posted by: Orange Utan, Librarian of Death
|
September 9, 2010 6:57 AM
@myama
A 30 second "disclaimer" after however many minutes of Jenny McCarthy.
This must be a new meaning of balance I hadn't hitherto known of.
Posted by: myama
|
September 9, 2010 6:58 AM
Myama, are you an anti-vaccination kook yourself?
No. I haven't conducted the studies so I'm inclined to believe the scientific consensus. And even if vaccines do harm in rare cases, they still seem to do far more good.
Bullshit. Her stupid fucking child-killing lies gained much greater acceptance - not just in the US but around the world - precisely because Oprah gave her the platform from which to spew them.
I find it hard to believe you guys are so passionate about protecting the children of McCarthy/Oprah fans given your disdain for both women and their fans. If anything I suspect that some of you guys would be happy to see our genes removed from the species and consider it a Darwinian victory. So what's the real reason you guys so threatened by McCarthy? Are you worried that if McCarthy's views are accepted, many of you (or doctors in the family) might be at risk for law suits you don't deserve? That's a perfectly legitimate fear.
As for McCarthy's lies gaining more acceptance because of her 30 second comment on Oprah and an article explaining who she is on Oprah's web page, there's no evidence of any precipitous decline in vaccine rates following the show nor is there evidence of a negative correlation between that show's ratings (in different regions) and vaccine rates. If anything McCarthy has become something of a pariah since that show aired.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 9, 2010 7:03 AM
Ah, it shows its true colors. It IS an antivaxer!
Yes, I feel threatened by McCarthy, because if her views are accepted more children will die, and mine will be at risk for dying because of diseases that would be eradicated if people didn't listen to her.
Posted by: myama
|
September 9, 2010 7:03 AM
A 30 second "disclaimer" after however many minutes of Jenny McCarthy.
It was only in the last 30 seconds that the vaccine issue came up at all. McCarthy spent the show discussing being a mother of an autistic kid and her ideas about how to help them but the vaccine question and disclaimer was saved for the very very end.
Posted by: John Morales
|
September 9, 2010 7:06 AM
myama:
Needlessly sick children is not a desirable outcome.
Are you aware of the concept of herd immunity?
Taking advantage of others to their detriment is selfish.
Posted by: Dania
|
September 9, 2010 7:10 AM
Yes, of course. Because we absolutely want children to suffer because of their parents stupidity. And, obviously, our hyper-male overly scientific literal borderline autistic minds are incapable of empathy.
Do keep digging that hole, myama. Until we can't hear you anymore.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 9, 2010 7:10 AM
Which are also wrong and harmful; she views autistic children as "broken" and less than "normal" people, and advocates "therapies" that are physically dangerous and toxic. But then again your use of "autistic" as an insult earlier indicates you totally agree with her on that subject.
Posted by: Andyo
|
September 9, 2010 7:13 AM
Did you see that PBS special about the antivaxers a while ago? Those moms they interviewed that refused to give their children vaccines but wanted others to so their children won't get the diseases are despicable human beings. I still only see this "problem" as a problem of rich spoiled middle-aged or younger people. Try to sell this antivaccine crap to third world countries and you'll get a swift kick in the throat for being so stupid.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 9, 2010 7:13 AM
Yawn, still not a shred of evidence. Just inane opinions cited over and over. Not getting anywhere myama. We require real scientific evidence. I even gave you a link to Google Scholar so you could actually look up good information. Instead you stay with popular media, which isn't the evidence you need. Still playing your loser hand, and doing a piss poor job of it. But, a good chew toy for the crowd.
Posted by: myama
|
September 9, 2010 7:24 AM
When comparing the statements "thinking bad thoughts will result in you getting mugged" and "eating too much will result in you getting fat" is the fact that we can show a causal chain in the latter case relevant to the matter at all?
Ah, the old let's cherry pick examples so that my philosophy looks rational and the other philosophy looks insane gambit. I can use the same pseudo-logic against you. How about, let's compare "thinking positive might help me pass the job interview" compared with "eating healthy will make me live to be a trillion". Now THE SECRET comes out looking rational and eating healthy sounds psychotic. Funny how that works.
Please explain how you get from that to "you get what you wish for simply by wishing for it".
I think THE SECRET does a poor job explaining the mechanism behind the benefits of positive thinking, but it's still giving helpful (or at least not harmful) advice on how to think.
Posted by: ambulocetacean
|
September 9, 2010 7:28 AM
Ever seen a child with whooping cough? Here's a video. No child should have to suffer that. It's a disgrace that children die like that in Upper Baboonsasshole, Central Africa. There is absolutely no excuse for them to be dying like that in places like Australia and California.
Does that not upset you? Do you think Oprah and McCarthy should get a free pass?
As has been repeatedly pointed out, a good proportion of the posters on this thread are women. Where are the misogynistic comments from male posters?
Many of Oprah's fans are poorly educated and easily led. I don't regard them with contempt; I save my contempt for the people who would happily rob them of their money, their health and their children's lives.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
September 9, 2010 7:29 AM
myama wrote:
There aren't enough cherries in the world to make what you've claimed in this thread seem rational.
Posted by: myama
|
September 9, 2010 7:34 AM
Yawn, still not a shred of evidence
I provided the locus of control study concluding that internal locus (thinking that you have the power to make your wishes come true)causes success. None of the dozens of scientists staying up all night to debunk me can provide a study showing internal locus has no effect, and folks like you just put your head in the sand pretending the evidence doesn't exist much like a creationist refusing to acknowledge evolution.
Posted by: John Morales
|
September 9, 2010 7:35 AM
myama, lauding optimism bias is indeed harmful. Like any bias, it should be something one is aware of and tries to compensate for.
Your advocacy for the embracing of that bias is symptomatic of your ignorance and of your irrationality.
Posted by: lykex
|
September 9, 2010 7:38 AM
Wow, this is really industrial-strength stupid.
Obviously, it's because when we disagree with or dislike someone we don't want their children to suffer.
Do you think every single aspect of a person's behavior is controlled on the genetic level? Do you think environment plays no role? Do you understand why this statement makes you sound incredibly stupid?
What's the real reason you're defending her? Who do you work for? How much is she paying you? See, I can throw out speculative accusations as well. Isn't that a constructive way of arguing.
Except, that's not what The Secret says. It says, as I understand it, that thinking happy thoughts will get you a job, with no other input from you required. Simply wanting it will produce it.
So, your comparison here is invalid, since it doesn't actually relate to the subject being discussed; namely, The Secret.
My original comparison was valid, however, since "thinking bad thoughts will result in you getting mugged" is exactly what The Secret says. It wasn't an attempt to make it look insane. It was a (successful) attempt to describe it honestly.
The fact that you apparently disagree with this part of the concept behind The Secret is irrelevant to my position. That's your problem.
What is, in your opinion, the mechanism behind the benefits of positive thinking?
Posted by: ambulocetacean
|
September 9, 2010 7:43 AM
Myama, if you really love Oprah why do you think it's more important to defend her every last idiocy to the death than it is to tell her where she's fucking up?
If more Oprah fans got wise and called her on the dangerous quackery she promotes there would be a lot less of it and everyone would be better off.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
September 9, 2010 7:46 AM
myama wrote:
Was there an episode of Oprah where someone came on to say that Earth was no longer spherical and that there aren't countries that have different time zones from the USA?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 9, 2010 7:48 AM
I see you haven't gotten any less moronic overnight.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 9, 2010 7:50 AM
Your study didn't say what you think it did. Just using big words doesn't mean its scientific. Still no real scientific evidence supporting your claim. And I should know science. I've been practicing it professionally for 30+ years now. How long have you been practicing it? Real science beats idiocy every day of the week. Try real science. You will learn a lot, including you are a delusional ignorant fool.Posted by: Truckle
|
September 9, 2010 7:51 AM
#306
Good grief you are a dense one arent you? What part of: internal locus =/= The Secret do you not understand?
Yes there are studies showing positive outlooks do seem to show a positive benefit to recovery from illness or attempts at weight loss (although the evidence is hardly ironclad).
What you have consistently failed to understand is that the Secret claims this is 100% effective, and that if shit things happen to you, its YOUR fault for not thinking it hard enough!
This is the harmful aspect of the Secret that you are blatantly refusing to accept, and why the skeptical audience here despises it. Is positive thinking a good thing? Probably. Does it improve your chances? Possibly. Is it 100% effective?
Hell no.
Posted by: triskelethecat
|
September 9, 2010 7:54 AM
To take the Myama person BACK to her original point:
Myama: where is your proof that Dr Hall (who, by the way, is a woman, a retired military officer/flight surgeon, and a physician) couldn't write to Oprah's satisfaction? YOU write a 250 work article, WITH references, on a scientific/medical issue. Dr Hall is not overly wordy when she writes. However, she does try to explain concepts that may not be understood by her readers, which take more than 250 words.
Try actually reading what Dr Hall wrote about her experience, rather than just defending your heroine Oprah. She has a very nice article about the whole thing on Science-Based Medicine (sciencebasedmedicine.org).
After you have finished getting some facts, come on back. I'm enjoying reading the comments from Caine, Janine, RBDC, Josh, etc and imagine they have nice sniny teeth and coats now.
(Oh, by the way: another vagina owner here, and you could NOT pay me enough to watch Oprah these days. She used to recommend some decent books and authors but her taste has gotten much worse, along with her guests, in recent years. As for her being the reason I voted for Obama...WRONG.)
Posted by: ambulocetacean
|
September 9, 2010 8:06 AM
Probably.
Posted by: myama
|
September 9, 2010 8:27 AM
Does that not upset you? Do you think Oprah and McCarthy should get a free pass?
I don't think McCarthy should get a free pass but I don't blame the media for giving her coverage because the public has the right to know what she thinks, though the media does have a responsibility to inform the public that her views are not mainstream science, which Oprah did though she could have gone into more detail about the potential harm of such views. But it was such a brief segment the disclaimer seemed sufficient, but yes, the show could have been done a lot better.
Posted by: ambulocetacean
|
September 9, 2010 8:42 AM
Myama, ah, good. So we're finally getting somewhere. McCarthy at least deserves criticism in your book.
The public has the right not to be so badly misinformed about vaccines that their children catch whooping cough and die.
Like they said in Spiderman, with great power comes great responsibility.
If Oprah wants to talk about life-and-death stuff she has a responsibility to get it right so she doesn't inadvertantly kill people. TV shows shouldn't have body counts.
Larry King shouldn't be let off the hook either. The sooner he retires the better.
Posted by: Gaebolga
|
September 9, 2010 8:47 AM
and
and
Okay, it seems pretty clear to me that myama doesn't actually understand many of the terms she's using. She has some vague idea what they represent within the context of an argument (for example, she apparently thinks "double blind placebo controlled study" represents some form of universal "proof" for something science-y, but doesn't actually understand what such a study is, how it is conducted, or what it can tell us about the thing being studied). Likewise, if she'd actually heard of bell hooks before this thread, I suspect it was only in passing (as she apparently didn't even know enough to know that Mattir wasn't making a gramatical error the first time s/he typed her name, nor appears to know anything about her writings or activism).
And the examples above amply demonstrate that she has no clue at all what "locus of control" means, no matter how many times A. Noyd tries to set her straight (or should I say "gayly forward"?).
She seems to be, in short, a bullshitter (a la Frankfurt, not in the vernacular sense, although I suppose that could be applied as well).
Really? You think that anyone on this forum (besides you and the occasional creotard) thinks that someone should be held responsible for wishing something into existence?
Really?
Well, that seems like another data point in support of my claim that you're simply a bullshitter.
Given your track-record, I doubt you're capable of either apology or sincerity in this context.
Posted by: myama
|
September 9, 2010 8:48 AM
What you have consistently failed to understand is that the Secret claims this is 100% effective, and that if shit things happen to you, its YOUR fault for not thinking it hard enough!
Do you have a citation for it explicitly claiming this or is that just your interpretation? I think if THE SECRET did say that, virtually no one intelligent enough to read it would be dumb enough to believe it, and anyone dumb enough wouldn't need THE SECRET's help to screw up their lives. I think you guys take comfort in the idea that America is a country of morons who need your scientific wisdom to protect them, but the truth is that the average 21st century American is exceptionally educated and research shows they have an exceptionally well nourished well developed brain so you really don't need to worry about them. Even the dumb ones are smart.
Posted by: Truckle
|
September 9, 2010 9:02 AM
#319
Bollocks.
I dont need to "interpret it" It states it.
One example: "17. Thoughts that bring about good feelings mean you are on the right track. Thoughts that bring about bad feelings means you are not on the right track."
As for the rest of your post... umm, really?
Posted by: Gaebolga
|
September 9, 2010 9:04 AM
Please, by all means link ot the study that shows how average Americans are "exceptionally educated" in terms of science (unless of course, you mean exceptionally poorly educated), math, and basic logic.
Please.
Back it up, bullshitter.
Posted by: Gaebolga
|
September 9, 2010 9:09 AM
@ Truckle:
Or how about #23 on the list you linked to:
"23. What you think and what you feel and what actually manifests is ALWAYS a match - no exception."
Posted by: ambulocetacean
|
September 9, 2010 9:12 AM
How many of those "exceptionally educated" Americans believe the world is 6000 years old?
How many of them fall for anti-vaccine scaremongering?
How many of them think Saddam Hussein did 9/11?
How many of them are effectively illiterate?
How many of them fall for homeopathy, naturopathy, reiki or whatever other kind of woo Oprah is selling them on this week?
Having finished high school doesn't necessarily mean you're smart. And being intelligent doesn't mean that you know enough about medicine not to be panicked by vaccine scare stories.
In any case, alt-med snake oil peddlers don't discriminate. They take at least as much money from smart, educated people as they do from dim, uneducated people.
Posted by: Truckle
|
September 9, 2010 9:16 AM
@ Gaebolga
Doh, missed that one... that better illustrates the point exactly.
Perhaps though we are supposed to read this as I keep getting told I should read the bible. See it doesn't MEAN what it actually SAYS, nooo thats too literal an interpretation of the message the author was trying to get across... What the author MEANT is that:
1. Get your internal locus happy...
2. Universe gives you a cookie...
3. Profit!!!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 9, 2010 9:17 AM
Says the person using a computer, on the internet, watching her hero Oprah on a Television, drinking clean water, eating safe food, having electricity pumped into her home, using modern medicine when she needs it, etc..
Posted by: myama
|
September 9, 2010 9:21 AM
I dont need to "interpret it" It states it.
One example: "17. Thoughts that bring about good feelings mean you are on the right track. Thoughts that bring about bad feelings means you are not on the right track."
Sorry but this does not claim that thoughts 100% determine outcomes as you guys claim THE SECRET asserts. I could just as easily read in a diet book "meals that leave you feeling a little hungry mean you are on the right track." This wouldn't imply that diets are 100% effective at achieving any health goal.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 9, 2010 9:22 AM
Dude, why the fuck do you think we're upset by Oprah's gushing review of this piece of shit?
It actually says it. Watch the fucking movie. Read the fucking book. There is no need for citation.
From the website:
Note how this is a claim about the nature of the universe, and not about the power of positive thinking (which is over-rated anyway, and has some problems of its own).
Please, educate yourself about these things if you wish to discuss them. Or is this an ironic demonstration of how well-educated Americans are? (I'm including some Canadians in this, obviously.)
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 9, 2010 9:22 AM
She has the right to say whatever she wants. She doesn't have the right to make other people listen to it.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 9, 2010 9:25 AM
The Law of Attraction does say this.
The Secret uses the Law of Attraction.
Stop it.
Posted by: Dania
|
September 9, 2010 9:25 AM
Well...
Posted by: Gaebolga
|
September 9, 2010 9:29 AM
Okay, so what about #23 on the list Truckle linked to, the one I quoted above:
"23. What you think and what you feel and what actually manifests is ALWAYS a match - no exception."
Dumbass bullshitter.
Slightly off-topic but relating the to the whole "controlled study" thing, I feel the need to link to the latest xkcd.
Posted by: Gaebolga
|
September 9, 2010 9:31 AM
Arrgh!
Gaebolga's html coding = EPIC FAIL!
Posted by: Truckle
|
September 9, 2010 9:32 AM
# 326
Did you even READ that list? Or Gaebolgs example in post # 322?
"23. What you think and what you feel and what actually manifests is ALWAYS a match - no exception."
How can you interpret that ANY other way?
Please I would love to see your contorted logic if you try and rationalize that any other way... I hope you know a good chiropracter if you try...
Posted by: Andyo
|
September 9, 2010 9:37 AM
What the fuck is it with putting "The Secret" in all caps anyway?
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 9, 2010 9:40 AM
This is The Law of Attraction. It is exactly what The Secret preaches. There is even more pseudo-science that goes along with it, in which a terrible interpretation of quantum mechanics gives rise to a power that is exploitable by thought alone.
And Oprah devoted two shows to this.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 9, 2010 9:42 AM
Well, Oprah just loooooves it, so it's worthy of all-caps.
Posted by: gussnarp
|
September 9, 2010 9:43 AM
--checking in to see where this crazy Oprah thread has gone while I've been sleeping--
I love you guys.
Posted by: broboxley OT
|
September 9, 2010 9:45 AM
Mr President, dont you have something better to do? I hear there is some arm twisting needed on the infrastructure funding, so please leave the thread and get back to work.
Posted by: Andyo
|
September 9, 2010 9:46 AM
Ugh, yeah, Oprah sycophants really are annoying.Posted by: Gaebolga
|
September 9, 2010 9:46 AM
@ Truckle Re: #333
I boldly predict she will ignore that, jsut as she ignores any evidence that contradicts her attmepts at bullshitting (or that isn't super easy to convert into a strawman).
Oh, and I call "Shenanigans."
Everybody get your brooms ready....
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 9, 2010 9:52 AM
I'm still waiting for my instructions on how to become a famous geneticist by using The Secret and other Oprah Wisdom Techniques™. I want to do it through my positive thoughts and not through such mundane activities are reading books about genetics. bell hooks would tell me to read the books, study hard, and be aware of systemic barriers to middle-aged females without formal education in biology becoming famous geneticists. The Secret way seems easier than that, plus I'll get a cookie if I think extra well.
Locus of control is actually a fairly subtle concept and overlaps considerably with attributional style. Here is a summary of some of the research on attributional style, locus of control, and academic performance. Basically, one can believe that performance is due to external factors (e.g. the teacher hates me) or internal ones, and one can further believe that internal factors are intrinsic/unchangeable (e.g. I'm stupid or I'm lazy) or under one's control (e.g. I didn't study enough this time, but I can study hard and will next time). People have different locus of control and attributional patterns for success and failure, and these vary, at least in some research, by gender. The problem is that some researchers have reported that female students tend to attribute success to external factors (I was lucky, the teacher likes me) and failure to intrinsic/unchangeable ones (I'm stupid), while male students tend to attribute success to intrinsic factors (I'm smart, I study hard) and failure to external ones (the test wasn't fair). (Note - then normal caveat about bell curves and intra-group versus inter-group comparisons applies in spades to this generalization. Myama won't understand this, but the rest of the Pharyngulistas presumably will...)
It is tremendously maladaptive for people who actually do have the deck stacked against them to adopt locus of control and attributional styles that lead them to assume that failure is due to inherent or personal factors when external factors play a significant, and possibly determining, role in outcome. Acknowledging that the deck may be stacked is painful, but it's not delusional. Continuing to tilt at windmills and believing that positive thoughts will make the universe give you a cookie is.
I would rather live in reality, however painful. Myama's mileage obviously varies.
P.S. I promise to read up on genetics before we get to that part of our homeschool biology class. If I can learn to dissect earthworms, I can learn enough genetics to discuss it coherently with ninth graders. (Plus I have the wonderful Pharyngulista crowd to stomp me if I start yammering on about how positive thoughts can trounce Mendelian genetics. Trust me, the Spawn would rat me out to the PharyngulaHorde pronto.)
Posted by: Truckle
|
September 9, 2010 9:57 AM
#340
Nah, my prediction will be that its been taken out of context, and we have to read the whole book to understand it, thats providing we can with our hyper-male autistic brains...
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 9, 2010 10:11 AM
I read it. It was recommended to (forced upon, actually) me by a relative. It's actually a quick read, as it doesn't have a lot to say.
It really, really, really says the universe wishes us to be happy, and that all we need to do is desire something, and the universe will give it to you.
I'm thinking of writing a self-help book in which solipsism is the key to universal happiness. Once you realize you are the only real entity in existence, life becomes much easier. After all, that only helps your self-esteem, and everyone knows self-esteem is the key to success.
Posted by: Truckle
|
September 9, 2010 10:16 AM
#343 nigel
Well you certainly have a lot stronger stomach lining than I.
I can only imagine my rage at reading such bilge... The only thing worse would be someone standing infront of me and reciting it to me, where I think I would be forced to attempt a lobotomy with the book as my only surgical implement.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
September 9, 2010 10:16 AM
myama,
You're fucking insane.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 9, 2010 10:23 AM
Yeah. The entire time I was reading it, I was trying to figure out how I was going to explain to her what dren* it was. She kept at me, though: "Have you finished it yet? Are you done?"
Fondness for family members can make you do some stupid shit. She's the same reason I read The da Vinci Code.
* Why yes. I am on a Farscape marathon. How'd you guess?
Posted by: gussnarp
|
September 9, 2010 10:31 AM
Caine wrote:
Hmm, I do feel like I was part of just such an argument once, maybe here, except it was Joss Whedon I was defending, so that makes it OK.Posted by: Truckle
|
September 9, 2010 10:34 AM
Ah, my only excuse to read the Da Vinci Code was boredom on an Oil rig... and even though I waded through that, the only next option was Angels and Demons...
After reading that I had to check that I hadn't just read the same book again by accident, because it certainly felt like it!
It gave me the same pain causing me to have to pinch the bridge of my nose and sigh... a lot.
Hmm, we are some way from Harriet Hall being rather rudely and unceremoniously booted off O magazine aren't we?
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 9, 2010 10:35 AM
This is not good - I kept hearing this in John Cleese's voice, addressing Kevin Kline in A Fish Called Wanda, so I got seduced into an examination of tv tropes this early in the morning. But you're right, she is insane and has now taken Dunning-Kruger all the way to law-status.
It's like a special kind of idiot-savant ability.
Posted by: No One
|
September 9, 2010 10:38 AM
You are off your meds... right?
Posted by: gussnarp
|
September 9, 2010 10:39 AM
I thought the Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons were fun reads. As long as you read them as pure fiction and just have fun with them poking at the Catholic Church with a sharp stick. And while I don't think for a second there's much factual basis for all the "heirs of Christ" stuff, it is pretty fun to speculate about. I mean really, why wouldn't Jesus have been getting it on with Mary (not his mom, the other one. Get your mind out of the gutter). And if he did, what would the impact of their children have been? Kind of a fascinating thing to consider when you look at the parallel development of Islam, where the leaders actually claim to be the rightful biological heirs of the prophet, leading to a major schism..... Sorry, thoughts wandering.
Posted by: Chgo_Liz
|
September 9, 2010 10:43 AM
Miasma @ #279:
She has always been considered a dangerous quack by the scientific and medical communities. You know: the people who actually know what they're talking about WRT the subject, as opposed to Jane Schmoe spending her mornings watching TV.
Why don't you do a search and find out? Oh, you mean THAT PARTICULAR article. As opposed to any of the others. Let me check my Bingo card.
#306:
You actually don't understand that this is an international forum of posters, do you?
I'd like to second triskelethecat's suggestion at #314: show us what a well-researched and -written 250 word article debunking pseudoscience is like.
ambulocetacean @ #315:
*snort* +1
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 9, 2010 10:48 AM
Some of us were delighted enough with this thread that we read it on our smartphones during a brief awakening at 3 am (yes, it's true, I did). And some of us aren't even scientists, we're just not freaking morons.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 9, 2010 10:51 AM
Oh, didn't you hear? Everyone in the US is smart smart smart! Mostly due to good nutrition.
Posted by: MrFire
|
September 9, 2010 10:57 AM
myama, I have a puzzle for you.
What happens when two people use tHe SeCREt to wish equally strongly for the same thing?
Who gets it?
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
September 9, 2010 11:01 AM
WOW....
Posted by: Gaebolga
|
September 9, 2010 11:12 AM
@ 355:
That's easy.
Oprah.
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
September 9, 2010 11:18 AM
I particularly like the supposition that we would be fine with a diet book that claims to provide a diet that would allow one to live a trillion years. Didn't she make us look silly...
p.s. Myama, there's not a lot of crossover between pharyngula and Natural News, and most of us would be pretty critical of any self-help book that made unrealistic claims about any method being able to solve all problems regardless of outside influence. The Secret just happens to be a particularly egregious and popular example, the popularity of which is largely based on Oprah's endorsement.
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
September 9, 2010 11:22 AM
I'm so glad that skeptics are comfortable with criticism of those they respect and admire. James Randi, Phil Plait, Bill Nye, Christopher Hitchins, Richard Dawkins, and even PZ have all gotten unadulterated criticism for things we have determined to be irrational or misguided with nary a cry of "but he's done so much good stuff, you can't criticize him for this!"
Celebrity worship makes me want to puke.
Posted by: ambulocetacean
|
September 9, 2010 12:02 PM
mikerattlesnake #359,
Agreed. And since those people you named disagree with each other on so many things, trying to agree with all of them would make your head explode anyway.
But the skeptics you named appear to have have arrived at their various positions through serious and honest thought based on the available evidence.
Oprah's everything-must-go woo mega-sale seems to be based on no thought and no evidence.
Those skeptics don't try to shut down criticism of themselves or their opinions either. I wonder how much criticism Oprah ever hears.
I'm willing to guess that part of her problem is that she has nobody honest enough to tell her when she's being stupid or irresponsible.
Posted by: Randy (not Randy)
|
September 9, 2010 12:15 PM
Hey now, hey now. Personal attack.
Oh. You meant... Nevermind.
Hey, good job night crew. (Assuming US Time Zones. Though I am aware that there is a rest of the world.)
Posted by: Sastra
|
September 9, 2010 12:53 PM
I suspect myama really does think s/he "held their own" against critics, due to his or her combined tactic of constantly shifting claims over to what can be defended and/or minimizing the problem at issue. One can do this without being aware of doing it, if clarity is sacrificed in favor of advocacy.
Bottom line, Oprah presented proponents of pseudoscience as if they were strong role models with valuable lessons to give. The fact that one can ignore what was being promoted and just look at the strong women being held up as role models doesn't mean that what was being promoted was somehow irrelevant.
What was irrelevant was the "scientific study" supporting a claim we hadn't disputed. If someone had trotted out some "scientific study" showing that most of the people who voted for Obama don't watch Oprah -- so there! -- myama might get an idea of why we didn't think we needed to address her study at all.
Posted by: te24hours
|
September 9, 2010 1:09 PM
Any list that includes this might as well also include:
5. Stop read. Go back and forget 1-4.
I mean, that's a perfectly wrong understanding of magnets.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 9, 2010 1:14 PM
For what it's worth (which may be nothing at all), myama has a web presence that bears a startling resemblance to our precious chew toy:
For those of us with hyper-male autistic brains living in the reality-based universe, the colors on that website can induce migraine and a desire to shout obscenities. Swallowing those obscenities can be dangerous to one's health, so don't explore the site while in a public location.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 9, 2010 1:15 PM
Fucking magnets. How do they work?!?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 9, 2010 1:17 PM
/eyeroll
Posted by: triskelethecat
|
September 9, 2010 1:29 PM
@Mattir: just from your description I was laughing out loud. I'll have to try and check it out later; all crap sites are blocked by my employer (for which I sometimes thank them and sometimes revile them).
Oh, I guess that means I have a "hyper-male autistic brain". Darn. Guess I need to work on the intuitive, feminine part of me. I'll start on that right after I finish working on my motorcycle.
Posted by: Peapoh
|
September 9, 2010 1:50 PM
And as I explained, by that logic, advocates of healthy eating are blaming the victim. Good food we put into our body and creates health and bad food we put into our body and creates sickness. Conceptually there's no difference. Both philosophies are claiming that the individual caused the outcome they experience so it's hypocritical and incoherent to argue that one is blaming the victim and the other is not.
Repeating yourself and adding new adjectives that STILL don't properly explain the "logic" don't make your argument any stronger. You didn't address the last part of my comment.
Good food we put into to our body creates good health, yes. That is reality based accountability. The concept of the secret however relies on magic. Therein lies the difference...and not a small one.
Tell me how one developing an illness based on clear factors such as lack of healthy eating/exercise is the same thing as sending negative thoughts out into the universe being the determinant.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 9, 2010 2:03 PM
Like this.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
September 9, 2010 2:19 PM
"I suspect myama really does think s/he "held their own" against critics, due to his or her combined tactic of constantly shifting claims over to what can be defended and/or minimizing the problem at issue."
I suspect she thinks she's holding her own because she hasn't responded to your posts yet, Sastra. You need to start insulting people, it's the only way to get their attention. :)
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 9, 2010 2:22 PM
triskelethecat:
I'll join you, I have two in the garage needing work. Or maybe...we don't have to actually work on them! We can plug into OprahFantasySecretLand, download our hyper-female-intuitive-jellyfish brains and wish those fuckers right! Yeah!
Posted by: Skippy
|
September 9, 2010 2:30 PM
myama wrote:
You really are a fan of the bald (and stupid) assertion, aren't you? The reason I decided to quote this stupid quote is that it is representative of the bullshit nonsense you've been spewing for the past couple of hundred posts. You claim to be winning a one-woman "war" against us Oprah haters, but have yet to provide any proof that Oprah presents any credible scientific evidence for any of the claims she's supported/made, etc. Waaaay upthread, you claimed that
Mind you, you clearly had not read either Myer's piece nor Hall's own blog, or you would not have made such a ridiculous assertion. I believe you were called on it, but then shifted to this absurd defense of Oprah. I've noted that you've been quite selective about your responses--even when you respond to someone who is directly asking you for proof/evidence of your claims, you turn the question back on them, as though the positive burden lies with them, and then you claim victory as though you've done something intelligent.
In short, you came in here with bald and stupid assertions which you have not yet bothered to back up or support (and you can't, since they're blatantly wrong) and have been flitting from one dumb strategy to another. As they say, the Dumb is strong with you.
Posted by: jre
|
September 9, 2010 2:39 PM
I'll second that eyeroll. Depending on the sense intended, the phrase should be either "comprising" or "composed of" -- but never the loathsome construction "comprised of."Remember: if you employ good usage in your thoughts, good things will happen to you.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 9, 2010 2:39 PM
nigelTheBold, Captain Smug:
McD's is good for you? Nooooooooooooo!!1!
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 9, 2010 2:44 PM
Oh FFS. Uh huh, this from someone who doesn't grok magnets. I don't know about the rest of you, but myama hasn't been doing anything for my consciousness except to make brain cells threaten to jump ship.
Posted by: triskelethecat
|
September 9, 2010 2:52 PM
Oy, Caine, FDM OM: considering my thoughts last night, it's a miracle the darn thing isn't sitting in a million pieces on the garage floor! (Or maybe that's what I'll find when I get home from work tonight...)
That's what I was obviously doing wrong. I went into the task thinking, "this shouldn't take too long, I've done it before and it went just fine". I should have used my "hyper-female-intuitive-jellyfish brain" and just known it would be done when I walked out! Why didn't anyone tell me this before?
Fortunately, I also have 2 motorcycles. So at least my riding hasn't been curtailed by the issues with the first one.
I do notice that myama has not responded to my comment about Dr Hall and writing a well-referenced article in only 250 words. (BTW...up to the parenthesis, my comment is 138 words. I can't imagine debunking a fraud in 250 works WITH references!)
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 9, 2010 2:53 PM
Why, yes. Our resident expert, who has deep and keen knowledge on both Oprah and science, has stated:
myama, #319:
So even dumb Americans wouldn't accept the bullshit in The Secret, because they have exceptionally well nourished well developed brains. But since they do, that proves The Secret isn't stupid, and so can't say what you claim it says.
See, that's how it works! Eat well (espeically McD's*) and you'll be smart smart smart! And you won't fall for Teh Stoopit.
I plomise.
* You don't like McD's because he's an incredibly successful clown. Admit it. Admit it! And I have plenty of evidence that eating is good for you, so it's impossible to prove that McDonald's food is bad. If you think so, show me the double-blind sooper-secret placebo-induced tests that show that eating is bad for you. You can't!
I win.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 9, 2010 3:07 PM
nigelTheBold, Captain Smug, doing the myama shrug:
::falls over laughing:: You are so getting OM nommed.
Um, okay, gets into the myama spirit of fake argument: what about Coulrophobia, huh? What about that? Coulrophobia is very common and Ronald McDonald is primarily responsible for that! As for eating, pffft. There are people in India who can go 3 months, easy, without eating or drinking! So you prove eating is good for you - it's not necessary at all, and there are no clowns!
Posted by: Dania
|
September 9, 2010 3:16 PM
And also because you hate capitalism! Thus, when you see capitalism doing something positive (nourishing American's brains), this creates cognitive dissonance!
(Damn, but myama has said some grade-A stupid things on this thread.)
Posted by: Dania
|
September 9, 2010 3:18 PM
^This.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 9, 2010 3:31 PM
Damn! Hoisted by my own Picard*.
And thanks for coulrophobia. I did not think to look up this very common phobia.
I know! And his/her arguments are so fun to emulate.
* Kind of like a petard, only less explosive, and with more shirt-tugging.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager
|
September 9, 2010 3:40 PM
It has been an interesting read - I've really enjoyed this.
As a matter of fact, some of the commenters here (me and Orac at least) have been addressing the anti-vaccination crowd for years. Orac does so pretty much every damn week. Yes, we are passionate about it - we find the idea that people cause their children to suffer, and even die, from diseases because of anti-science rather repulsive (to put it mildly).
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
September 9, 2010 3:46 PM
nigelTheBold, you're making me want to have your baby.
Posted by: myama
|
September 9, 2010 3:47 PM
Note - then normal caveat about bell curves and intra-group versus inter-group comparisons applies in spades to this generalization. Myama won't understand this, but the rest of the Pharyngulistas presumably will
Looks like Mattir is claiming to be intelligent because he knows what a bell curve is. Okay Mattir, let's see what you got. Let's say males are 0.5 male standard deviations more internal on locus of control than females, and the male standard deviation is 50% larger than the female standard deviation, and the distribution of locus of control is normal in both groups. Given a population of one billion that is 50% male and 50% female, how many male standard deviations more internal would we statistically expect the most internal male to be compared to the most internal female?
Let's see if Mattir can answer this without any help from the others. It's a very easy question. Nothing beyond a first year stats students undergrad. Let's see if Mattir can do it. The clock is ticking.
It's easy to pretend to be intelligent and informed by insulting others. Harder to actually be so.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely
|
September 9, 2010 3:53 PM
http://bostondiet.blogspot.com/2006/01/100-pounds-lost-marathon-finishers.html
Actually, this website has a short account of a guy who weighed 245 Lb., lost over 100 lbs. and was a world-class athlete.
Posted by: Dania
|
September 9, 2010 3:56 PM
Hey, get in line! ;)
Posted by: myama
|
September 9, 2010 4:00 PM
"23. What you think and what you feel and what actually manifests is ALWAYS a match - no exception.">
That’s a much better example for illustrating your argument that THE SECRET claims that thoughts 100% determine outcome. The problem is that it is still vague and ambiguos enough that it could mean almost anything the reader wants it to. “Manifests” could simply mean what manifests internally and “match” could either mean that outcomes match your thoughts, or that otcomes provide a match (i.e. a challenge) to thoughts and feelings. Because THE SECRET fails to express its claims in clear unambiguous langues, it’s pretty hard to contradict.
Posted by: Gaebolga
|
September 9, 2010 4:03 PM
Translated into something a "hyper-male overly scientific literal borderline autistic mind" can grasp, this reads:
It is, in short, simply more bullshit.
But back to #331, which I'll helpfully repost for you:
I notice you breezed right by the total destruction of your argument.
Just as predicted.
Dumbass bullshitter.
Posted by: Gaebolga
|
September 9, 2010 4:05 PM
Damn!
Truckle, you win.
Posted by: Dania
|
September 9, 2010 4:05 PM
FFS. Admit you were wrong about that book and move on. You're making yourself look pathetic.
Posted by: Zabinatrix
|
September 9, 2010 4:05 PM
Honestly - The First Rule of Holes!
You're really grasping for straws now.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 9, 2010 4:05 PM
myamaoutmyass:
Looks like you're still pulling crap out of your ass and thinking it doesn't stink. What makes you "think" Mattir is a male? Those sort of assumptions don't work here.
At least we're intelligent enough to use she/he when we're in doubt. That whole sooper-dooper intuitive jellfish brain isn't working out so well for you, is it?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 9, 2010 4:06 PM
It's also easy to think you are intelligent when defending a position by ignoring arguments and facts.
Truth is, you're not.
You're just another star struck dumbass who can't handle the flaws of their hero being exposed.
Yeah if you ignore this
Laws and principles of the universe is pretty god damn straight forward.
But you'll ignore this again or twist in the wind some more.
You're a pitifully gullible person whose hero worship of Oprah is not unlike any other cult.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager
|
September 9, 2010 4:07 PM
myama, when everybody tells you that you are mistaken on what a book is saying, then it should tell you something. You simply don't know what you're talking about.
Yes, you've demonstrated this a lot. Or not really. You've demonstrated that it is possible to feel intelligent and informed by insulting others, while demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect at full force.
Mattir doesn't have to demonstrate that she is intelligent to the rest of us. We know her, and know that she knows what she is talking about. You, on the other hand, has amply demonstrated that you're completely clueless.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 9, 2010 4:07 PM
Wow, myama is back. Sorry sweetie, but I've been up since 5 am with 3 hours of sleep, so you'll have to get chewed on by someone else. Do you channel?
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
September 9, 2010 4:10 PM
I find it quite easy. I'd tell you how, but you can save time by just wishing to learn from me.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 9, 2010 4:14 PM
Wrong. Fer chrissakes, try reading the damn book before making up crap about it. As Mark Twain said, "first, get your facts straight, then twist the hell out of them."
At least we know who you are now:
myama is Humpty Dumpty!
Posted by: Chgo_Liz
|
September 9, 2010 4:18 PM
Hey, everyone...Mattir is a guy!!!!!!
No wonder s/he had such a hard time nursing.
It all makes sense now.
Posted by: Dania
|
September 9, 2010 4:21 PM
But myama doesn't need to! All myama needs to know is that many smart smart smart American believe it, so it can be that dumb dumb dumb. It's, like, very logical and stuff.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 9, 2010 4:26 PM
I love you, chgo_liz. How am I going to break it to Mr. M that I'm a guy? If 20 years with my penis hasn't done it, I'm not quite sure what will. On the other hand, Brownian and Josh OSG will be very pleased.
Posted by: Gaebolga
|
September 9, 2010 4:29 PM
In a fit of quixotic passion (wait, does that mean I'm getting all female-brained, myama?), I'm going to actually point out one of the problems with myama's "challenge" (snort!) to Mattir.
[Emphasis mine]
Math fail, snookums. Bell curves don't have empirical limits. Just because 99.7% of the values fall within 3 standard deviations doesn't mean you can't have a value 12 standard deviations out.
Or 37 standard deviations out.
Or 1,378,562,938,945,260,196,816,816,864,668,468,461,864,856,934,772 standard deviations out.
It's incredibly unlikely, sure, but any statistics undergrad could tell you that it certainly isn't impossible.
So, exactly how many standard deviations out is "the most internal male" in your deluded little world?
Well, she certinaly knows it's not bell hooks' sister.
Did you?
Well you're certainly not demonstrating the first part of that truism.
Posted by: myama
|
September 9, 2010 4:58 PM
Just because 99.7% of the values fall within 3 standard deviations doesn't mean you can't have a value 12 standard deviations out.
Anything you guys could say, I've thought of it TWICE! Notice how I used the word "statistically expect". I know reading comprehension is not the male brain's strong suit, but I expected at least average levels of ability.
I see Mattir has tried to save face by claiming lack of sleep. You could keep me a hundred hours and I know my way around a bell curve.
Posted by: Cheezits
|
September 9, 2010 5:00 PM
...but the truth is that the average 21st century American is exceptionally educated and research shows they have an exceptionally well nourished well developed brain so you really don't need to worry about them.
*boggle* *thud* *splurf*
Even the dumb ones are smart.
The dumb ones think they're smart.
You owe me a new keyboard.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 9, 2010 5:01 PM
myamaoutmyass:
Baby I have been here before
I know this room, I've walked this floor
[...]
I've seen your flag on the marble arch
Love is not a victory march
It's a cold and it's a broken Hallelujah*
*As long as it's all whatever the fuck we think, rather than reality, might as well go Full Court Hallelujah, a la Cohen.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 9, 2010 5:07 PM
myamaoutmyass:
Cupcake, you have ExtraSpayshul Stupid™ icing, don't you? Mattir doesn't need to save face, she's intelligent and reality based. She's not the one who has been spreading stupid all over the place and refusing to clean it up. That would be you.
Can you set an alarm to go off on the extremely slim chance of you say something remotely intelligent? I have a busy day myself.
Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac)
|
September 9, 2010 5:09 PM
Gee, myama, it must be nice to be superhuman, and immune to fatigue....
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 9, 2010 5:09 PM
Caine - you're a Leonard Cohen fan? I knew I loved you.
Myama - why don't you address the substance of my post about attributional styles and the problem with unrealistic attributions instead of yammering on about bell curves? I'm proud for you that you remember intro to stats so well. That must be the cookie the universe has delivered for you today.
Posted by: Dania
|
September 9, 2010 5:10 PM
Yes, yes, you're a genius and we're all autistic males. Got it. Now go find a decaying porcupine and... be creative. 'kay?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 9, 2010 5:11 PM
"Statistically expect" (which is two words) is a meaningless noise. The phrase you're grasping for is "what is the probability."
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
September 9, 2010 5:12 PM
So, you've been up for a hundred-and-one at least, then? Sorry to hear that.
(Oh, and FYI: the bell curve is called the normal or Gaussian distribution, and assuming some particular process is represented by it is an easy mistake to make. It's usually a good idea to test your data to make sure that assumption isn't erroneous.
At least, that's what those of us who are employed to conduct biostatistical analyses do.
In case you're too dumb to understand what I'm doing here, I'm giving you a friendly warning that many of us here, myself included, know a lot more about statistics than you do, and you'd be wise not to pursue this line of argumentation if you don't want to look even more foolish than you already do.
You're welcome.)
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
September 9, 2010 5:17 PM
So, to summarize:
Oprah gets to take credit for Obama being elected president because of her influence. But, despite that influence being so massive as to get a black, suspected Muslim elected president, it does not encourage anyone to believe in the pseudoscience promoted on her show/website/magazine/etc. without some extremely explicit endorsement by Oprah herself.
None of which is really pseudoscience anyway. The Secret can't be what the author herself claims because that's ridiculous and Americans are too smart to fall for that. Instead, it has to be some poorly defined system of positive thinking. And the benefits of positive thinking are scientifically supported because positive thinking requires a high internal locus of control, which has been shown beneficial in a context unrelated to either positive thinking or believing one gets what one wishes for just by wishing. Jenny McCarthy's stance on autism and vaccines is maybe kinda sorta wrong but not really pseudoscience; it's just her own view based on being a mommy and deserves to be popularized because middle class parents of autistic kids can relate to her struggles as a millionaire. Suzanne Somers' HRT isn't pseudoscience because she did a lot of research and experiments which Big Pharma won't acknowledge or replicate because there's no money in individualized treatments. But even if any of this was pseudoscience, it's still not in any way Oprah's fault if people can't see that for themselves and get hurt by believing in it.
And because Dr. Hall's hyper-male overly scientific literal borderline autistic mind keeps her from intuitively understanding that Oprah can do no wrong, she's obviously the one with the problem.
(Other than the special rules of victim blaming derived from bad analogies, what did I leave out?)
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
September 9, 2010 5:21 PM
myama (#387)
Bzzt, wrong, o jellylicious jellyfish. Going by item 13 of the list in RBDC's post at #62 (have you read that yet, by the way?), "manifests" means to appear in the external world: "It's OK that thoughts don't manifest into reality immediately (if we saw a picture of an elephant and it instantly appeared, that would be too soon). " Going by numbers 3 and 9 in the same list, "match" means outcomes match thoughts: "Whatever is going on in your mind is what you are attracting," and "Those who speak most of illness have illness, those who speak most of prosperity have it..etc... "
If you take the Secret as though each sentence exists in a vacuum, you can pretend the concepts are vague enough to interpret any way you want, sure. But you're not meant to read it that way. Just admit the Secret isn't what you think it is. (I know, I know, you can't. That would be tantamount to admitting Oprah helped popularize something completely idiotic.)
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 9, 2010 5:22 PM
That Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin are two of the most admired women in America.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 9, 2010 5:26 PM
Mattir:
Yep. Leonard Live is playing in the kitchen right now. Kind of hard to not be a fan, being an old broad of a hippie and all.
Right back at you, you adorable man! ;D
Posted by: Shala
|
September 9, 2010 5:26 PM
myama, your tears are delicious. I wanted to give you a warning in advance though that every time you post, Oprah's lifespan is shortened by 10 minutes.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 9, 2010 5:27 PM
And that white women who admire bell hooks do so because it allows their racist ideology to remain unchallenged, since one cannot be a racist and admire Oprah Winfrey. (I suspect that her ability to comfort-the-comfortable would come as a surprise to Ms. hooks.)
Posted by: broboxley OT
|
September 9, 2010 5:29 PM
I wonder if myama is circumcised?
Posted by: Sastra
|
September 9, 2010 5:35 PM
That's an interesting link at #364: the "Myama" site. I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that the myama on this thread is connected to this group, but... well, that would be interesting.
For example, if this is the case, then someone's going through a lot of unnecessary work trying to show how the theme of The Secret isn't necessarily silly or unscientific, since the language is so vague and ambiguous you can turn it into whatever you want. The Mayama site has a lot of vague, ambiguous language, too -- but not so vague and ambiguous that it can't be seen for what it is.
"Take what you need and leave the rest." -- popular New Age counter to just criticism, to be said with a benevolent smile.
Posted by: Shala
|
September 9, 2010 5:36 PM
myama is Humpty Dumpty!
oh god i lol'd
Posted by: lykex
|
September 9, 2010 5:55 PM
C'mon, you don't even believe that yourself, do you?
Which would make it unscientific. Ambiguous phrasing is a sign of bullshit, not science.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 9, 2010 6:01 PM
And it really depends on what the definition of "is" is, amirite? *rolls eyes*
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 9, 2010 6:03 PM
Wait, where did the amorites come from? Are they the ancient mystical source of The Secret?
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
September 9, 2010 6:07 PM
For crying out loud. On most known planets there are no beings. At least no living or formerly living ones. :-D
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 9, 2010 6:08 PM
A. Noyd, you are awesome.
Posted by: lykex
|
September 9, 2010 6:10 PM
It's also quite easy to hand out problems for others to solve, while ignoring the questions and challenges posed to you.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 9, 2010 6:10 PM
For our special Cupcake myama:
There ya go, Cupcake, a vision just for you, courtesy of some crazy dude, calls himself Pink Floyd. Take your mantra forth onto the internet, Cupcake, ride on the wings of Oprahfroth, for the spittle is strong and will support you!
Posted by: JeffreyD
|
September 9, 2010 6:13 PM
Some person mumbled -
Looking at a bell curve climb up and away from you while you sit at the bottom does not really qualify as knowing your way around it.
This has been fun and all, but you really do seem to off a bit. Do you take meds? If so, either get back on them or have the dosage changed. If you do not, might want to consider therapy, it is worth the money. Whatever has made you misanthropic, manic and moronic was truly a tragedy, but you can heal. You are probably quite intelligent when not foaming at the mouth and trying to bite your lips in half.
You are arguing badly, foolishly, laughably. Even if you were right about that silly book and the silly celebrity who shills for it, your style of argument and loose hold on facts would turn people to the opposition. That is a totally imaginary if, of course. Do you realize that far from making the people here angry you are in fact becoming a figure of fascination and fun? You are laughable, a harlequin of words, the court jester of this thread. You know what that occupation used to called, do you not? Come on, say it with me - fool.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 9, 2010 6:19 PM
As the coordinator of Phybrous Phun PhluPhPhy StuPhPh™, I think we need to work on a dramatically large MyamaHat to celebrate and enhance her antics on the bell curve.
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
September 9, 2010 6:23 PM
Wait, Mattir is a man? Woot!!!! Being Fake-Married just turned into being Gay-Married!
Posted by: Travis
|
September 9, 2010 6:26 PM
JeffreyD, your last point is something I have been thinking a lot lately as I have been coming across a lot of silly people who seem to think they are making myself or others angry. They seem to think everyone is screaming at them, foaming at the mouth and losing it. For some reason they cannot see the sarcasm, the jokes and realize it is quite the opposite, that people are enjoying it and often laughing their asses of.
Though sometimes it just gets sad and frustrating. But rarely would I use the word anger to describe my feelings towards such people.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 9, 2010 6:26 PM
Humpty Dumbass
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 9, 2010 6:28 PM
@ Josh - That's me: the chubby, middle aged Buck Angel Homeschooler of Pharyngula. This is what happens when I get up at 5 am to drive to the Chesapeake Bay to watch the sun rise because it's the day when Bronze Age nomads said the world was created, read their creation myth aloud in a 17th century translation, do some spinning, and spend the rest of the day being highly silly on Pharyngula instead of going back to sleep for a couple hours and getting something useful done.
Posted by: lykex
|
September 9, 2010 7:00 PM
I'm hardly an expert on statistics, but if I'm not stepping on your toes Mattir, I'll take a crack at it. I feel like I need the practice anyway. It's been 2 years since I last had any statistics.
I take this to mean that the male mean is 0.5 maleSD more internal than the female mean. If that's not what you meant, then learn to be more clear.
I'll use a benchmark of 7 SD. This corresponds to roughly 5% chance of one individual in a population of 5*10^8 (if that's not what you had in mind, tough luck). That is, there should be less than 5% chance that an individual will be found, who is more internal than this (it's actually a bit off, but it's close enough for this purpose and I can't be bothered to figure out the exact numbers), so i think that's a fair interpretation of "statistically expect".
So with these asumptions, in both populations (male and female) the most internal individual should be within 7 SD.
If we take the female mean as point zero, the most internal female individual is at 7 femaleSD, which is equivalent to 4.67 maleSD. The male mean is at .5 maleSD and the most internal male individual is therefore at 7.5 maleSD.
(these numbers should perhaps be negative, but since it all comes out the same way, I don't think it matters much)
The "distance" between the most internal male and the most internal female would thus be 5.6 - 4.67 = 2.83 maleSD
Presuming I got it right, that means we get to give you a problem, right, myama?
Any suggestions guys? I'm leaning towards a simple challenge to actually answer the questions posed in the thread so far.
Oh, and do correct me if I'm wrong here. This is a training exercise, after all.
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
September 9, 2010 7:01 PM
Whoa whoa whoa.
Stop. This shit is still going on??
myama:
I know that you've conveniently ignored all but a few posters, but I'm holding out hope that you're still lurking around and you'll answer my question at #231 (don't worry, it's an easy one. I won't even ask you to cite sources; you can just use your squishy feel-good intuitive female brain!):
What is your stake in this?
I understand why the godling trolls fight so hard when they pop up here-- they can't handle their entire (fragile) worldview being called into question.
You, however, are arguing in defense of shitty entertainment. It's mind-boggling to me that you would spend two days defending a celebrity.
Wait, did Oprah buy you a car?
#402:
Are you mocking us or yourself here?
Posted by: Chgo_Liz
|
September 9, 2010 7:08 PM
This is my new favorite thread.
To think, how much time I used to waste reading the pure science threads. Learning is great and all, but it's nothing like the rush of snark cocaine.
Posted by: Chgo_Liz
|
September 9, 2010 7:11 PM
Oh, and Mattir...now that you're a guy and all...maybe you'd like to expand your list of fake spouses by taking on a few fake wives?
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 9, 2010 7:12 PM
Mama of Death:
Ooh, direct hit! +1
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 9, 2010 7:14 PM
Anyone who want to discuss statistics can do so without any risk of stepping on my toes or any other bit of my ego. I haven't had a formal class in stats in almost 20 years, and haven't dealt with it since I finished my dissertation. But that doesn't mean that I can't form a fairly accurate picture of overlapping bell curves...
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 9, 2010 7:16 PM
chgo_liz:
Silly Liz, there are no females at Pharyngula! We.Are.Men. Hear Us Roar!
Posted by: triskelethecat
|
September 9, 2010 7:17 PM
First, guys, you have it all wrong. Since Mattir is a guy and he's nursing, we have a medical wonder on our hands and need to write this up for JAMA or something. Geez. You scientists. Ignore exciting stuff right in front of your noses.
@Caine: Hey, were you thinking good thoughts or what? The assembly went perfectly smooth this evening when I got home. (Of course, having the right bolts, nuts and washers helped...) Gee, this "The Secret" really works, right?
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
September 9, 2010 7:18 PM
Shala:
Goddamnit, if only I wasn't already married....
Posted by: Skippy
|
September 9, 2010 7:18 PM
Oprah's got a Secret!
If this ain't an endorsement of The Secret, then what, pray tell, is?
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 9, 2010 7:21 PM
triskelethecat:
Oh! Er, yes, yes, that was me! Of course it was! The Universe decided to give me an extra wish because I've been soooo snarky lately. Didn't give me a cookie though, damn Universe.
Posted by: Shala
|
September 9, 2010 7:22 PM
Goddamnit, if only I wasn't already married....
Stupid Sexy Shala!
Posted by: Shala
|
September 9, 2010 7:38 PM
I am going to test out The Secret right now.
BE WARNED, SCIENCE IS COMING
I would like a tier 1 vintage Magic: The Gathering deck containing all of the power 9.
I also need a fucking haircut, bangs are getting in my eyes while I type.
ALRIGHT, SCIENCE IS OVER, RESUME PHARYNGULA ACTIVITIES
Oh wait, fuck, give me a Dr. Who DVD too.
Posted by: jenbphillips
|
September 9, 2010 7:39 PM
Seconded!"I'm uniquely qualified to comment since I know an enormous amount about both Oprah and science and have a deep understanding of the psychology of those who bash her."
ranks right up there with:
"I am aware of all internet traditions"
All the rest is just gravy; delicious, sniny gravy. And, apparently, gender reassignment for ca. 40% of us.
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
September 9, 2010 7:53 PM
Shala:
TV TROPES!!!
*shakes fist*
Well, there goes my night.
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
September 9, 2010 8:36 PM
OH! Are we singing Cohen songs? Hey! That's no way to say goodbye...
Seems appropriate.
Posted by: Randy (not Randy)
|
September 9, 2010 8:47 PM
Hey stats people, Is a Bell Curve very different from a Snine Curve?
Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac)
|
September 9, 2010 8:58 PM
I use "fascinated" and "gobsmacked", myself, as I shovel in the popcorn.
I'd say it's celebrity-worship; and in my mind's eye I see a YouTube video: *sob*...let *sob* ...Oprah *sob* ...alone!!11! *sob*
*scratching balls and spitting* Fuckin' A, babe!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 9, 2010 9:06 PM
They're absolutely identical except where they're different.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 9, 2010 9:09 PM
Ol'Greg:
Good one. I was thinking One of Us Cannot Be Wrong.
Cicely:
Welcome to the treehouse, Doll.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 9, 2010 9:11 PM
Crap. Now what am I supposed to do with these boobs? Really, this day has been a whole box of cookies from the universe.
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
September 9, 2010 9:13 PM
What about my Bell Curves?
Posted by: lykex
|
September 9, 2010 9:13 PM
Pardon me, that's supposed to be 7.5 - 4.67 = 2.83, obviously.
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
September 9, 2010 9:17 PM
cicely:
If by "celebrity-worship" you mean "celebrity-stalker", then I totally agree.
PS: It's soooo freaking awesome having testicles, huh guys?
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 9, 2010 9:21 PM
I'm still not sure how we're supposed to walk with these things in the way.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 9, 2010 9:21 PM
Mattir:
I hear ya, man. Those hairy man teats, they're a pain. I hate admitting this, but I broke down and got a Bro.
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
September 9, 2010 9:22 PM
I dunno. I'm worried they'll get caught in my epilator :/
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely
|
September 9, 2010 9:25 PM
On the other hand:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGRPFUYUUdQ
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 9, 2010 9:26 PM
Ol'Greg:
No, no! You need to go all metrosexual, get those monsters waxed. You can take it, you're a man.
Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac)
|
September 9, 2010 9:27 PM
But srsly, this looks like the same general impulse that causes teen-aged girls to throw acid on other teen-aged girls for dissing the Twilight books and its author, or getting into fist fightts over Eward vs. Jacob.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 9, 2010 9:32 PM
Cicely, no shit. There's being a fan of someone, then there's being 'brain rotted by obsession fan of someone'.
If someone you like and respect does something stupid, there's no point denying the stupid.
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
September 9, 2010 9:33 PM
Caine:
Pffffft. Waxing? Not for a man's man. We're hairy and we fart and we don't have emotions like teh wimmenz do.
Didn't you get the manual?
Posted by: FossilFishy
|
September 9, 2010 9:34 PM
No, no, NO! You're all missing the fundamental takeaway from myama's posts: the Secret works! Hooray!
You see, nasty ol' reality stubbornly refuses to change even when we wish really, really hard. So the obvious answer is to keep wishing really, really, REALLY HARD. If you do so long enough it becomes impossible to perceive reality, problem solved.
The only way to true happiness is through bullet-proof ignorance.(TM) This is THE SUPER-DUPER SECRET. I take Visa, Mastercard, money orders and cash (no coins).
Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac)
|
September 9, 2010 9:41 PM
*goes back to reading Sports Illustrated, with poor reading comprehension*
Posted by: lykex
|
September 9, 2010 9:42 PM
Real men never read the manual!
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 9, 2010 9:49 PM
Waxed? No no, you're supposed to use a bodyshaver.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 9, 2010 9:58 PM
Let a real, manly man show you newly en-penised guys how to be all masculine and shit...
...Josh OSG HKFG will be here in a moment or three to give you your first lesson.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 9, 2010 10:02 PM
Once I figure out the boobs thing, I'm going directly to the tattoo parlor for one of these Puff the Magic Dragon jobs. (Major NSFW) I'll probably have to have laser hair treatment as well...
This manly beauty thing is way more work than my slacker femme version.
Posted by: Shala
|
September 9, 2010 10:10 PM
PS: It's soooo freaking awesome having testicles, huh guys?
Why, you could even say I'm having a ball!
Posted by: broboxley OT
|
September 9, 2010 10:10 PM
for the new testicular users, dont let them sag in the toilet water or slam the toilet seat on them
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 9, 2010 10:10 PM
This is great. I thought thoughts and the universe gave me a penis of my very own. Wow. I'm a believer, because if I stopped thinking those thoughts, the universe might take away my new toy.
Posted by: IslandBrewer
|
September 9, 2010 10:11 PM
Wow! This is still going?
Myama wins my vote for most durable troll in a single thread. Also, the most demonstrably dense. Of course, that's just my male autism speaking - must have been those childhood vaccinations.
Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac)
|
September 9, 2010 10:16 PM
Mattir, that's certainly...artistic. But dayam, that has to have hurt!
Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac)
|
September 9, 2010 10:20 PM
(I was about to make some joke about us all getting circumcised, but now there wouldn't be any point!)
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 9, 2010 10:21 PM
Mattir #470
I couldn't have someone work a needle on my dick for several hours and then have to spend a couple of weeks for the pain to go away.
Icky poo!
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 9, 2010 10:23 PM
The best thing about the Puff the Magic Dragon link is that SonSpawn's Cub Scout leader sent it to me accidentally when we started doing Cub Scouts when SonSpawn was nine. Said leader doesn't fit real well with the rest of the Catholic troop, since he's about as Catholic as I am, but he's turned out to be an awesome friend and Boy Scout leader.
Posted by: Chgo_Liz
|
September 9, 2010 10:26 PM
'Tis @ #469:
Bwah-ha-ha!
And don't forget Walton in his frilly apron (and nothing else).
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 9, 2010 10:36 PM
chgo_liz:
Nonsense, Walton is carrying a feather duster...
Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac)
|
September 9, 2010 10:38 PM
Oh, that is so not true! He also has a feather duster. I would not, of course, care to speculate on what he plans to do with it, either in or outside of the shower.
Posted by: titmouse
|
September 9, 2010 10:46 PM
#309:
Yeah this.
I liked Oprah years ago... early 1990s. But at some point she bought a ticket on the crazy train.
I'd respect her again if she'd come to her senses. She'd just have to admit that she got suckered by the woolly-headed woo popular among those in the entertainment business, and then pledge to be more rational and reality-based.
Just a heads-up regarding Oprah's near-future relevance:
OUT: New Age wankery
IN: Skeptical kids who can smell boomer BS a mile away.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 9, 2010 11:13 PM
titmouse:
Thing is, Oprah Winfrey is all about the money, and the more money she can rake in, the more power she has. It's quite simple. She hasn't been "suckered in" by anyone. She isn't that stupid. She's plenty smart enough to figure out what people happen to be buying and go with it. What the fuck does she care? It makes her money. That's why a whole lot of people don't have any respect for her.
Posted by: Rincewind'smuse
|
September 9, 2010 11:26 PM
Seriously, don't flatter yourself. The last several ejaculations you consider coherent thought are ample evidence that two monkeys and an aardvark would suffice.Posted by: ambulocetacean
|
September 10, 2010 12:07 AM
Good grief, this is still going 36 hours after it started? You gotta admire myama's sticktoitiveness.
Posted by: GaryU
|
September 10, 2010 12:27 AM
@411 (A. Noyd) +2 Internets!
Posted by: bastion of sass
|
September 10, 2010 12:41 AM
My current desire is a bit more modest (or actually, maybe not): finding a parking space on campus within reasonable walking distance of my class.
I so want this. I keep envisioning it. Put up a map of the campus lots where I can see it while I work. I'm positively positively obsessed about this conveniently located spot. And I'm so sure one will be there for me Monday, I'm not even going to arrive on campus the usual hour early so I can search for a space. I'm so excited!
Posted by: Shala
|
September 10, 2010 12:49 AM
WHERE IS THE MAGIC DECK OPRAH
YOU SAID THERE WOULD BE MAGIC
OPRAH: JUST TAKE THE POWER 9, YOU, YOU...DOUBLE STRIKER!
*shocked Shala face*
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
September 10, 2010 12:55 AM
It's a MAN'S, MAN'S, MAN'S, MAN'S world!
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 10, 2010 1:03 AM
Janine:
Oh, you're one to talk, hiding behind that girly name when we all know you are a man. A mighty fine specimen of a man too...
Posted by: ambulocetacean
|
September 10, 2010 1:15 AM
Shala,
Obviosuly, it's not the right time for the Magic deck to manifest yet. Maybe your Magic deck is currently sitting on top of a bloody great elephant. Would you want that in your living room? I didn't think so.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
September 10, 2010 1:27 AM
Oh, you're one to talk, hiding behind that girly name when we all know you are a man. A mighty fine specimen of a man too...
Are you saying the my fake marriage to Josh is a sham and illegal in most states in the US?
I am mortified!
Posted by: bastion of sass
|
September 10, 2010 1:48 AM
I think that this thread is evidence that The Secret works. Surely you can't deny that one thing many of you really desired is for an obsessive, fallacy jabbering, hilarious epitome of The Dunning-Kruger effect would drop in to entertain you.
Posted by: bastion of sass
|
September 10, 2010 1:55 AM
OMG, let me try that again. I'm American. So I'm smart. So I know I'll be able to do this. And I so desire to:
I think that this thread is evidence that The Secret works. Surely you can't deny that one thing many of you really desired is for an obsessive, fallacy jabbering, hilarious epitome of The Dunning-Kruger effect to drop in to entertain you.
There. I desired. I wrote. 'Tis better.
Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher
|
September 10, 2010 2:00 AM
"OH! Are we singing Cohen songs? Hey!
That's no way to say goodbye...(One of Us Cannot be Wrong)(fixed)Seems appropriate."
Posted by: Truckle
|
September 10, 2010 3:36 AM
What do I win!?
Oh man that was fun, usually when i get to read Phayrngula the posts are just starting and the trolls are still asleep under their bridges or there are 100+ comments and all the trolls have been OM NOM NOMed and gone away.
So I am grateful for Myama having such staying power in attempting to defend the Secret (the fucking Secret!! I still can barely believe it) as well as Oprah and providing such fun.
Hell she even brought Orac and ERV in to give her a whupping and carried right on through.
However I think she might need some physiotherapy after that attempt at contorting logic, and might infact of broken her spleen.
Posted by: Chgo_Liz
|
September 10, 2010 8:33 AM
bastion of sass @ #493:
I don't believe it. 2 days of hilarity, and you manage to sum it all up in 2 sentences.
Since we're all guys here, the correct response is: bravo!
Posted by: Iris
|
September 10, 2010 8:45 AM
On the last Molly thread, I suggested PZ host a chewtoy of the month contest, If he did, myama would be a shoe-in.
And all you gentlemen are Teh Awesome.
Posted by: Gaebolga
|
September 10, 2010 9:02 AM
Well, I do now.
You're right; I read your post quickly, assumed I had read it correctly, didn't bother to re-read it to check, and made a mistake. My bad.
Well then, you don't know much, do you?
This from the woman who tried to claim that:
is
Let's look at your fist claim, the one regarding the word "manifests."
If "manifests" means what you claim in this context, the quote would essentially read: "What you think and what you feel and what actually manifests inside you is ALWAYS a match - no exception," which would be a tautology, unless you're going to try and claim that thoughts and feeling don't "manifest internally" (which, given your track record, is certainly possible).
Or perhaps you think there's something else that "manifests internally"?
As for your claim regarding the definition of "match," in the context of the sentence in question it would either confirm exactly what everyone else has been claiming (in the case of "match = the same as"), contradict your own claim as to what The Secret says (in the case of "match = a challenge to"), or is once again a tautology (in the case of "match = both the same as and a challenge to").
Unfortunately for you, my reading comprehension is just fine.
Dumbass bullshitter.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 10, 2010 9:25 AM
From a link that was posted earlier:
This indicates two things: first, The Secret causes genuine harm*. So myama, put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Second, it indicates that Oprah knew it was bullshit, yet promoted it anyway.
* I mean, what's the harm, anyway?
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
September 10, 2010 10:18 AM
For JAMA? I doubt they'd take it. A few men who can give milk are already known.
BTW, there's a bat species where all adult males (in short: all adults) can give milk.
Walking is no problem, they're far enough in front. But forget, for instance, running naked.
(No, I have not the foggiest inkling of how Olympic athletes used to do it. One-handed? ~:-| )
Posted by: Dania
|
September 10, 2010 10:35 AM
I doubt most women can run naked either, but for entirely different anatomical reasons.
I know I can't. It fucking hurts.
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
September 10, 2010 10:45 AM
@488
TOO SOON.
Posted by: myama
|
September 10, 2010 12:07 PM
First of all, any book will do real harm if enough people read it, because there’s always some unstable person who will take it to extremes. “Catcher in the Rye” inspired the killing of John Lennon. Second, what that anecdote proves is that Oprah has enormous respect for her audience and towering levels of integrity. Respect for her audience because she was shocked that any of her smart viewers would be irrational enough to apply THE SECRET in such a superstitious way and towering integrity, because she immediately responded to the viewer (who sent her a letter) and had her on the show to correct her unhealthy use of THE SECRET even though by doing so, she drew attention to the faults in a book she promoted. She could have easily just ignored this woman; she had no media attention until Oprah brought her on and was just one of the thousands of people who write to Oprah every week, but instead Oprah had the integrity to draw attention to her story for the sake of public safety even though her story portrayed Oprah’s influence in a negative light.
In my opinion Oprah jumped on THE SECRET bandwagon in part because the book’s philosophy overlaps with one of the actual methods Oprah used to become the most successful woman of all time. From the youngest age, Oprah has stated that she always believed she was destined for greatness despite the adversity she grew up in, and when she landed her own solo talk show in Chicago, she knew she would be the immediate smashing overnight success she became because she felt like a hit album just waiting to be released.
The same thing applied to her endorsement of Obama; she just believed he would become the first black president no matter how much he was trailing Hillary in the polls and no matter how inevitable the media claimed Hillary to be and no matter how many debates Hillary won. When people said Obama wasn’t ready yet and he needed to wait his turn, she brilliantly told the black audience in South Carolina “Think about where you’d be in your own life if you listened when the people told you to wait. I know I wouldn’t be where I am if I waited on all the people who told me it couldn’t be” Oprah wouldn’t be the most successful woman in history if she listened to the doubters. Her stated philosophy is “reach for the stars, and if you hit the moon in between; you’re still up there”. Oprah’s favorite quote is from Glenda the good witch in the Wizard of Oz “You always had the power”.
Oprah’s life is a testament to the power of belief and self-efficacy (something so many women, especially women in abusive relationships lack) so she will exploit whatever pop culture fad she can if it reinforces her message that women need to take back their power, and if she occasionally has to offend religious fundamentalists and science extremists by promoting something like THE SECRET, that’s just the price she’s willing to pay to meet her larger more noble goal.
Posted by: lykex
|
September 10, 2010 12:21 PM
But it's not taken to extremes. You're the one that keeps reinterpreting the book. We simply respond to what it actually says.
That, or her lawyers informed her that she was about to be sued into oblivion.
And what are those faults? Could they be exactly the things we've been criticizing here?
Really? It's not "if you think really hard you'll get whatever you want"? Why not?
Do you really think she's the one that ends up paying the price? If that woman hadn't bothered to write to Oprah, she'd probably be dead now.
Posted by: Dania
|
September 10, 2010 12:25 PM
Except in this case it's not taking the message of the book to extremes. The Secret says you will always get something if only you wish for it hard enough. That's what everyone who reads the book will identify as its message, not just unstable persons.
Posted by: JeffreyD
|
September 10, 2010 12:36 PM
Shorter myama - "All your base are belong to us!"
Posted by: Truckle
|
September 10, 2010 12:36 PM
Wow... Just wow.
Please don't get me wrong, I too admire Oprah for what she has managed to achieve, which is astounding lets be fair.
But your sycophantic hero worship of her refuses to let you see when she has genuinely done something wrong, and her promotion of the Secret is one of them, which we have been trying to explain to you. Rather than admit that Optah is in fact a human and can make mistakes you have tried to rationalise the Secret ad being correct because Oprah endorses it, rather than judge it by it's own merits which is what people do when they are truly poohing critical thinking.
Example, most of us who post here greatly admire Dawkins an PZ, but I we think they have made a mistake, we are the FIRST to call them on it, for example Dawkins endorsement of the award given to Bill Maher under his name.
You are incapable of admitting that Oprah could possibly make a mistake because you have deified her in your mind... You have to be able to form opinions of your own, not just the ones spoon fed to you by your heroes...
Posted by: Randy (not Randy)
|
September 10, 2010 12:39 PM
Can you please explain to me how promoting the bullshit woo in The Secret of just wishing hard enough for something and it will magically come to you. (Wait. That's prayer.) is in any way in line with taking back one's power?
Of course if it's easier for you, you can just keep ignoring anything anyone has to say.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 10, 2010 12:40 PM
First of all, I'm sure that Messrs. Salinger and Lennon would be rolling their graves to hear myama use their names in a discussion of Ms. Winfrey's enormous respect for her audience and towering levels of integrity.
Second, since these attributes are enormous and towering, do they also throb, pulse, and quiver?
Posted by: Truckle
|
September 10, 2010 12:41 PM
Lol at some comedy typo's! Posting on an iPhone I should preview more!
"poohing" critical thinking I think should have been doing or practicing and came out... Well poohing somehow lol.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 10, 2010 12:45 PM
No. If she had "towering levels of integrity" she wouldn't've promoted The Secret in the first place. It's not like it's the only self-help book that promotes self-respect and positive thinking. However, it is the most popular one that promotes the Law of Attraction, which inevitably leads to a blame-the-victim mentality, or to the abandonment of rationality, such as happened in this case.
I'm glad to see that Oprah has enough integrity to feel guilty about leading someone into possible death. That's something. It ain't a lot, but it's something. (I can't take lykex's view that it was her lawyers; as money-grubbing as Oprah appears to be, she always did seem like a fairly decent person, at heart.)
Again, you've obviously not read The Secret. Would you please stop trying to defend Oprah on this until you've actually read it?
Once again, The Secret doesn't really empower. It says, "Wish hard enough for something, and the universe will give it to you." This doesn't help, because the power is intrinsic to the universe, not you. You influence the universe, but the universe gives you what you want.
Y'know why this could've lead to a woman's death? Because it ignores science. Us "science extremists" seem to actually care about the well-being of people more than Oprah. That's part of the reason we bother working against stupid anti-reality bullshit like The Secret.
Posted by: Iris
|
September 10, 2010 12:49 PM
Re:
and:
I'm wondering what the difference is between Oprah's "smart viewers" and the offended "science extremists." Is there any overlap between the two?
Or are they identical, in the sense that they're both the null set?
Posted by: desertfroglet
|
September 10, 2010 12:58 PM
Myama, since you're such a big Oprah fan and I'm not very familiar with her work, perhaps you could help me out here.
Did Oprah achieve her enormous success through drive, hard work and canny decisions or did she just sit back and wish for it to happen to her?
If the former, then why bother to make the effort if she could just wish it into existence?
If the latter, then why on earth would you consider her a symbol of achievement and empowerment?
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
September 10, 2010 1:02 PM
Wow. Even for myama, #504 reached towering levels of extraordinary.
If you had your face any farther up Oprah's behind you'd be chewing on her duodenum.
Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac)
|
September 10, 2010 1:03 PM
And, I see a similarity to the old fairy tales for girls/women to live by---wish and wait for your Prince to come (minds out of the gutters, people; I'm trying to be serious, here) for you on his White Horse, because he has the power to make your life right.
Anyone else out there remember the mental gyrations of Tom Cruise worshippers, in their efforts to make him not seem like a primo nutjob, after the couch-jumping and Scientology-video incidents?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 10, 2010 1:06 PM
EVERYONE DUCK, GOALS POSTS COMING THROUGH!
Posted by: lykex
|
September 10, 2010 1:08 PM
No, it's because we're all in the pocket of Big Pharma and if people realized they could just think themselves better, our plan for the enslavement of humanity would be wrecked.
Right, Myama?
Posted by: Dania
|
September 10, 2010 1:08 PM
Here, myama, let's see if you understand this. The book is called The Secret. Why? Because it "reveals" a "secret". What is that "secret"? The Law of Attraction. The secret is the Law of Attraction (it says so on the book), not a general "positive thinking is good for you" rule. Get it? It's bullshit. Even if it was promoted by your idol, it's still bullshit. And no matter how many "smart" people believe it... it's still bullshit.
Is it really that hard to understand?
Posted by: Muse
|
September 10, 2010 1:19 PM
Okay, so leaving the rest of the blithering aside, since it's being so adroitly handled. I can think of rather a few better candidates for "most sucessful woman of all time."
I think I'll start with Elizabeth I, go to Madame Curie, and allow anyone else to continue. You have a very odd definition of sucessful here.
Posted by: ambulocetacean
|
September 10, 2010 1:26 PM
So true. So very, very true.
Posted by: Dania
|
September 10, 2010 1:28 PM
I think it means "making shitloads of money".
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate
|
September 10, 2010 1:44 PM
Little late on this - but anyone here consider that myama is a Poe-PRAH?
Posted by: Chgo_Liz
|
September 10, 2010 1:44 PM
Let me guess...
The way that our little miasma arrived here is because s/he (I'm leaning towards she) has an RRS feed for anything tagged Oprah. That's how she knows everything there is to know about this most remarkable woman of all time.
OK, it's put up or shut up time, myama. What is the level of education you have attained, what is your degree(s) in, and what is your job?
In other words: have you ever had a science class past 9th or 10th grade? And what great levels of personal achievement have you attained through wishful - I mean, positive - thinking?
I know, we're all having fun here and I'm being such a spoilsport...but, I'd love to know what background produced this level of irrationality.
Posted by: Robert H
|
September 10, 2010 1:50 PM
myama @504
You put her ahead of the likes of Marie Curie, Indira Gandhi, Hatshepsut, or Queen Elizabeth I? Or are you conflating success with notoriety and money? For real success how about Helen Keller? Rosa Parks? I am not demeaning Oprah's accomplishments but do you really believe her name will resonate through the corridors of history for centuries if not millennia?
Posted by: Dania
|
September 10, 2010 2:25 PM
Seriously. You're pathetic, myama. It would be one thing to say that Oprah is one of the most successful women of our time. But the most successful woman of all times? Really?
You're an idiot.
Posted by: myama
|
September 10, 2010 2:28 PM
Except in this case it's not taking the message of the book to extremes. The Secret says you will always get something if only you wish for it hard enough. That's what everyone who reads the book will identify as its message, not just unstable persons.
You will almost always get something that is possible is what they mean. They're not claiming that if you wish hard enough for it, you will turn into a pumpkin or grow wings and fly.
I think that a lot of science types, especially male science types who post on internet forums, are on the autistic side of the neurological bell curve, so while often brilliant at processing logical systems, you have trouble with the non-logical nature of practical language and thus have trouble differentiating literal from metaphoric statements.
For example when Oprah says "I used to weigh a ton" she means she used to be quite heavy; she does not literally mean she used to weigh 2000 lbs. Even if Oprah says "I used to LITERALLY weigh a ton" she is STILL not saying that she used to LITERALLY weigh a ton, only that she used to literally be quite heavy. This is not something you guys can learn in a book; you either have the brain to understand it or you don't.
Women, especially the type of women who watch Oprah, are especially well wired to comprehend practical language and emotional abstractions so they have the ability to grasp the empowering essence of THE SECRET which is that nothing (and I don't literally mean nothing) is more powerful than human thought and we have the power to shape our destiny.
Will some people use THE SECRET as a convenient exuse to not get medical treatment they didn't want anyway? Yes. But for every person who does that, there are thousands who will claim the book changed their life for the better. Just the placebo effect alone makes the book worth promoting.
Our there better more rational self-help books Oprah should have promoted instead? Perhaps, but THE SECRET already had a ground swell of enthusiasm behind it, and one of Oprah's philosophies for success is that you move in the direction the universe is pushing you (metaphor), you don't try to swim against the current (metaphor).
Posted by: TheBlackCat
|
September 10, 2010 2:30 PM
Good point, I would have to say a woman becoming one of the most powerful, influential, and revered leaders ever of one of the most powerful empires of the time when it was expressly forbidden to women to hold any leadership position is a little bit more successful than having a popular talk show.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 10, 2010 2:33 PM
Cult speak.Posted by: TheBlackCat
|
September 10, 2010 2:34 PM
@ myama: Can you please answer one simple question: have you read The Secret?
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 10, 2010 2:36 PM
Seriously, cut it the fuck out. You have already been told numerous times what the problem is with your bizarre overinterpretation of words, that not everyone posting here is male, and that you have no concept of what autistic means (in addition to not understanding bell curves).
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 10, 2010 2:36 PM
Oh for sure. But either way it's fun destroying the totally delusional shit that she's spewing.
If she's Poe, oh well, won't be the first time.
Posted by: Dania
|
September 10, 2010 2:39 PM
And is that true? It's possible that I will win the lottery next week (well, not really, because I don't play, but if I did). If I wish hard enough, will I almost certainly win it?
As to the rest of your post: fuck you and your prejudices.
Posted by: Muse
|
September 10, 2010 2:42 PM
@myama
You do know that not only are some of us women, but some of the women are "borderline autistic" as well? Right? You also know that most evo-psych is absolute crap, right?
Oh wait...
Posted by: TheBlackCat
|
September 10, 2010 2:43 PM
No, they don't say "almost always", they say "always". And I don't recall anyone saying that people could wish for the impossible.Why should we care at all what you think on this, or any other matter?
At least you explain why all these women are arguing against you, they are really "male science types".
In a contest of power between human thought and a freight train, I will bet on the freight train.
Posted by: heatherlyh
|
September 10, 2010 2:44 PM
I think that a lot of science types, especially male science types who post on internet forums, are on the autistic side of the neurological bell curve, so while often brilliant at processing logical systems, you have trouble with the non-logical nature of practical language and thus have trouble differentiating literal from metaphoric statements.
Wow. I mean...just. Wow. Seriously? I mean, you've got evopsych wacky, med wacky, pop-psych wacky, plus arrogance, patronizing tone...oh, HONEY. You are just winning the internets today. In the not good bad touch Sarah Palin way.
I don't even know where to start, and I actually have productive ACTUALLY helping people type work to do, so I'm going to do that and let smart people eviscerate you, and when I get home tonight, we'll have a nice chat about that abused women comment upthread, ok?
*pats* You are the most special Special Snowflake!
-a fluffy non-male non-science neurotypical social worker
Posted by: lykex
|
September 10, 2010 2:44 PM
So good of you to explain to us what they really meant.
And I think you're a complete jackass.
Why is your opinion relevant? What are your credentials? Is there any reason why we should take your opinion more seriously than the guy down the street who claims aliens have infiltrated the board of directors of Dunkin' Donuts?
Oh, the metaphor defense. You just can't bring yourself to admit that The Secret is bullshit, can you? You just have to keep twisting it until it makes sense.
Why not just admit that The Secret is an overrated lump of fluff? You wouldn't necessarily have to give up your ideas on positive thinking, nor your admiration for Oprah.
Besides, are you ever going to respond to any of the questions posed to you?
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 10, 2010 2:44 PM
That would explain why I'm confined here with keys on a Miller High Life bottle opener keyring, a condom, a couple of Vaigra, and a stick of Juicy Fruit gum that's poking out of its wrapping.
Posted by: TheBlackCat
|
September 10, 2010 2:47 PM
So in other words, you ARE Humpty Dumpty. It seems most people realized this a few hundred posts ago, but I am glad you confirmed it. First, claiming something is true does not make it true. You seem to consistently miss this distinction.Second, evidence please.
Except, from what everyone who actually knows about the book has said, this the exact opposite of the view promoted by The Secret.Posted by: myama
|
September 10, 2010 2:48 PM
You put her ahead of the likes of Marie Curie, Indira Gandhi, Hatshepsut, or Queen Elizabeth I? Or are you conflating success with notoriety and money? For real success how about Helen Keller? Rosa Parks? I am not demeaning Oprah's accomplishments but do you really believe her name will resonate through the corridors of history for centuries if not millennia?
Yes I do. She overcame racism, sexism, poverty, teen pregnancy, drugs, illegitimacy, obesity and emotionally abusive relationships, to become not only the richest and most philanthropic Afircan American of all time but the most influential woman in the planet, and she did so by totally dominating the ultra competetive and improvisational field of TV talk shows for a QUARTER CENTUTY during the most fragmented media age ever and in the process used her influence to shatter taboos, popularize a genre of TV that played an instrumental role in bringing gays into the mainstream, pioneer a touch-feely form of media communication copied by everyone from Katie Couric to Bill Clinton, practically invent confession culture, bring literature to the masses, help replace organized religion with more inclusive secular forms of spirituality, and played a pivotal role in electing the first black president. Yeah, I think she'll be remembered.
Posted by: chigau (◦_◦)
|
September 10, 2010 2:50 PM
Mattir's Puff the Magic Dragon link ... that is the mostest beautifulest thing I have ever seen. And I am normally not a fan of tattoos.
I've never really understood this. Is the "taking back" part a reference to the primeval matriarchies when, because Women Were In Charge, everyone had her/his own unicorn?----
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 10, 2010 2:54 PM
You forgot the part where she won the Superbowl with her last-second touchdown pass (in a position dominated by white males), started the grunge movement (in a genre dominated by white males), sang as one of the Five Tenors (in an octave dominated by white males), wrote MS-Windows 3.1 (in a field dominated by white males), and became the first black female white male (in a demographic dominated by white males).
She really is something, ain't she?
Posted by: Gaebolga
|
September 10, 2010 2:56 PM
Yeah, except those aren't metaphors (or even "metaphoric statements), they're hyperbole.
At least you got the last two right, though.
Dumbass bullshitter.
Posted by: goldfinch
|
September 10, 2010 2:59 PM
Myama, according to you Oprah believes that she was successful because she believed in herself. This isn't proof of anything. What about all the other narcissists who believed they were destined for greatness and did not end up great? I am sure that she was successful for a huge variety of factors, some in her control, some not. She was born in the US. She likely was predisposed to being very competitive given her thoughts at a very young age that she was destined for greatness. How much did she really have control over how she thought about herself at that young age? People tend to underestimate the amount of pure luck that occurs in their lives.
She is making the error that we all can make in our life experiment of one. She is assuming cause when she can't know the cause. She can't do an experiment because there are not two Oprahs. She reinforces her belief by finding other successful people who also happened to believe in themselves. How often does she talk to people who had unreasonable beliefs about their abilities? I know a number of them. I know people who are not very bright who believe that someday they will win the lottery or get a great job or have so much money that they need to worry about estate taxes. Dreamers are everywhere.
People who are successful usually attribute that success to themselves. People who failure tend to attribute the failure to outside causes. But this does not in any way mean that their thinking caused them to succeed or fail. It is just rationalization of what happened to them. It is making up a story to explain your life, which we love to do.
All we are advocating for is reasonableness and sound thinking. Drive will get you far but you might not have much control over how driven you are. It does no good to believe Oprah got to where she is because she believed in herself. That isn't enough alone and may be a very minor factor, simply a feature of her predispositions mixed with outside influences and strongly effected by luck.
The problem with this very American attitude is that it leads to tremendous unfairness. We believe that people who are successful are that way because they did the right things. We believe that people who failed did the wrong things. So, failure is your own fault. So, we don't have to help you. And not only that, people should be ashamed of their failures. This effects our attitudes on so many things. Health care reform. Tax policy. Welfare.
Posted by: Gaebolga
|
September 10, 2010 3:00 PM
Yeah, she's really good at knowing what other people are thinking, or why they're doing what they're doing.
Or if they're secretly male.
She's psychic!
Posted by: Muse
|
September 10, 2010 3:02 PM
Okay - I just have to belive Poe here. Seriously Oprah as the most influential woman in *history*?
I shall choose to belive this. Let's see if the Secret makes this happen.
Posted by: Gaebolga
|
September 10, 2010 3:03 PM
Are you sure it wasn't a metaphor?
Posted by: myama
|
September 10, 2010 3:13 PM
And is that true? It's possible that I will win the lottery next week (well, not really, because I don't play, but if I did). If I wish hard enough, will I almost certainly win it?
No. Clearly much of THE SECRET is meaningless, however I think this little book gets disproportionate criticism because it was little more than a very brief cultural fad that may have even had a few positive effects. I don't think it did any lasting harm to the culture, nor did it do any lasting good. With rare exceptions, it was harmless giberish.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
September 10, 2010 3:13 PM
I see. So if Oprah says something, don't believe it.
Got it.
No problem.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 10, 2010 3:16 PM
Yet your hero thought enough of it to spend a couple of shows on it.
So Oprah promotes gibberish?
Got it.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
September 10, 2010 3:17 PM
Truckle (#508)
Or that thread next door about burning the Qur'an?
Posted by: JeffreyD
|
September 10, 2010 3:18 PM
myama - It is possible you are one of the most brilliant Poes in the history of the internet. If so, time to stop as it is getting boring. At this stage, I would not piss on you if you were on fire.
If you are not a Poe, then I am terribly sorry for whatever mental or physical trauma reduced you to this state and I will gladly piss on you if you are on fire.
Whatever the true scenario, you are a particularly creepy form of stalker/loon/maniac/weirdo/kook/woo worshiping loon who is about as emotionally stable as a bag of rats in a burning meth lab. Of course, being an autistic, racist, misogynist at the bottom of the bell curve it is possible that I am just projecting my fear of woo peddling money suckers onto you. Anyway, it is not really my fault, is it? I mean, someone apparently wished for me to be this way.
Posted by: Randy (not Randy)
|
September 10, 2010 3:20 PM
Wow. Three days later and we can promote myama all the way up to just plain old moron.
(Sorry for the Fox News style editing in the quote. That was cheap and did nothing other than make me feel better about my day.)
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 10, 2010 3:20 PM
Wow! I think you're making some progress here, myama.
Now let's take this full circle, back to the original point: The Secret makes specific claims about the nature of the universe. These claims are not metaphorical -- they are quite literal. They are also quite bullshit.
In promoting this "piece of fluff," Oprah was promoting pseudo-science. As an undeniably smart and relatively well-educated person, she should've been able to see through this nonsense.
This is in direct opposition to your statement that Oprah does not promote bad or pseudo-science.
This is all still off-topic from Harriet Hall being let go from Oprah Magazine in a terribly passive-aggressive manner, but it certainly is a lot of fun.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
September 10, 2010 3:20 PM
Secret Oprah Troll, I have two words to say about your rant on #504; confirmation bias. Keep in mind that millions, if not billions, of humans believe and wish that they will become successful. There was nothing unique about her believe that she will become famous. Much more important is the talent the person has, being able to take advantage of opportunities and pure chance.
As it has been pointed dozens of times already, the theme of The Secret is that the universe wants you to be happy. If you are constantly wishing, because like attracts like (Unlike fucking magnets.), you will get what you desire. Implied in that is that people who have bad things happen deserves what they get. The fact that you cannot understand this and, instead, call it a metaphor. This does not speak of either your reading comprehension or your honesty.
Also highly amusing is your ability to determine the gender of different people on this thread. Can you detect the gendered energy in the words. Is there a distinctly masculine and feminine style of writing? I have not seen this since my days of reading debates between radical lesbian separatists and transgendered womyn.
Lastly, I will go back to your first statement because you never answered the question. Please show how O has a greater respect for scholarship then Dr Hall?
But I do thank you for playing, I have had many laugh out loud moments reading this thread over the last couple of days. I greatly admire the intelligence and humor of the regulars of this blog.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
September 10, 2010 3:23 PM
Dear lord, this train wreck is still going?
Posted by: Dania
|
September 10, 2010 3:24 PM
Finally. Was it that hard to admit?
... Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that The Secret is bullshit.
Now my question is: do you think Oprah knows that The Secret is bullshit?
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
September 10, 2010 3:28 PM
Oops, I forgot to add some snark to TheBlackCat's quip about the speeding train versus human thought. That speeding train is the direct result of human thought.
'Raspberry'
I thought it was a funny line.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 10, 2010 3:31 PM
That would be me. You're kinda sexy when you get this way.
Posted by: TheBlackCat
|
September 10, 2010 3:32 PM
Right, because that is a bigger achievement then becoming the sole ruler of one of the most powerful empires on the planet, an empire that forbade female rulers, and went on to achieve more and become more famous than nearly any other ruler of said empire despite the fact that women were treated worse than second-class citizens there.Posted by: Gaebolga
|
September 10, 2010 3:34 PM
But the real question here is "Would you piss on a bag of rats in a burning meth lab if they were on fire"?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Posted by: TheBlackCat
|
September 10, 2010 3:40 PM
No, the speeding trains is the indirect result of human thought, it is the direct result of mechanical force applied by the wheels on the tracks. At the very least human action had to intervene to translate the thought into some sort of change in the behavior of the train.Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 10, 2010 3:40 PM
Anyone else getting the mental picture of myama retreating to her special place to watch Oprah, curling up in a little ball, rocking back and forth and softly wimpering to herself
"It's ok Oprah, I know you've done good."
over and over and over
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 10, 2010 3:49 PM
myamaoutmyass:
Goodness me, Cupcake, you almost got something right! Btw, it's gibberish.
I see, however, that you're still an idiot, hanging desperately to the notion that we're all males with damaged brains, along with other misguided ideas.
Instead of watching Oprah and memorizing the Wiki page on her, you might want to try brushing up on your spelling and reading comprehension. Also, rather than being obsessed with utterly moronic ideas about how other people's brains work, you seriously need to attend to your brain function. It's not looking good.
Posted by: JeffreyD
|
September 10, 2010 3:57 PM
nigelTheBold -
Kiss me, you fool! You know you make me hot with your autistic male scientist ways.
Gaebolga -
Only if Okra wished me to do so.
Posted by: myama
|
September 10, 2010 4:02 PM
In promoting this "piece of fluff," Oprah was promoting pseudo-science.
Pseudo-science gets promoted every day. I'd be far more concerned with all the pseudo-science that scientists actually believe and that gets published in peer reviewed journals than some feel good fluff that folks only partly believed for a couple months before moving on to the next fad.
As an undeniably smart and relatively well-educated person, she should've been able to see through this nonsense.
Well I think she genuinely believes that her believing that anything is possible was instrumental to her success and she wants to encourage other women to believe in the power they have too, and when THE SECRET came along preaching a message similar to her own, she wanted a piece of the action. She also has to maintain her reputation as the most influential woman on the planet, so she's probably always on the look out for new trends she can start (or at least popularize), and being the greatest rags to riches/power story in American history, she was in a unique position to give THE SECRET credibility by crediting her success to such thinking, so she cleverly recognized the opportunity to increase her cultural relevance even more.
Posted by: Robert H
|
September 10, 2010 4:04 PM
Nigel @538
That would explain why I'm confined here with keys on a Miller High Life bottle opener keyring, a condom, a couple of Vaigra (sic), and a stick of Juicy Fruit gum that's poking out of its wrapping.
You too?
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 10, 2010 4:06 PM
Let me guess – You’ve never heard of the John Dewey, the Great Books movement, Chautauqua , AA and other 12 step programs, humanism, the civil rights movement, or feminist consciousness raising? I didn’t think so, and I’ll recommend that you not start educating yourself now. It’s easier to win the World Championship Dunning-Kruger Prize™ if you don’t actually read books not sealed with Ms. Winfrey’s imprimatur. I certainly hope Messrs. Dunning and Kruger are reading this thread - it’ll be quite a treat for them.
(I will also note in passing that not everyone of a feminist/progressive bent would view all of the items on your list as unalloyed positive changes for our society.)
You have got to be kidding me. If I hadn’t read you for 3 days, this would certainly lead me to call Poe. Let’s see: discovering x-rays, leading to, hmmm, medical radiology, food irradiation, nuclear weapons, nuclear power… versus. . . promoting self-indulgence, self-pity, and related narcissistic afflictions and calling it spiritual progress. Yeah, that’s a definite win for one side of the contest.
Here’s another one: being a female head of state in a time before birth control and medical care keeping a small nation just out of the dark ages intact for decades despite internal religious conflict, severe economic problems, and military and political threats from larger and wealthier neighbors. . . . versus . . . . assisting with the election of a male head of state who has, as yet, accomplished little other than being marginally less inept than the previous administration and whose popularity and election are taken to symbolize some degree of national progress toward resolving serious institutional injustices based on the amount of melanin in one’s skin. Yep, another definite win…
You are not doing very well in this contest, are you? If money is your basic criterion for judgment, have you never heard of Madam CJ Walker or Lillian Harris Dean? If social change or literary merit are the values of choice, how about Thurgood Marshall? Martin Luther King? Harriett Tubman? Soujourner Truth? Phyllis Whitney?
Contrary to your impression, there is not one neurological bell curve with an autistic end and an Oprah end. People are significantly more complicated than that. While some of the posters on this blog have characteristics of autism, many of us do not. Many of us are female. Many of us are artists, therapists, or care providers. I would, however, bet that all of us, whatever our neurotypical or autism-spectrum characteristics, have taken enough high-school literature classes to understand the concept of a metaphor. The Secret does not traffic in metaphor, it traffics in assertions that one of the fundamental laws of the universe is that electrical activity between cells within your skull somehow affect the functioning of the universe. (It is a bit sketchy on the physics of how this might work, but I suspect that the word quantum is used quite a bit.)
Why are you defending this stupid book? There are African American women with similarly inspiring stories who encourage hard work and effort as an essential adjunct to adaptive positive thinking. Oprah could have chosen one of them to speak. The fact that she did not speaks volumes.
What about Francine Ward, who has a past as bad or worse (having at one time known Ms. Ward fairly well, I strongly bet on worse) than Oprah’s and is sort of a charismatic anti-Oprah:
Or bell hooks, who has written more than 15 books, including Sisters of the Yam, one of my favorite and most gruelingly practical book of all time.
Ms. Winfrey does not seem to be pulling African American women who advocate hard work and political involvement up with her, she pulls advocates of positive thinking and various types of woo into positions of prominence instead.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 10, 2010 4:07 PM
Uhm -- not me. If a scientist buys into pseudo-science, it'll be found out. At most, a few people will lose their careers, some others may loose a little face, and knowledge progresses a little bit.
When "the most influential woman on the planet" promotes dangerous pseudo-science (and The Secret was demonstrably dangerous, as was noted above), that has far greater consequence.
It seems that, since Oprah has great influence, she should probably wield it with greater caution.
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
September 10, 2010 4:10 PM
But it shouldn't be. That is the whole point. We don't really care who is doing it, we don't like it. Oprah gets attacked by more people when she promotes quackery than the tarot reader down the street because she reaches more people.Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
September 10, 2010 4:10 PM
for example...?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 10, 2010 4:12 PM
Such as? You can't just throw that out there with out supporting it.
Posted by: myama
|
September 10, 2010 4:13 PM
Right, because that is a bigger achievement then becoming the sole ruler of one of the most powerful empires on the planet, an empire that forbade female rulers, and went on to achieve more and become more famous than nearly any other ruler of said empire despite the fact that women were treated worse than second-class citizens there.
In addition to overcoming adversity to becoming a billionaire who revolutionized American culture, Oprah played the instrumental role in making a black man the most powerful person on the planet for the first time in history, a black man suspected of being Muslim, in a country and era where Muslims are treated worse than third-class citizens. LIFE magazine just listed Oprah as one of the 100 most influential people of ALL time. The only living woman to make the list.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 10, 2010 4:13 PM
tl;dr is obviously my mode of the day. Sorry. But please do admire the spiffy html formatting, since I didn't screw it up too badly.
I am also wondering if there's a bag of rats in a burning meth lab within the Pocket of Big Pharma™.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 10, 2010 4:14 PM
More Cult speak.
Posted by: Reality Enforcer
|
September 10, 2010 4:15 PM
I just finished reading this thread, and, much to my dismay, discovered that my ovaries had descended, punched through my abdominal wall, and are now hanging in a fleshy sack. My boobs appear to be deflating, and my testosterone levels are rising. How strange.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 10, 2010 4:18 PM
Mattir, of course those other people aren't important! Queen Oprah, why she, she revolutionized chat shows! What in the universe is more important than that?
Posted by: Dania
|
September 10, 2010 4:19 PM
That's your best excuse? "Others are doing it too!!!"?
Talking about anything in particular? Or does that translate as "you autistic hyper-male scientists do it too!!!!!"?
Yeah, "partly believed"...
And it's not just some fluff, it's an empirical claim about the universe. A false one.
Posted by: Dania
|
September 10, 2010 4:26 PM
myama, I wonder... does Oprah have any flaws at all?
Posted by: Robert H
|
September 10, 2010 4:31 PM
myama @573
Oprah played the instrumental role in making a black man the most powerful person on the planet
Since she has gone from playing "an" instrumental role to THE instrumental role in having Obama elected you undoubtedly will be able to cite sources to justify your assertion for all us male autistic sciency types (okay, I'm not a sciency type; I just respect it to pieces). And all this time I thought it was Obama's ability to tell the public exactly what they wanted to hear that got him elected. Go figure.
Posted by: myama
|
September 10, 2010 4:33 PM
Ms. Winfrey does not seem to be pulling African American women who advocate hard work
Asserting that hard work causes success is much worse than claiming positive thinking causes success. In addition to implying that the poor are lazy (a point I've already made), the correlation between how hard you work and how much money you make is pretty low (and perhaps negative). The hardest working people in the world often work in low paying low status jobs.
In addition, a lot of people already spend more than half their waking hours working and asking them to work more will probably cause them to burn out and be even less productive which is why many companies encourage breaks and vacations. You don't get rich by working hard. You get rich by working smart and having opportunity.
Posted by: goldfinch
|
September 10, 2010 4:34 PM
Here is a nice article on the problems with Oprah's positive thinking message: http://www.slate.com/id/2166211/
We are a nation of wishful thinkers unprepared for disasters. Stock market crashes. Oil spills. Skin cancer. As the article states, far more in California buy lottery tickets than earthquake insurance. And only 30% of people use sunscreen.
I have the book Bright Sided, which discusses problems with the positive thinking movement. Haven't read it yet. This thread may get me to it as I am inclined to agree that we tend towards reckless self delusion. http://www.amazon.com/Bright-sided-Relentless-Promotion-Positive-Undermined/dp/0805087494
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 10, 2010 4:40 PM
myama,
Was it Cherry or Grape flavored?
Posted by: Richard Smith
|
September 10, 2010 4:40 PM
@myasthma (#566):
So if Oprah shot someone to death, it'd be okay because people are shot to death every day?
Please note: I have testicles, work with computers (where literalness is key), and understand that the aforementioned scenario is, in the literal sense, extremely improbable (touch wood - figuratively).
Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac)
|
September 10, 2010 4:42 PM
Not to mention all the Mel Gibson worshippers trying to explain away his racist, religiously-bigotted, etc., statements with the old, "he was drunk, that doesn't count....wah!!!.
Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac)
|
September 10, 2010 4:45 PM
*sigh*
Annnd, close quote.
Posted by: myama
|
September 10, 2010 4:46 PM
Since she has gone from playing "an" instrumental role to THE instrumental role in having Obama elected you undoubtedly will be able to cite sources
I already cited sources above. Put it this way: She's the only person who had a statistically measurable decisive impact on him getting the coveted Democratic nomination (and by extention, the presidency). In fact I think it was the first confirmed time in history that a political endorsement left such a measurable empirical footprint.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 10, 2010 4:47 PM
(Emphasis added.)
Y'know, this reminds me of those folks who will hear no ill of Bill Gates. Without getting into the details, almost every one of his defenders bring up how rich he is. "He's a self-made billionaire! You're just jealous."
Oprah didn't invent the confessional talk show. It was on the way to popularity as it was. She may have rode the wave of popularity, but I'm not quite sure you can say she "revolutionized" American culture.
And I'm not sure being the best at a questionable TV format is something to brag about anyway.
So, for Oprah's greatness, you list her influence, and her money. She really hasn't done anything, has she? She's not come up with a way to "empower" (whatever the fuck that means) women, she's just found a way to make a buck promoting other peoples' solutions. She hasn't really ruled a country, she just peddled another person using her influence. She's not actually done any research, cured any diseases, solved any crimes, written any software, designed any clothes, or built any houses. She has co-authored five books, but those seem to be written more by her trainer than by her. However, she does promote other authors' books.
So really, except for her exceptional roles in a couple of movies, it seems she really hasn't done anything. Just made money by promoting other people.
But she is a billionaire. And influential. So I guess that makes her contributions to society just peachy.
Posted by: Ewan R
|
September 10, 2010 4:54 PM
Interestingly in TIME's most influential 100 people Oprah comes in a paltry 4th - and as the third woman, in Artists.
Topped by Lady Gaga, Kathryn Bigalow and Conan O'Brien.
So not only is she not the most influential woman alive today by Time's criteria.... she's less influential than Lady fucking Gaga. Awesome.
The Atlantic's top 100 Americans ever contains a number of women (an appallingly low number, but given how sucky the world is this isn't a great surprise) oddly lacking any mention whatsoever of Oprah.
Interestingly (because I can't find the 100 most important people ever list, and have to get back to work) the life magazine 100 most important people of the last millenium (which I seem to recall Oprah existing in) contains a number of women, Oprah is sadly lacking...
To put Oprah infront of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Margaret Sanger, Eleanor Roosevelt, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Rachel Carson, Jane Addams, Betty Friedan, Marie Curie, Florence Nightingale or any of a number of other women is a shamelessly US TV-chat show centric affront to what has been historically or socially important in the past thousand years - if you live in a bubble of morbid stupidity in which the proclamations of a self important fucktard on daytime TV made rich on advertising money and endorsements even come close to the achievements (you know, actual, meaningful achievements) of the women listed above then you are the perfect example of the sort of brain damage that day time TV causes amongst the gullible.
Posted by: myama
|
September 10, 2010 4:56 PM
When "the most influential woman on the planet" promotes dangerous pseudo-science (and The Secret was demonstrably dangerous, as was noted above), that has far greater consequence.
Well it was dangerous to at least one person, but it's been helpful to at least thousands of others. The Catcher in the Rye actually caused the death of one of the greatest icons in popular culture, but such anecdotes prove little. One would actually have to do an experiment to see what the measurable effects (positive or negative) of reading THE SECRET are. Science often gives counter-intuitive results which is why intelligent people tend not to jump to rash conclusions.
Posted by: Skippy
|
September 10, 2010 4:58 PM
myama bleated:
I'd love to see your data supporting that assertion. I'd also love for you to explain what you said initially:
I'm sure it's been pointed out to you (as I did and I'm sure others did) that you were flat-out wrong here. However, you've not admitted that your initial assessment of Harriet Hall was absolutely, unequivocally wrong. I don't give a flying fig about "The Secret" and all its attendant bullshit; frankly, it's become a red herring. The point is this: you misread Hall and you claimed she had a problem with good scholarship when this has clearly not been the case. Respond to THAT instead of carrying on this foolish bullshit about the Secret.
Posted by: Dania
|
September 10, 2010 5:02 PM
1. You keep conflating success with being rich. Don't you think that's a bit shallow of you?
2. Oppressed people really don't need someone telling them to work harder, you're right about that. They also don't need to be told that they just need to think positive thoughts and they'll be free someday. That will still require them to act. You don't fight against your oppressors by thinking good thoughts.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 10, 2010 5:05 PM
Keep lying to yourself on this one cupcake. She wasn't instrumental, just a bit player. All the folks that contributed money to his campaign were more instrumental than Oprah was. All the folks that knocked on doors, gave out campaign literature, and showed up to rebut the rethuglicans did a lot more than she did. Oprah wasn't important enough for his campaign to rate the stage or front row during his acceptance speech after the election. You lie to yourself frequently. Just stop lying to us, because we will expose your lies. We are very good at it, as we have had lots of practice.Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 10, 2010 5:05 PM
Duh. As I've said, repeatedly, the only fucking thing Oprah cares about is money and attention. She'd claim to be god the creator if she thought she could get away with it.
In your case, myama, she seems to have succeeded. Pathetic.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 10, 2010 5:07 PM
But the Catcher in the Rye was a novel, not a book purporting to be a self help guide that had the answers from the secret laws and principles of the universe.
Logic isn't one of your strong points.
Posted by: myama
|
September 10, 2010 5:07 PM
Interestingly in TIME's most influential 100 people Oprah comes in a paltry 4th - and as the third woman, in Artists.
Actually Time magazine's list is not ranked so no one on the list ranks higher than anyone else. The only ranking you can make is how many times someone makes the Time 100 and Oprah's made the list more time than any other person (not artist only) on the planet (male OR female). The second most frequently listed people are Obama and Hillary.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 10, 2010 5:08 PM
It's nice to see you've learned your science from Oprah -- require citations when you disagree on the most trivial thing, but don't require them when you agree with the most preposterous bald assertions.
Posted by: Dania
|
September 10, 2010 5:11 PM
myama, are you going to answer my question above? In your view, does Oprah have any flaws?
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
September 10, 2010 5:12 PM
"I think that a lot of science types, especially male science types who post on internet forums, are on the autistic side of the neurological bell curve, so while often brilliant at processing logical systems, you have trouble with the non-logical nature of practical language and thus have trouble differentiating literal from metaphoric statements. "
Language is "practical" insofar as it clearly and efficiently communicates ideas. You can't cloak your BS idea in scientific-appearing terms ("Law"), and spiritual terms ("The Secret", with all the air of revealed wisdom that comes with it) and then turn around and claim that you were just speaking in metaphor. Maybe you were, but in that case, they are BAD metaphors. Wielded POORLY. The idea of positive thinking and believing in one's self is NOT a "Secret".
"Women, especially the type of women who watch Oprah, are especially well wired to comprehend practical language and emotional abstractions so they have the ability to grasp the empowering essence of THE SECRET which is that nothing (and I don't literally mean nothing) is more powerful than human thought and we have the power to shape our destiny. "
You're insulting both men and women. Please stop.
"I'd be far more concerned with all the pseudo-science that scientists actually believe and that gets published in peer reviewed journals than some feel good fluff that folks only partly believed for a couple months before moving on to the next fad. "
I'm amused at how the Secret has turned from a tool of empowerment to "feel good fluff". Maybe that means we're making some headway. One can almost hope that Oprah herself is reading this thread.
"she was in a unique position to give THE SECRET credibility by crediting her success to such thinking, so she cleverly recognized the opportunity to increase her cultural relevance even more."
So she's a whore.
"Pseudo-science gets promoted every day."
And every day we call the promoters out on it. Particularly if they are as influential as Oprah is (and especially if she's as influential as you claim her to be). I know, demanding intellectual rigor and empirical evidence is so male of us.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 10, 2010 5:14 PM
Somewhere, a toad farted ominously...
Oy, myama the Cupcake is back. (This ominous toad fart thing seems to really work, unlike The Secret; toads seems to have natural talent as oracles with regard to something stinky this way comes...)
Oh, give it a rest, you fucking moron. Obama is far from the most powerful person on the planet. I don't know where the hell you're getting your picture of the U.S., but if it's coming from Oprah, you've suffered brain damage.
All she did was support Obama; like one hell of a lot of other people. In case you didn't know, people haven't been all that impressed with him since the election.
A better question to pose your limited, shriveled brain is this: where the hell was all powerful, almighty
godOprah when Bush was single-handedly destroying the U.S.? I can tell you what she was doing - cosying up to peddlers of woo and quacks of all description, along with fawning over the odd celeb here and there. Yeah, earth shaking stuff, that. ::eyeroll::Posted by: TheBlackCat
|
September 10, 2010 5:16 PM
Except he isn't Muslim, and he isn't technically black either, and neither Muslims nor blacks are expressly forbidden from being in government, and Muslims are not "third-class citizens" they are disliked by some but have all the legal rights everyone else does (unlike women at the time who had no rights whatsoever), and all she did was help get him in power she didn't actually get the power herself, and there isn't any indication that the man in question will go down in history as one of the greatest leaders the country or even world has ever seen, and he hasn't been seen as such during his rule, and taking power right now doesn't tend to put your life at considerable risk from friends and family (not to mention enemies) wanting it for themselves. I guess she is not the top woman on the list, or else you would have said this. So you are saying she played a bigger role than he himself played? And if so, why isn't she president?Posted by: Skippy
|
September 10, 2010 5:16 PM
Dania, good luck getting myama to respond to your question. I think this person is much more comfortable "discussing" these red herrings and then acting as though she's a font of wisdom than actually responding to a) a direct question about this Oprah person or b) backing up any of the grandiose and, frankly, buttfuckingly ignorant claims she's made.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
September 10, 2010 5:18 PM
myama (#581)
You didn't make any such point. You merely continue to assume that anyone who would put hard work before positive thinking must have an unnuanced understanding of the role of hard work in success. Way back up in #252, I pointed out that linking hard work and success isn't victim blaming "if you have realistic expectations over what can and cannot be achieved through hard work." Since no one is saying success depends entirely on hard work, quit trying to frame what we say as such a moronic extreme, you dishonest fuck.
So you're admitting that positive thinking has nothing to do with getting rich? I mean, neither working smart nor getting lucky require you to entertain a single positive thought.
(#590)
If one would have to do such experiments, then how do you know it's been helpful to thousands?
Canned tuna contains a lot of mercury these days which is why young women no longer worry about concealing their bra straps. (It is non sequitur hour, right?)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 10, 2010 5:19 PM
Myama reminds me of Al*n Cl*rke, persistent creationist troll. Keeps running around in circles as each bit she puts out is soundly refuted, eventually ending up back where he started, and beginning the circle of evasions anew. Won't answer the hard questions that would rip her to shreds. Amusing chew toy.
Posted by: Hekuni Cat, Champion of Oriana
|
September 10, 2010 5:21 PM
Mattir, thank you for #568! You said everything I wanted to say in response to the above quote (and probably better than what I would have written).
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 10, 2010 5:22 PM
So you're saying that she ISN'T using her show to try and help people and be all womanly and empathetic and philanthropic and whatnot, but rather that she uses her show only to pimp her name out to garner herself more popularity and money.
Posted by: Dania
|
September 10, 2010 5:22 PM
Nerd, I was thinking the exact same thing. Like Alan Clarke, except her god is Oprah.
Posted by: myama
|
September 10, 2010 5:27 PM
Keep lying to yourself on this one cupcake. She wasn't instrumental, just a bit player. All the folks that contributed money to his campaign were more instrumental than Oprah was.
It's a statistically proven fact that he would have lost the Democratic nomination in a million vote land slide had she not endorsed him and that she had a positive effect on contributions to boot. Does that make her more important than all his other supporters COMBINED? Obviously not, but as an individual she had a profoundly outsized impact. And Oprah not only gave money, but held a massive fundraiser too and promoted his book on her show.
Oprah wasn't important enough for his campaign to rate the stage or front row during his acceptance speech after the election.
That's because they were sensetive to the growing media perception that he was elected by a talk show host and because getting political proved bad for Oprah's ratings.
Just stop lying to us, because we will expose your lies. We are very good at it, as we have had lots of practice.
Don't confuse ego with skill. You're so good at exposing my lies that it takes 20 of you to respond to every one post I make.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
September 10, 2010 5:30 PM
The Secret Oprah Troll just loves to say that Obama is suspected of being a Muslim. The only people who suspect that have a disconnect with reality. But sadly, they have a loud media megaphone. I suspect that the SOT takes this suspicion seriously.
I do wish that the SOT would back up the first assertion that it leaked onto this thread; you know, about Dr. Hall's dislike of scholarship.
On a more personal note, if the SOT brings up this tripe about Oprah helping teh gayz, I will run into the forest preserves to find a decaying porcupine.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 10, 2010 5:30 PM
Nerd #604
The luster is wearing off on this one. She doesn't engage, all she does it praise Oprah, denigrate those who don't praise Oprah, and make silly statements about science and people arguing with her.
Posted by: Dania
|
September 10, 2010 5:33 PM
That's not the point. The point is: does that make her more important than women such as Marie Curie, Hatshepsut, or Elizabeth I?
No, wait, that's also not the point. The point is why you aren't explaining this:
But that was, like, ages ago.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 10, 2010 5:34 PM
Hey! Universe! We need a new troll. We broke this one.
Posted by: Skippy
|
September 10, 2010 5:37 PM
And yet you can't respond to me when I asked you to explain this:
Posted by: Cheezits
|
September 10, 2010 5:39 PM
Even if Oprah says "I used to LITERALLY weigh a ton" she is STILL not saying that she used to LITERALLY weigh a ton...
Uh, yes she IS saying that, she just doesn't mean it because she's one of those dumabasses who doesn't know what the word "literally" means.
Posted by: goldfinch
|
September 10, 2010 5:42 PM
Myama said: "You don't get rich by working hard. You get rich by working smart and having opportunity."
I hate that expression, "working smart," wtf does it really mean? You are efficient? Creative? No mental health issues? Not a helpful directive.
Myama, Oprah did work hard. I know people who are extremely driven and disciplined hard workers and are successful by American standards (read: rich). Most self made rich people do seem to be high on the motivation scale. But why are they so driven? What makes them that way? Motivation and drive are complicated matters. And as you acknowledge, other factors need to come into play as well. The right kind of smarts. Other elements of luck. I think that drive is reinforced by success and there is nothing like failure to sap motivation. Because after all, failure is a f on the report card of life and if you get too many f's you tend to give up.
So, I am not inclined to fawn over driven people. (I am also lucky in that somehow charisma escapes me. I don't need another hero.)
Posted by: Truckle
|
September 10, 2010 5:42 PM
I have finally worked it out!
Is Oprah the most wisest human to ever live?
I smell a serious amount of timecube here... Except we have a sycophant who believes Oprah is the inventor of the four cornered day!
Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac)
|
September 10, 2010 5:42 PM
*yawn Bored, now. Dull Troll is dull. Interest lost. Back to Teh Thread.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 10, 2010 5:43 PM
huhwaah?
Posted by: Skippy
|
September 10, 2010 5:47 PM
Rev, that's just another bit of foolishness thrown out by myama to make herself feel smart. If she had any data to support the argument, she'd have posted it by now.
Posted by: Dania
|
September 10, 2010 5:50 PM
*falls over laughing*
Win!
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 10, 2010 5:51 PM
I wonder if myamoprah knows that there are billions of people in the world who have no idea who Oprah is? And that even here, according to Wikipedia, "Viewership for the show has been reported to drop over the years averaging 12.6 million in 91-92,[25] 9 million in 04,[19] 9 million in 05,[22] 7.8 in 06,[22] 7.3 million in 08,[22] and 6.2 million in 09.[25]"? And that 6.2 million is less than 2% of the population just of the US?
Posted by: Chgo_Liz
|
September 10, 2010 5:54 PM
Searching the local paper for news on a car accident (which they don't have any record of, but I digress), and found this little gem from a local columnist.
Just for you, my sweet little miasma: an imagined phone conversation between Mayor Daley and Oprah
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
September 10, 2010 5:55 PM
SOT, you are a fluke of the Universe. You have no right to be here. Whether you can hear it or not, the Universe is laughing behind your back.
Posted by: btthegeek
|
September 10, 2010 5:58 PM
As Mark Crislip would say, myama is one of the four out of three people who don't understand statistics.
@ Nigel, I think it was broken when it came here. I suspect a case of opricus winfrickius, a very serious neuro-degenerative disease first discovered among former audience members attending talk shows. Myama is exhibiting classic symptoms of hero-worship, repetition, verbosity, and lack of reading comprehension found only in the most advanced cases of o. winfrickius exposure.
Recommended treatment at this stage can only be the extraction of one's head from one's ass. Sadly, any proximity to such an advanced case would most likely infect the person administering the treatment. At this point, quarantine and observation are really the only options.
Posted by: TheBlackCat
|
September 10, 2010 5:59 PM
Kill it.Anyone who listens to Weird Al is laughing right now.
Posted by: goldfinch
|
September 10, 2010 6:02 PM
Even is Oprah's endorsement of Obama effected the election, that doesn't mean anything beyond the fact that Oprah had influence at that point in time. Which I think isn't necessarily a good thing. Didn't someone link to Wikipedia's discussion of Cult of Personality?
Plus, we don't even know if Obama's win over Hill was a good thing. Hope it was the right decision. The decision isn't automatically right just because he was black and a not muslim.
Myama said: Don't confuse ego with skill. You're so good at exposing my lies that it takes 20 of you to respond to every one post I make.
Gee, that is a stupid comment. It isn't like we have a meeting to discuss your posts and then assign responses. It could be 20 people respond and say the same thing. It could be 20 people respond to 20 different wrong things you say. Lies? I think we are saying that you are wrong on most points you make and may be even kind of stupid, but the consensus does not seem to be that you are a liar.
Posted by: Zabinatrix
|
September 10, 2010 6:04 PM
I love this "argument" - it seems like most recent trolls use it. They just love to repeat "There are more people on your side than there is on mine, this proves that you're stuuupid and can't handle me one on one!"
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 10, 2010 6:07 PM
Ah, Sagittarius!
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
September 10, 2010 6:08 PM
Oh...
I mean, I was assuming it was an Oprah Fact™
... y'know... it's like a Chuck Norris Fact. Only empathier 'n more intuitiony.
Samples:
'Oprah's tears can cure autism. Especially in wonkish, tragically competent, sciency types who previously had no inkling they even had it, but who were clearly lead astray from the divine light that is Jenny McCarthy by this sad ailment.'*
'The chief export of Oprah is self-actualization. And world peace. Also, she once fed 5,000 members of her studio audience with a just one Weight Watchers muffin 'n two frozen fish sticks. Also, they all got free makeovers.'
... compose your own as needed.
(*/... regrettably, however, this effect remains mostly theoretical, as she more often makes them cry.)
Posted by: heatherly
|
September 10, 2010 6:14 PM
Hey! Universe! We need a new troll. We broke this one.
nigel: You aren't wishing hard enough!
You don't get rich by working hard. You get rich by working smart and having opportunity.
myama: rich ≠ success.
Will you actually answer any of the questions posed to you today?
1. Your educational and professional background
2. Does Oprah have any flaws?
3. Evidence that Harriet Hall has problems with scholarship
4. Your statistical data regarding Oprah and the election of Obama. And a poll on Oprah's website doesn't count. Gallup? Zogby?
5. Why are you so invested in defending Oprah?
I think there are a lot more pending questions, but let's see if you can answer five.
ps: wait. myama, do you actually believe that rich DOES mean successful?
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 10, 2010 6:20 PM
'Tis:
Word. You'd think Oprah sweat pearls and farted peach blossoms.
Posted by: Peapoh
|
September 10, 2010 6:22 PM
"I think that a lot of science types, especially male science types who post on internet forums, are on the autistic side of the neurological bell curve, so while often brilliant at processing logical systems, you have trouble with the non-logical nature of practical language and thus have trouble differentiating literal from metaphoric statements. "
Just wanted to let the b.s. waft about.
...it's annoying that your argumentation seems to rely on confirmation bias and highly compartmentalized prejudices. Race/gender/monetary status seem to matter more than intellectual honesty.
As a science major and a female, I ask you to kindly rethink your simplistic approach to argumentation. Because once again the above drivel did nothing but make you look prejudiced.
Posted by: CJO
|
September 10, 2010 6:24 PM
heatherly, I suspect that the answers to 1. and 5. on your list will be closely related, or, rather, that the answer to 1. will also answer 5.
Myama is likely an intern at OprahCorp, tasked with Google searching the Holy Name, and responding to any unwelcome attention Her Towering Integrity may be suffering on the Toobz.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 10, 2010 6:24 PM
AJ:
No need to go the myama Cupcake route and make things up out of whole cloth; yes, the Great and Powerful
OzOprah once bought a whole audience cars; she just didn't tell 'em they had to fork over up to 7 grand in taxes to keep them. Bet there were a lot of tears that day. Tsk.Posted by: Cheezits
|
September 10, 2010 6:27 PM
5. Why are you so invested in defending Oprah?
Haven't you been paying attention? Oprah is woman, must defend woman.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
September 10, 2010 6:27 PM
"Uh, yes she IS saying that, she just doesn't mean it because she's one of those dumabasses who doesn't know what the word "literally" means."
Ah, good eye. So much for "practical" language.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 10, 2010 6:31 PM
Janine:
I can help, I actually know where one is, it's only about 13 miles from the house...
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 10, 2010 6:34 PM
Cheezits:
No, no. Oprah is Afircan [sic] American, Rich Woman. Most influential. Damn near a god. Er, goddess. Or somethin'.
Posted by: goldfinch
|
September 10, 2010 6:40 PM
Someday I shall proofread.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 10, 2010 6:45 PM
Quite possibly, it's "Oprah is my tie to sanity during the long lonely hours of the daytime, and sometimes it feels like she's my only and best friend. "
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
September 10, 2010 6:49 PM
Myama is actually Gayle King in a gimp outfit, typing away madly as Oprah stands behind her shoulder in a leather peek-a-boo corset.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 10, 2010 6:54 PM
Citation idjit fuckwit, or you are nothing but a liar and bullshitter. Your word alone isn't worth the electrons for your post. Cite somebody with real worth. And get in the habit of searching for such links before you speak, and putting the link in your post. One way to separate the wheat from the chaff. So far, you are about half the density of chaff, and flying into the sky away from the heavier chaff, even further from the real wheat. See lightweight idjit, we male scientists can do metaphors too...Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
September 10, 2010 7:07 PM
Shorter myama: LEAVE OPRAH ALONE!!!
Posted by: goldfinch
|
September 10, 2010 7:13 PM
My buddy Rick Ross (the cult expert) thinks of Oprah as a televangelist as she promotes the new agey beliefs of The (fucking) Secret and Eckhart Tolle’s version of enlightenment.
http://www.cultnews.com/?p=2294
New age spirituality is as bad or worse than traditional religious. It is the religion of me, me me. I control my destiny. I can pick and chose and leave the rest. No one can tell me anything, I have mommy intuition.
Narcissists.
Posted by: chigau (◦_◦)
|
September 10, 2010 7:20 PM
Janine, SWOP, OM #623
I think I had an orgasm. (sorrysorrysorry)
I haven't thought about Deteriorata in literally&trade decades. I bet my poster is still stored in a trunk somewhere. With the Desiderata one.
fFor a while there, I could recite both.
Posted by: goldfinch
|
September 10, 2010 7:26 PM
Myama claimed:
it's a statistically proven fact that he would have lost the Democratic nomination in a million vote land slide had she not endorsed him and that she had a positive effect on contributions to boot.
She seems to get this claim from a wiki article on Oprah's endorsement of Obama. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprah_Winfrey%27s_endorsement_of_Barack_Obama
Not a critical article, but the article did not say that it was a "statistically proven fact" nor did the authors of the study. The study doesn't even seem to have been published in a peer reviewed journal and apparently uses novel methodology.
But as I said before, if she did influence the election this is nothing to brag about. She may have. Precisely because she has influence makes her forays into psuedo-science even more problematic.
Posted by: John Morales
|
September 10, 2010 7:29 PM
Oprah makes the reiki peddlers happy.
What a force for good she is.
Posted by: myama
|
September 10, 2010 7:34 PM
Oprah didn't invent the confessional talk show. It was on the way to popularity as it was. She may have rode the wave of popularity, but I'm not quite sure you can say she "revolutionized" American culture.
Prior to Oprah, Donahue was the number one day time talk show in America and he invented the “tabloid talk show” which is credited with giving gays decades of high impact media visibility. But Donahue was just an island in a sea of traditional television; his influence was limited until Oprah came along and brilliantly revolutionized his format with her own touchy-feely confessional style and doubled his audience and negotiated the most lucrative deal in TV history. Soon the industry exploded with copycats smelling the money, and tabloid talk shows went from being one show hosted by Donahue to an important counterculture movement.
So, for Oprah's greatness, you list her influence, and her money. She really hasn't done anything, has she?
She’s completely dominated an incredibley competetive and improviational field for a quarter century creating a wave of social change in the process.
She hasn't really ruled a country, she just peddled another person using her influence.
If there’s anything more impressive than being king, it’s being the king maker.
She's not actually done any research, cured any diseases, solved any crimes, written any software, designed any clothes, or built any houses. She has co-authored five books, but those seem to be written more by her trainer than by her. However, she does promote other authors' books.
Her money has built plenty of houses (especially in the wake of Katrina), her show has solved plenty of crimes (caught child molestors), she passed bill through congress to catch even more, and her endorsement of Obama inspired groundbreaking statistical research on the effects of endorsements (since Oprah is the ultimate test of influence).
And what Oprah does every day is the equivalent of writing a thousand books. An author entertains people but spends months, if not decades perfectiving and revising the entertainment he creates. Oprah entertains people just by saying whatever witty comment or sarcastic facial expression just happens to pop in her head. You try talking for an hour a day and making it so fresh, so amusing, so spontanieous, so inspiring and emotionally compelling that millions upon millions of people hang on your every word in the face of explosive competition to the point where you’re one of the richest and most influential people on the planet. She’s one of the greatest artists of all time and has an incredibley savvy business/marketing mind to boot.
Duh. As I've said, repeatedly, the only fucking thing Oprah cares about is money and attention
She cares about attention because she was born illegitimate to a welfare mother who didn’t have the time or desire to give her the love she craved. And she certainly enjoys the attention of having all that money, but if money were her top priority, she would not have risked her popularity to campaign for a black alleged Muslim who promised to raise her taxes by tens of millions of dollars, against the two most admired white woman (hillary & palin) in the land (when the audience that makes her rich is mostly white women)
But the Catcher in the Rye was a novel, not a book purporting to be a self help guide that had the answers from the secret laws and principles of the universe
You missed the point, the point being that just because some unstable person does something destructive because of a book, does not prove the book is dangerous..
myama, are you going to answer my question above? In your view, does Oprah have any flaws?
She has lots of flaws. She has limited self-discipline (weight problems) and she sometimes fails to sufficiently challenge her celebrity guests for fear they wont return to her show however 99% of the time, celebrities are only there to promote movies or TV shows.
where the hell was all powerful, almighty god Oprah when Bush was single-handedly destroying the U.S.?
Actually Oprah was virtually the only major media to jump off the pro-Bush bandwagon during the run up to war in Iraq. The day after Colin Powell’s pivotal UN speech making the case for war, Oprah hosted a TWO DAY anti-war show that was so controversial there allegedly were attempts by the government to block it from airing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hoYisRDBWI
Then 48 hours before the war began Oprah hosted yet another anti-war show that the Canadian press described as an “extraordinary act of intelligence”. Michael Moore was so impressed he begged her to run for president.
Except he isn't Muslim, and he isn't technically black either
What do you consider the technical definition of black? And he’s of Muslim herritage and that matters more to people than what he believes.
I guess she is not the top woman on the list, or else you would have said this.
Life magazine did not ranke the 100 most influential people of all time in order of influence so we don’t know who they consider the top woman (but she’s the ONLY living woman on the list).
So you're admitting that positive thinking has nothing to do with getting rich? I mean, neither working smart nor getting lucky require you to entertain a single positive thought.
Positive thinking gives you the motivation, but then you need opportunity and to be smart enough to recognize and make use of it.
So you're saying that she ISN'T using her show to try and help people and be all womanly and empathetic and philanthropic and whatnot, but rather that she uses her show only to pimp her name out to garner herself more popularity and money.
I think she wants to both help herself and others. Occassionally she’ll serve her own interests at the expense of her viewers (or vice verca), but she’s brilliantly created an empire where usually the two goals are compatible.
I hate that expression, "working smart," wtf does it really mean? You are efficient? Creative? No mental health issues? Not a helpful directive.
Trying to kill someone with a heavy blunt rock is working hard. Trying to kill someone with a light sharp rock is working smart. Shoveling snow off your driveway by moving uphill is working hard; shoveling downhill is working smart.
Rev, that's just another bit of foolishness thrown out by myama to make herself feel smart. If she had any data to support the argument, she'd have posted it by now.
I already provided the article about the study:
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/so-much-for-one-person-one-vote/
I wonder if myamoprah knows that there are billions of people in the world who have no idea who Oprah is? And that even here, according to Wikipedia, "Viewership for the show has been reported to drop over the years
She’s still the number one talk show in America and has been so for a quarter century in a culture constanly looking for someone newer, hipper, younger. And 99.99999% of the world doesn’t know who Bernard Lewis but he’s arguabley the most influential person of the early 21st century because of his impact on U.S. foreign policy.
Posted by: Cheezits
|
September 10, 2010 7:48 PM
No, no. Oprah is Afircan [sic] American, Rich Woman. Most influential.
The subtext of Myama's posts has been mostly praise for Oprah mainly for being a woman, while putting down reasonable criticism as "autistic" and "hyper-male". I'm probably going to be labelled that way myself just for knowing the definition of "literally". :-D
I kind of like Oprah, myself. I don't watch the show or read her magazine, but she seems to be able to inspire people. This is a talent that should be used for good in my opinion.
Posted by: John Morales
|
September 10, 2010 7:48 PM
myama, Oprah is a successful woo-enabling tabloid talk show personality, fine. Queen of trash TV, if you like.
Big deal.
Posted by: Skippy
|
September 10, 2010 7:50 PM
myama just went and proved that she's a blinkered idiot. Amazing. I asked her TWICE point blank to defend her original assertions about the actual subject matter of the post to which she so idiotically responded.
Outcome? Nothing.
However, she's responded to virtually every other tangential bit of foolishness that has popped up in this thread--including my own comment to RevBigDumbChimp.
What's the matter, myama? Cat got your brain cell?
Posted by: myama
|
September 10, 2010 7:51 PM
Myama is likely an intern at OprahCorp, tasked with Google searching the Holy Name, and responding to any unwelcome attention
I should probably state again that I have no connection to Oprah or her company. I'm just a fan of hers who lives and posts from Canada. I don't think it would be wise for Oprah to hire someone to defend her on blogs (unless they identified themselves) and I don't think someone who was hired to do this would be as good as me, because they wouldn't have the passion or knowledge I have.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 10, 2010 7:53 PM
Or be so nutty about protecting a billionaire woo-meister.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
September 10, 2010 7:55 PM
So what you're saying is that even though she is supposedly so influential, she couldn't promote a good self-help book to her viewers but settled for merely riding the wave of The Secret's popularity? Instead of actually educating her viewers, she chose to push whatever crap was sure to sell?What's the use of her then, if she can't make a good thing popular and merely settles for pushing forward the thing that's accelerating as it is (metaphor)?
As Steven Fry said about the Catholic Church:
"If you couldn't know better because nobody else did, then what are you for?"
Posted by: heatherly
|
September 10, 2010 7:57 PM
myama, you're obviously still reading, so Skippy has a question for you:
I asked her TWICE point blank to defend her original assertions about the actual subject matter of the post to which she so idiotically responded.
Outcome? Nothing.
However, she's responded to virtually every other tangential bit of foolishness that has popped up in this thread--including my own comment to RevBigDumbChimp.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 10, 2010 7:58 PM
Oh my fucking god. I don't even know how to start with that, besides NO. It's really, really not.
Posted by: myama
|
September 10, 2010 7:59 PM
myama just went and proved that she's a blinkered idiot. Amazing. I asked her TWICE point blank to defend her original assertions about the actual subject matter of the post to which she so idiotically responded.
Sorry but I don't have time to respond to the dozens of comments, criticisms, and questions being fired at every single comment I make, especially when there's good TV on. With respect to Harriet Hall, one of the problems she claimed to have with O magazine was editors who don't understand her references/citations. From this I suspect she may have been trying to make claims for which editors felt her sources were insuffient, but she obviously blames the editors for not understanding how suffient her sources were. Without knowing the specifics, I was wrong to be critical of her.
Posted by: Cheezits
|
September 10, 2010 8:06 PM
She’s one of the greatest artists of all time...
Give me a break.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 10, 2010 8:06 PM
In otherwords, worthless. Totally expect from Myama. No understanding of real evidence...Still no scientific evidence, just inane and unsupported claims Myama. Your word is worth nothing (or the NYT), but words of academia from Google Scholar can be your friend...or expose your lies.
For example:
And Reiki has been thoroughly debunked, since the practitioners can't tell the difference (link to scientific article by a nine-year old) between a real limb and a prosthetic, or nothing. A nine-year-old is smarter than Myama...Posted by: John Morales
|
September 10, 2010 8:07 PM
myama:
Weak.
Where's your passion and knowledge now?
Think positive! Make more time!
--
PS Regarding your advocacy for Oprah: "How's That Working For You?"
Posted by: ambook
|
September 10, 2010 8:07 PM
Holy freaking moley - it took 657 comments to get you to answer this fundamental question? With focus as keen as that, you could be an O editor yourself.
Also, as to Ms. Winfrey being a kingmaker, I am located 25 miles from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue at this moment and can hear the gales of laughter from senior White House staff laughter at this great distance. Sweetie, a politician treats every donor like a kingmaker and never calls tonight's donor by last night's donor's name. That's what made Barack Obama so good at his job when his job was to get elected to the presidency. (This is not, by the way, criticism of Mr. Obama in particular. There are plenty of reasons to criticize him, but being able to treat the people who buy the TV time special is not one of them, since it's a prerequisite to political office.)
~Mattir (gotta fix that)
Posted by: heatherly
|
September 10, 2010 8:13 PM
especially when there's good TV on.
*dies* Of course. Well, you toddle along then, wouldn't want you to miss an opportunity to be thoroughly
uninformed by television.LOL!
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
September 10, 2010 8:14 PM
myama (#648)
If I fail, are you going to blame something I did?
Why are you working so hard to convince us Oprah can do no wrong?
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
September 10, 2010 8:15 PM
myama modestly wrote:
Paging Dr Dunning, paging Dr Kruger - emergency, emergency!
Posted by: Skippy
|
September 10, 2010 8:21 PM
After 656 comments and more than a few requests to support her original assertions, this is what we get:
You're so full of bullshit, I'm surprised that you're able to even use a computer.
1. You assiduously avoided responding to the most direct question about a direct point that started this whole mess. It took the cajoling of myself, plus at least two other posters to get you to respond to your initial claims about Harriet Hall--mind you, you actually responded to an aside I made which followed one of my direct questions to you about your claims about Hall. Don't fuck around and give me bullshit about "good TV" and responding to soooo many other challenges, especially when you posted a lengthy response to many people--including me!--but evaded the most direct questions about your nonsense.
2. It is clear that you either did not read the linked blog entry by Hall herself in which she clearly outlines the problems she had with O magazine editors, or you're purposefully misrepresenting her issues with these numbnuts in order to support your sagging Oprah worldview. Hall point blank says,
The "specifics" that you claim not to know are right. fucking. there. Read the goddamn piece by Hall and then, after you've pulled your head out of Oprah's ass, come back and talk to us.
Posted by: Zabinatrix
|
September 10, 2010 8:34 PM
Skippy:
Well thanks for that image... I doubt that I'll be able to sleep tonight. Eww...
But I agree with Wowbagger at #664 - myama sure is modest. S/he mentions her awesome mind, vast knowledge, passion, intelligence, education and general wonderfulness almost as much as "I'm a Canadian" and "twenty against one!"
Seriously though, why does the Canada thing come up again and again? What does coming from Canada have to do with anything? Is it just meant to further distract from the issue at hand, or is it somehow meant to lend credence to the "arguments" put forth by this Canadian?
Posted by: myama
|
September 10, 2010 8:38 PM
In otherwords, worthless. Totally expect from Myama. No understanding of real evidence...
Why don't you read the study by two economists at the University of Maryland and explain what's worthless about it? Oh but that would require brains, something you don't appear to have.
Posted by: Robert H
|
September 10, 2010 8:40 PM
myama @648
She’s one of the greatest artists of all time...
Oh you poor dear! I apologize if I've seemed rude or haughty. I admire your pluck, your passion, and your tenacity, and wish you well. There are many ways to explore the realm of art: books, the Internet, survey classes at a local JC, museums, theaters, concert halls, etc. Turn off the TV (better yet, defenestrate it) and please check some of them out; your rewards will be orders of magnitude greater than your efforts. Again, best of luck.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 10, 2010 8:46 PM
Oh, I have brains fuckwit. But I'm not making the claim, you are. I do science for a living. And the burden of proof lies you for every claim you make. So you need to link your evidence. Or shut the fuck up. Which is it? Show us your true lack of scientific/academic evidence, or shut up because you can't show it? Only liars and bullshitter can't put up, and can't shut up. What are you???Posted by: Randy (not Randy)
|
September 10, 2010 8:53 PM
Before this thread gets shut down, let's not lose sight of some of Oprah's other dishonest book recommendations.
She loves any piece of crap written by Detroit sports reporter Mitch Albom who should have been fired from his job for falsifying a story, claiming he attended an event with two people who never went to said event.
And don't forget about James Frey and his book A Million Little Lies.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
September 10, 2010 8:54 PM
Really? Oprah as an artists ranks up there with Michelangelo, van Gogh, Miles Davis, Jane Austen and Shakespeare?
Even Kwok didn't take his obsession with Ken Miller this far.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 10, 2010 8:55 PM
Skippy:
+1
Idiot:
By your reckoning, that would make Jerry Springer God Almighty.
Posted by: desertfroglet
|
September 10, 2010 8:57 PM
My goodness, this thread has moved along overnight.
I'm over my curiosity about the apparent sexism and racism in Myama's assumption that everyone on the forum is a white male. Now something else is begin to intrigue me.
When providing examples to bolster the arguments (I use the term loosely), Myama chose the role of Catcher in the Rye in Lennon's murder. Then, this gem @ 648
Obssessed fans are very odd.
Posted by: pixelfish
|
September 10, 2010 8:57 PM
I'm still boggling over Myama bringing up Catcher in the Rye (which incidentally is marketed as fiction, purchased as fiction, and generally consumed as fiction) as an example of how all books are capable of harm. Well, yes, they are potential links in a chain of causality, I suppose if you REALLY want to make that tenuous of a claim. But most books aren't claiming to be Answers to Life's Big Questions. See, Salinger didn't write Catcher in the Rye to be self-help, or even as a manual for how to shoot celebrities outside their houses....but The Secret is marketed as self-help, as a manual for living, and is therefore subject to actual criticism over its methodology. The Secret is EXPLICITLY do X, then Y. Going this route is a transparent attempt to defang the indefensible accusation that Oprah promoted The Secret strenuously. Can't deny that, so we'll try and shift the grounds under which The Secret was presented. "It's just a book!" or "Other books are worse!" or "Other books have been responsible for people's deaths!"
...
"...especially when there's good TV on..."
Wow. I mean, I could understand not engaging in the first place, but having thrown your energies at this thread for nearly two days straight, you're just now recalling the existence of the magical shiny box. How often does this good TV roll around?
Posted by: Randy (not Randy)
|
September 10, 2010 8:57 PM
Bullshit artist, perhaps.
Posted by: Skippy
|
September 10, 2010 9:01 PM
Why don't you read the original piece by Harriet Hall and explain the problems that she had with the O magazine editors? Oh, but that would require brains, something you don't appear to have.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 10, 2010 9:04 PM
myamaoutmyass:
:falls over laughing: I think that's all she wrote, folks. Myama, I know what your trouble is - you have a deep and abiding desire to be Popalong Cassidy*.
*If you don't know who that is, try reading a book. In this case, The Complete Drive-In by Joe R. Lansdale.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
September 10, 2010 9:06 PM
This has officially gotten weird.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 10, 2010 9:09 PM
The 666 post number to shut down threads only works for the Eternal Thread™. Most others, including a Plantinga thread at about 1200 posts and still open, PZ prefers a natural death...Posted by: myama
|
September 10, 2010 9:12 PM
Oh, I have brains fuckwit. But I'm not making the claim, you are.
Oh but you are making claims. You asserted that the evidence I presented (a study done by two economists at the University of Maryland) was worthless. Can you explain what's worthless about it?
And don't forget about James Frey and his book A Million Little Lies.
And let's not forget how she brilliantly dragged him and his publisher to her studio and held them accountable for each and every lie in the most incredible public spanking in media history, and had the courage, integrity and brains to do it face to face on live unedited television where anything could have happened.
By your reckoning, that would make Jerry Springer God Almighty.
Actually Springer is probably one of the most underrated people in public life. He's incredibley thoughtful, articulate and witty, and people who actually meet him are shocked by how impressive his intellect is because he hosts such a silly show. But hosting a talk show is a lot tougher than it looks.
Posted by: Randy (not Randy)
|
September 10, 2010 9:13 PM
Oh, then let Teh Stupid commence.
(Actually, I would also like to see this thread die its obvious and natural death, but first Steadman Graham needs to stop using this forum to try and win his gravy train back.)
Posted by: Randy (not Randy)
|
September 10, 2010 9:16 PM
Oh look. Steadman conveniently cut out the part of my post detailing her love of Mitch Albom's schlock since he didn't have an answer for it, yet proceeded to include lies and exaggerations about the part he did have an answer for.
Honey, I did good today. Will you and Gayle let me back in now?
Posted by: Randy (not Randy)
|
September 10, 2010 9:19 PM
Some integrity
According to an article in Vanity Fair, which has been confirmed by Oprah's folks, the talk-show host recently reached out to the best-selling author she annihilated on live TV a few years ago for fibbing in his memoir.
"We invited him back on the show" last spring, says Oprah's spokeswoman, Angela dePaul
Posted by: JeffreyD
|
September 10, 2010 9:19 PM
Rev. BigDumbChimp - loved the Kool-aid reference.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 10, 2010 9:21 PM
No it isn't, you dimwit. Since you're such a TV fan, I'll cite the innumerable amount of networks, channels, etc., which hold reality competitions to be the next "whatever Star!"
It's absolutely nothing compared to actual work; it's standing around yakking and in Oprah's case, it's standing around yakking about her favourite subject, herself. Any idiot can do that.
Jerry Springer was smart enough to know an easy gig, along with many others.
Could you at least make an effort to come out of TV land long enough to engage that one, lonely brain cell of yours?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 10, 2010 9:25 PM
Why would economists make studies about political science? I'm an economist and I don't write political science papers.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 10, 2010 9:27 PM
The stoopid continues non-stop. There is world outside of talk TV. Most intelligent conversation occurs there...From the paper linked by Myama the fool:
Still no scientific evidence fool, as there is nocontrolcomparison (welcome to real science)...Posted by: Randy (not Randy)
|
September 10, 2010 9:28 PM
'Tis,
Because in Harpoville a doctor is a doctor is a doctor.
Posted by: myama
|
September 10, 2010 9:35 PM
See, Salinger didn't write Catcher in the Rye to be self-help, or even as a manual for how to shoot celebrities outside their houses
People were using an anecdote about one woman doing something destructive because of THE SECRET. I was simply pointing out that such anecdotes prove nothing, because if enough people read ANY book, it's inevitable that someone will be inspired do something destructive (i.e. Catcher in the Rye)and that should not reflect on the book itself.
Why don't you read the original piece by Harriet Hall and explain the problems that she had with the O magazine editors?
Because I don't care. I have no interest in defending O magazine editors against her accusations and I don't know their side of the story anyway. I'm not here to claim that everyone who works for Oprah behaves perfectly or that every aspect of her empire is run well. Indeed given how vast Oprah's empire is, it's inevitable that some areas will be poorly run and mistakes will be made.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 10, 2010 9:41 PM
Myama, you still have no point but Oprah worship. We see you total lack of evidence for your other points. Why are you continuing with your nonsense???
Posted by: Chgo_Liz
|
September 10, 2010 9:48 PM
#652:
and
OK, at least answer this question, then: what proof do you have that you - "just a fan" - know more about Oprah and her influence than any other Oprah fan, or someone who actually KNOWS her?
You've read her website and her magazine and probably every article that's ever been written about her, and you are able to regurgitate (or cut & paste) entire phrases and passages that glow with adulation. That doesn't make you special. You think you're the only fan who can do that?
Forget how special Oprah is. What makes YOU so special?
Posted by: Randy (not Randy)
|
September 10, 2010 9:52 PM
Duh! S/he's Canadian. S/he's mentioned that 50 times already.
(If nobody else minds I'm volunteering to answer all of the questions that Myama is too much of an idiot to answer.)
Posted by: pixelfish
|
September 10, 2010 9:54 PM
Once again, The Secret is sold and marketed as Self-Help. As in, advice to do something. It is not a case of reading the text sideways and coming up with something you wanted to justify already. It is a frickin' recipe for life according to Oprah. And as it is advertised, it does not WORK.
It's not just one woman doing something destructive....it's thousands of people getting sweet fuck all for what they believe is the answer. You don't have to be outright destructive. You can be a thief of time, energy, productivity, and be a pernicious scam and a parasite. It's fucking snake oil.
Posted by: Skippy
|
September 10, 2010 9:54 PM
You're a fucking idiot--especially since what started this whole shebang was your express defense of the O magazine editors! You moronic imbecile, you specifically made a claim that privileged the editors of the magazine and attempted to besmirch Hall and now--NOW--you want to act as though I can't fucking scroll up and read the bullshit you wrote in fucking comment number fucking three?
Furtherfuckingmore, you pathetic fucking troglodyte, this is not about "mistakes"--this is about editors who not only don't understand science, but would rather publish pseudo-science and quackery. A "mistake" is forgetting to include a source or a minor misattribution. But since you "don't care" to even fucking read the goddamn piece by Hall in the first fucking place, you really have no business commenting on any of this anyfuckingway.
Basically, fuck you and all that you fucking stand for, you fucking idiot.
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate
|
September 10, 2010 9:58 PM
Oh hey, I did a piece on Oprah last year:
http://biblioblography.blogspot.com/2009/06/fuck-oprah-queen-of-woo-sters.html
I'd forgotten all about it till this thread. Hope nobody minds.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 10, 2010 10:02 PM
Pssst, Skippy, the fuck off du jour 'round here now is "Go fuck yourself with a decaying porcupine. Backwards. And sideways."
Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic).
|
September 10, 2010 10:07 PM
Jerry Springer was on the Cincinnati city council, and resigned in 1974 after paying for a prostitute with a personal check. But a few TV groupies might think he is an intelligent man.
Me, I've seen him explaining to the camera that dating one's first cousin is a bad thing to do, sounding all wise and sincere. The joke is, he was born in a country where marrying one's cousin was perfectly legal.
You may think he is wonderful, Myama, but that doesn't make him wonderful. The same holds for your opinion of Oprah. You seem to be the kind of person who worships. You need a god or a guru or a great man to look up to.
Most of the folks here do NOT worship anyone or anything. Many of them are gurus (Indonesian for "teachers") and great people in their own way, and have the modesty that goes with greatness. They are seemingly rough on you, Myama, because you don't seem to be listening or understanding. But, truly they are being patient, and engaging with you in this discussion. The bitching they do goes with the turf here, sad to say.
Now me, I am not modest. I graduated from a good college, Summa Cum Laude in the Honors College, and got a Master of Science degree after that, and I wear a size 8 hat. But I will bend the intellectual knee to a great many people who comment here, because they have greater education and expertise in their areas, and even in many of my best areas. Notice, though, that I will not worship them. I do not worship anyone. Or anything.
And I will certainly never worship Oprah, nor anyone on TV. You should not, either, Myama. Have respect for yourself, and get over the idea that you need to be here defending Oprah--what we here think of her matters not a shit to her--and do, please, try to learn and understand what folks here are saying. They are making sense, even if you think you know better than them.
You are a brave and dedicated person, Myama, and you have written well and long. If you truly are an empowered person, you don't need to be doing this, splendid futility though it may be.
Folks here aren't going to quit, either, and they aren't going to change their minds. They have a worldview that is based on truth, and dedicated to truth, and not to worshipping a TV personality.
I am not going to say to give it up and go home. Instead, give it up and stick around. You were here for some reason before this started, and you might like what you learn on some other topics besides Oprah.
Pick a new moniker if you want, or keep using Myama. You are a brave foe and a worthy writer. Put your determination and dedication into something better, such as helping President Obama, or stopping some nitwits from starting a war over the burning holy books.
Good luck and good night.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
September 10, 2010 10:08 PM
We're talking about the guy who payed a prostitute with a personal check, right?
It's actually quite easy to get rich if you have no sense of dignity and/or don't mind lying to people. Televangelists do it all the time.
What's so brilliant about throwing someone under the bus after criticism arises?
Seriously, this hero worship thing is seriously distorting your views on reality.
Posted by: chigau (◦_◦)
|
September 10, 2010 10:08 PM
I haven't watched Oprah's TV show in ... ever.
But I bet next week's special will be myama. Which might be the point of this whole exercise.
Posted by: myama
|
September 10, 2010 10:13 PM
It's absolutely nothing compared to actual work; it's standing around yakking and in Oprah's case, it's standing around yakking about her favourite subject, herself. Any idiot can do that.
It’s hard precisely because any idiot can do it. Anyone can do it and there is so much money and power to be gained from doing it, that competition explodes, so only the most impressive get hired, and of those, only the quickest, wittiest, most spontaneous, savvy and amusing tend to stay on the air, while the other 90% bite the dust. And of those highly selected people who manage to stay on the air, only Oprah has completely dominated the competition for a quarter century, acquiring more money and influence than all her competitors COMBINED.
Still no scientific evidence fool, as there is no controlcomparison (welcome to real science)...
No comparison for what? What were you expecting them to compare?
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
September 10, 2010 10:18 PM
For a nice change of pace, here's Oprah being trolled.
Don't you think it was really irresponsible of Oprah spreading this fear on her show based on what was obviously a troll?
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
September 10, 2010 10:24 PM
modest myama wrote:
You really don't grasp how science works, do you?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 10, 2010 10:32 PM
Science always requires a control. Where is yours? You aren't scientific. The NYT article link did not give a journal (looks like a submitted paper, no proof it was published), making it even more suspect. Welcome to science, where you, not me, must prove yourself right at every step with evidence. And you fail every time...Posted by: myama
|
September 10, 2010 10:35 PM
Why would economists make studies about political science? I'm an economist and I don't write political science papers.
Probably because economists study consumer behavior and Oprah influences consumer behavior and they wanted to see if that extended to voting behavior since voters are like consumers in that they are purchasing a president whose policies they pay for with their tax dollars.
It's actually quite easy to get rich if you have no sense of dignity and/or don't mind lying to people. Televangelists do it all the time.
You have a very modest definition of rich. And all careers require one to lie to people, not lucrative ones only.
What's so brilliant about throwing someone under the bus after criticism arises?
It was brilliant because he through her under the bus by pretending his fiction was a memoir on her show, so she figured out away to save face by throwing him under the bus, first by cleverly tricking him and his publisher Nan Talese to return to the show, and then by having the verbal skills to completely obliterate them in a face to face confrontation to such a degree it was front page news in almost every paper in America.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 10, 2010 10:45 PM
Menyambal:
Oh FFS, have you been reading? Off your gourd or something here? Brave foe and worthy writer my pale ass - myama the moronic cupcake has not said one fucking thing that can be remotely construed as worthy.
Instead, it's been one false assertion and a pack of lies every freaking post. Try reading what the obsessed fan has been writing instead of trying for the "I'm the nice one" Tone troll.
Posted by: myama
|
September 10, 2010 10:45 PM
Science always requires a control. Where is yours? You aren't scientific.
The study controlled for all kinds of variables. What in the world are you blathering on about? Did you even read it before deciding the work of two brilliant economists was worthless?
Posted by: Randy (not Randy)
|
September 10, 2010 10:46 PM
And then apologizing to him and inviting him back on the show. But then again (and again and again) any post you don't like doesn't exist.
You continue to put the 'fucking moron' in the phrase 'fucking moron.'
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 10, 2010 10:49 PM
Myamaoutmyass:
No, you dimwitted Cupcake. It's either the hardest work ever (as you said it was the equal of writing a thousand books a day*) or any idiot can do it. This isn't multiple choice, it's one or the other. Pick.
*Have you ever actually read a book? Somehow, I seriously doubt you have much reading experience behind you, you TV lover, you. :eyeroll:
Posted by: myama
|
September 10, 2010 10:51 PM
Oh FFS, have you been reading? Off your gourd or something here? Brave foe and worthy writer my pale ass - myama the moronic cupcake has not said one fucking thing that can be remotely construed as worthy.
Not very open-minded are you?
Posted by: desertfroglet
|
September 10, 2010 10:58 PM
Oh, my! The irony. Accusations of closed-mindedness from an obsessive.
Given the stacks of evidence presented here, I'd suggest that Caine has weighed it all up and come to a very reasonable conclusion. In fact, I'd suggest, an inescapable conclusion.
Posted by: myama
|
September 10, 2010 10:58 PM
And then apologizing to him and inviting him back on the show
She very quietly apologized years later; only because she felt guilty for obliterating him so thoroughly.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
September 10, 2010 11:01 PM
Secret Oprah Troll&trade, you would be very round about that. I cannot speak about the rest of the world but in the US, it was probably this exchange.
Joseph Nye Welch: Until this moment, Senator, I think I have never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. Fred Fisher is a young man who went to the Harvard Law School and came into my firm and is starting what looks to be a brilliant career with us. Little did I dream you could be so reckless and so cruel as to do an injury to that lad. It is true that he will continue to be with Hale and Dorr. It is, I regret to say, equally true that I fear he shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you. If it were in my power to forgive you for your reckless cruelty I would do so. I like to think that I am a gentle man but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me.
Senator, may we not drop this? We know he belonged to the Lawyers Guild. Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?
Mr. McCarthy, I will not discuss this further with you. You have sat within six feet of me and could ask - could have asked me about Fred Fisher. You have seen fit to bring it out. And if there is a God in Heaven it will do neither you nor your cause any good. I will not discuss it further. I will not ask Mr. Cohn any more questions. You, Mr. Chairman, may, if you will, call the next witness.
This was for something that was of greater impotence that some liar's fake memoir.
As for media evisceration, Mike Wallace make a career of that and, once more, for much more important issues.
Also, once more, you give undeserved credit to Oprah on the issue of gay rights. Sorry, she was but a parasite on the actions of much braver and better people then Oprah. Fuck you with a decaying porcupine, sideways.
Thank you for answering the question that was asked of you a dozen times. So, you really do not care but it was enough of a reason for you to start flashing your foolishness. Fuck you with a one month decayed porcupine, backwards.
Posted by: desertfroglet
|
September 10, 2010 11:02 PM
Skippy @ 694
No idea where you hail from, but I read your post in the voice of Malcolm Tucker (from The Thick of It). It gladdened my shrivelled, evil heart.
Posted by: Randy (not Randy)
|
September 10, 2010 11:03 PM
So she 'obliterated' him when it was to her benefit and then apologized to him when it was to her benefit and then tried getting him back on her show because it would be to her benefit.
You, fucking moron, see role model. I see selfishness.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 10, 2010 11:08 PM
myamaoutmyass:
Actually, I am. However, my respect is reserved for people who are intelligent and can display that intelligence when asked to do so.
You have not answered questions, you have not provided any citations for your wild claims (I mean actual citations by actual people working in a relevant field, conducting a study correctly in a peer-reviewed journal).
As it has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, by numerous people, your ability to quote (or cut and paste) wiki articles, fan articles, or things from her website do not make you anything outside of an obsessive fan.
You've admitted now that you did not read the article by Harriet Hall, which is the topic of this post. All you've done is make wild assertions about a minor celebrity that you seem to feel is damn near the empress of the world.
Unlike yourself, the people here at Pharyngula, for the most part, read every post, read every word and are perfectly capable of refuting every word you've written. It's been done; it's happened. It's still happening now.
You've made incredibly moronic statements about the U.S. and the people who live here; the fact that you think all Americans are smart and well nourished...well, you're seriously misguided, to say the least.
You never did bother to respond to one of my questions, Cupcake. As you seem to be so convinced that there was zero possibility of Obama's being elected to the White House without your queen, why didn't you answer: What, exactly, was your queen doing when Pres. Bush was single-handedly destroying the U.S.?
Your little wannabe empress was busy pushing psuedo-science, quackery, new age woo, The Secret and all manner of fake doctors, fake miracles and other assorted crap, along with cosying up to a few celebrities. If she was such an influential monster, why didn't she use that influence to stop the insanity of Bush?
See, you don't want to answer in any meaningful way, because to do that, you'd have to take your queen off her pedestal. All you really want is for people to stop "being mean" to your beloved Oprah.
I'm open-minded enough to realize when people put their own self-interest above the greater good, as Oprah does.
I'm open-minded enough to read your posts and realize you have more than a bit of a problem. It's a pity you don't seem to have the brain cells to figure that one out yourself.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 10, 2010 11:09 PM
Nor are you. Your TV heroes/heroines may have feet of clay. Ever consider that seriously? If not, your mind isn't open, so shut up about the minds of others.Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
September 10, 2010 11:10 PM
So she tricked the guy and then yelled at him for being deceitful.
And that's somehow "brilliant"?
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
September 10, 2010 11:11 PM
And an other thing, Secret Oprah Troll&trade, you made the claim the you are debating twenty people. This is because you are engaging in a Gish Gallop. You are tossing out so many unsubstantiated claims and out right lies, it takes many people to capture and subdue each one.
Also, I think confessional television is one of the most icky things there is. Yes, it makes my fucking skin crawl.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 10, 2010 11:11 PM
desertfroglet:
Indeed, just like most everyone else here.
Posted by: myama
|
September 10, 2010 11:11 PM
You, fucking moron, see role model. I see selfishness.
All behavior is selfish on some level.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 10, 2010 11:14 PM
Janine:
Of far greater importance, boy, you're not kidding. A chilling, terrifying time in our recent past. One I most sincerely does not happen again.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 10, 2010 11:15 PM
Still nothing. Still no scientific evidence (which requires a knowledge of how science is really done). Still inane platitudes. Ever going to tell us why you are still showing us your stooopidity??? After all, showing intelligence by shutting the fuck up is always a option...Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
September 10, 2010 11:16 PM
With this worldview I'm not surprised that Oprah is your hero.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 10, 2010 11:18 PM
myamaoutmyass:
Wrong again, Cupcake of Dimitude. You, like most not-so-intelligent people, are equating self-interest with selfishness. Not the same at all.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
September 10, 2010 11:18 PM
Caine, please, I did not say that and the way you have it set up could make it seem like I did.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 10, 2010 11:23 PM
This is actually true - the new field of behavioral economics is actually quite interesting. (The freakonomics guys are not necessarily the best exemplars, though - I'd suggest reading Dan Ariely.)
All social interactions with other humans require deception. Not all careers require active lying to the extent that working in television does. Television brings to mind that great Lyndon Johnson quip about Washington: If you want a friend in Washington [television], get a dog.
In fairness to myama, I once dated a guy who worked for Jerry Springer's tv show and he described Springer as surprisingly bright and insightful and very skilled at his tv act. That doesn't mean I admire Springer at all - I think the entire confessional tv genre has contributed to an astonishing degradation of our popular culture and is ultimately very divisive. People who are smart and use their smarts to make money by doing something destructive are not particularly admirable.
I will half-heartedly second the Menyambal post. Myama, you seem like you might be an idiot with some potential. You have hung in, making bad arguments, but I would like to believe that you might grow and change. (Yes, Caine, I can hear your teeth grinding all these hundreds of miles away.) If you want to hang in, lurk and read widely (i.e. read a lot more than just stuff discussed on Oprah). You have enough fortitude to keep using this nym, and it'd be interesting to watch any changes in your thoughts and opinions.
Or you could continue being an Oprah worshipper and defending things that are largely indefensible. Your choice.
(OK, Caine, you can unclench your jaw now.)
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 10, 2010 11:24 PM
myamaoutmyass:
No, Cupcake. Again. My career doesn't require me to lie at all, to anyone. Lying is not a career requirement. If it was, you'd see 'The Art of the Lie 101' on the list of university classes.
If you think lying is a requirement to a career, I feel sorry for you, truly. Speaking of careers, what is it you do for a living?
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 10, 2010 11:28 PM
Mattir:
It's not clenched, however, my fangs have gotten longer. However, I'm not much in the mood for Tone Trolls™, dearest, as I'm sure you know.
Posted by: goldfinch
|
September 10, 2010 11:29 PM
Myama said: And all careers require one to lie to people, not lucrative ones only.
My career never required me to lie to anyone. And I was a lawyer for 30 years. My best friend works in nuclear plant safety. She is sitting here reading over my shoulder. She says she never has had to lie in her job either. My sister is a social worker and she is so brutally honest that I almost cringe. But, whatever.
Myama, you defend the economists' study but the fact is the study was not peer reviewed. If they are going to use a novel methodology I sure want to know what their peers think of it. Even the authors did not say it was conclusive, which was the claim you made.
Quietly apologized? If it was quiet, how do you know about it? She should feel guilty for setting him up to be destroyed in public. It doesn't take much verbal skills to "obliterate him in a face to face conversation" as she was prepared ahead of time and set him up to fall. Easy.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 10, 2010 11:31 PM
Janine:
Oh shit, I'm sorry! The meds are setting in, I was simply agreeing with you, to make it all very clear. I think I forgot for a moment that our little OprahTroll is unlikely to know anything outside of chat shows.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
September 10, 2010 11:32 PM
QFT.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 10, 2010 11:32 PM
I resigned from a job because I refused to lie.
Posted by: myama
|
September 10, 2010 11:34 PM
You never did bother to respond to one of my questions, Cupcake. As you seem to be so convinced that there was zero possibility of Obama's being elected to the White House without your queen, why didn't you answer: What, exactly, was your queen doing when Pres. Bush was single-handedly destroying the U.S.?
I did answer this. As I already said above, Oprah was virtually the only major media to jump off the pro-Bush bandwagon during the run up to war in Iraq. The day after Colin Powell’s pivotal UN speech making the case for war, Oprah hosted a TWO DAY anti-war show that was so controversial there allegedly were attempts by the government to block it from airing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hoYisRDBWI
Then 48 hours before the war began Oprah hosted yet another anti-war show that the Canadian press described as an “extraordinary act of intelligence”. Michael Moore was so impressed he begged her to run for president.
If she was such an influential monster, why didn't she use that influence to stop the insanity of Bush?
I said she was influential, not omnipotent. She was no match for Bush who in the wake of 9/11 was the most admired American in the history of the Gallup poll and had around a 90% approval rating. The few times she tried to take on Bush (including declining his invation to go to Afghanistan in 2001) she got some of the worst hate mail of her career so by pushing further she would have destroyed her empire (or worse)and had nothing to show for it.
Nor are you. Your TV heroes/heroines may have feet of clay. Ever consider that seriously? If not, your mind isn't open, so shut up about the minds of others.
Yes I've considered that and it's possible, but my reading of the preponderance of evidence begs to differ, but then I'm a fan so I'm biased.
Posted by: Randy (not Randy)
|
September 10, 2010 11:38 PM
BWAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Fucking moron.
Good night everybody. I doubt that line will be topped tonight.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 10, 2010 11:38 PM
Oh my sweet freaking Dog, Regretsy just sent out a link to this abomination. It allows you to do a photoshopped blend of your photo and Oprah's.
How freaking narcissistic does one have to be to put that up?
@ Caine - I wasn't tone trolling and generally don't. The useful thing this thread has taught me is that everyone has a uniquely calibrated Tone Zone™. I think we're both well within a standard deviation of the Pharyngula Tone Zone™ mean, and far along on the tail of the bell curve for various other (unnamed) websites.
Posted by: Skippy
|
September 10, 2010 11:39 PM
...but then I'm a fan so I'm biased.
And you're a fucking idiot. Never forget that. You--YOU--are a fucking idiot.
Posted by: The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
|
September 10, 2010 11:39 PM
I can't believe this is still going on. There's one of myama's assertions that I haven't seen anyone debunk, and for the benefit of an non-USAians who are reading this thread (I don't for a moment believe myama's assertion that she's a Canadian) I thought I'd tackle it.
Oprah's influence or lack of it aside, nobody can "win the Democratic nomination in a million-vote landslide." Whoever wrote that is not an American and has never been here. There is no national primary. You can win the Democratic primary in a given state in a million-vote landslide, I suppose. (Aside from Alaska and Idaho—to name two—that don't have a million people.)
There are, however, fifty states. Not all of them have primaries even yet. My state, Washington, has one, but the Washington Democratic Party doesn't recognize its results and goes by the caucuses instead, since because of this pestilential "open primary" we have that the Republicans pushed through so they could vote for the Democrats' weakest candidate, its outcome is worthless. (The Republicans apportion their delegates half from the caucuses and half from the primary.)
Hillary Clinton did not lose the nomination to Obama because of any endorsement by Oprah or anyone else. She lost it through sheer boneheaded stupidity on the part of her campaign organization. After Super Tuesday they thought they were so far ahead that they just sat on their hands waiting for her coronation. They were so complacent because they thought a number of states had winner-take-all primaries, when in fact they did not, and they were not ahead at all. Sheer idiocy. That's what lost Hillary the nomination, not anyone's endorsement of her opponent.
Posted by: Shala
|
September 10, 2010 11:42 PM
all careers require one to lie to people
I would be fired if I did that.
Myama.
My dear.
You have shortened the lifespan of Oprah by over 9000 hours at this point. It was all part of my plan, you see.
*takes a potato chip and eats it*
You see, I'm afraid I've been holding back the lion's share of my power here at Pharyngula. You all can use snininess five times what you've displayed, ten at the very most! But I...I have only used one percent of my snininess!
50% of my maximum should be all that's required to destroy Oprah for good!
Myama, I knew that PZ was going to make this thread, and so do you know what I did?
I GAVE YOU A GEASS TO ENTER THIS THREAD AND POST TO LOWER OPRAH'S LIFESPAN WITHOUT HAVING INTERPOL CATCH ONTO MY PLANS WITH MY DEATH NOTE!
MYAMA...YOU ARE MY DEATH NOTE!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 10, 2010 11:44 PM
Mattir #726
I admit I know very little about behavioral economics and what little I do know comes from the freakonomics guys (who I have little respect for). I've heard of Dan Ariely but I've never read anything by him. What do you recommend?
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 10, 2010 11:44 PM
myamaoutmyass:
Cupcake, you're really going to have to provide citations for this run of diarrhea. All of it. I already know this claim is bullshit, but I'd like to see you offer actual evidence it's true.
I know you didn't like Carlie's breakdown of just how few people watch Oprah's little "we're talking about me!" show; however, it's the truth. Only a fraction of the U.S. population pays attention to her, she's an unknown in the wider world.
I get that you think she's incredibly influential, but she isn't. If she was as influential as you claim, she would have used that mighty influence to bring all the efforts to impeach Bush to fruition. The only reason she did shows at all was because other people were doing it first, along with a lot of actual journalists. Jumping on a bandwagon is not groundbreaking; it's not influential.
Posted by: skeptifem
|
September 10, 2010 11:50 PM
Im way late to the party...
ERV
Do you NOT UNDERSTAND how messed up it is to use that as an insult??
The majority of prostituted women deal with a lot of abuse and cannot get out easily. Most begin around 13-14 years old.
"whore" is only an insult if you think it has something to do with character- but it doesn't. It has to do with being really lucky. Lucky you weren't born somewhere that traffickers frequent, lucky you didn't get pimped by your family, lucky you never had to choose between prostitution and starvation.
Comparing the grim reality of that to giving celebrities preferential treatment is terrible. The two things are nothing alike. It trivializes the experiences of most prostitutes AND hurls their reality at other women as an insult.
Maybe you will grow the hell up emotionally some day and realize how this sexism thing relates to *you*, because the connection between people in society produces meaningful consequences for everyone involved. I hope so. You are helping out toxic aspects of rape culture when you casually toss around the word "whore" like that.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 10, 2010 11:50 PM
@ Tis -
I read Ariely's mass-market book, Predictably Irrational. I'd really like to know what you think of it. From the reading I've done in cognitive psychology in graduate school, I thought it seemed quite promising. I think he has a new book as well, but I haven't read it, or any of his peer reviewed papers.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 10, 2010 11:53 PM
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge @ 737:
Thank you for that breakdown, and yes, it should have been said; as you can see, we've been dealing with weapons grade stupid, and it becomes difficult to tackle each and every stupid bomb.
Mattir, my apologies if I came across as accusing you, I wasn't. I was thinking of Myembal on the ToneTroll ™ front. I'm well aware that you can't help the occasional foray into said territory; I put it down to honestly attempting to teach on your part.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 11, 2010 12:02 AM
skeptifem:
Whether you like it or not, prostitutes exist, and it's not just women who prostitute themselves. You might not like it, but that's how some people do business.
Would you feel better if it was said that Oprah Winfrey willingly prostitutes herself out? Because that's exactly what she does. Anything for money, money, money, power, (or the illusion of power, and in the reality-based world, the rich are, indeed, different) and attention. What's your word for it?
Also, way to derail the subject at hand. If you're starting from the beginning, it might be best to sit on your hands and do a lot of reading before you decide to take everyone on.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 11, 2010 12:03 AM
Thanks, Mattir. I've put Predictably Irrational on my get real soon list. I'll let you know what I think after I've read it.
Incidentally, my major objection to Levitt and Dubner is their sloppy use of statistics. I was annoyed when they started "proving" their theories by statistics. Linear regression is a powerful tool for working with simple systems with one or two variables. Applying it to the complex realm of the social sciences to reach the far reaching conclusions they draw is irresponsible.
Posted by: myama
|
September 11, 2010 12:07 AM
Wrong again, Cupcake of Dimitude. You, like most not-so-intelligent people, are equating self-interest with selfishness. Not the same at all.
You may want to think a bit more deeply about that.
Quietly apologized? If it was quiet, how do you know about it?
Because he told a reporter.
She should feel guilty for setting him up to be destroyed in public.
I think the media should hold people accountable and ask tough questions when people come on TV and lie. If more media did that, U.S. democracy would function at a much higher level.
It doesn't take much verbal skills to "obliterate him in a face to face conversation" as she was prepared ahead of time
Not as prepared as him. He wrote the book and it was about his life.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 11, 2010 12:07 AM
Thanks, Mattir. I've put Predictably Irrational on my "get real soon" list. I'll let you know what I think of it after I read it.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 11, 2010 12:10 AM
Damn, I thought my post #745 had gone to never-never land. I refreshed the page twice and it wasn't there, so I wrote #747. As soon as it posted I saw #745 actually did exist.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
September 11, 2010 12:12 AM
Man, I haven't seen this level of persistence and idiocy here since Al.....
Holy shit! Is myama gonna launch Pharyngula's second Endless Thread series?
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 11, 2010 12:15 AM
Poor PZ - I shudder to imagine his response to starting a second Endless Thread to address. . . Oprah Winfrey. I suspect the squidly lord is somewhat puzzled by this thread.
Posted by: titmouse
|
September 11, 2010 12:16 AM
myama,
Thanks to the alternative medicine movement...
- academic medicine is retreating from its recent (50 year-ish) effort to be science-based to the older cultism of its past
- parents are giving unregulated supplements to children
- the rhino will be extinct within our lifetime
Oprah isn't the only one pushing alt med. But she's a significant promoter of it. She bears some responsibility for the present anti-science, anti-medicine climate.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
September 11, 2010 12:31 AM
"With this worldview I'm not surprised that Oprah is your hero."
No kidding. We may be speaking with the most cynical person in the world.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 11, 2010 12:36 AM
Mattir:
Oh, I doubt that. The tentacled one knows an idiot when he sees one. I'd hope he's lightly amused, like the rest of us.
Well, I was lightly amused, then started thinking just how frightening it is, to see someone so obsessed (that good ol' stalker mentality) up close.
I've been stalked, and it always comes down to someone being so obsessed, they can't see anything except this narrow strip of light, which leads to the object of their obsession. It's nasty.
Posted by: Chgo_Liz
|
September 11, 2010 12:38 AM
It is ironic that a thread about a well respected female scientist has turned into a thread about a well remunerated female huckster.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 11, 2010 12:42 AM
Rey Fox:
I don't think so. It's more a scary, squishy worldview that has Queen Oprah ruling benevolently, no matter the actual reality.
To borrow from A. Noyd, it's a jellylicious, jellfish brained view of reality. A view lit by the warm glow of television, 'cause there's some good TV, ya know.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 11, 2010 12:49 AM
Cupcake of Dimitude:
No, Cupcake, I don't need to, I know what I'm talking about. You need to think, full stop. Self-interest and selfishness are not the same thing. If you ever bothered to pull your head out of TV land, you might be aware of that - there are a great many books out there, and lots of lots of actual studies, done by qualified people, in peer-reviewed journals.
Self-interest realizes that's what good for the group is good for the self. Selfishness, something your little queen excels at, is simply 'me, me, me' at the cost of the group.
Learn to read. You might actually learn something which will kick start that little brain cell of yours and invite other brain cells onto the ship.
All you know so far is "I love Oprah, so everyone else must love her too!" There's a wealth of actual information out there, Cupcake. What a pity you've decided to go so shallow you're losing the ability to think at all.
Posted by: The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
|
September 11, 2010 12:53 AM
I gotta say, this is the funnest thread I've lurked on for quite some time. The usual creotard/godwalloper nonsense gets old after a while. Myama just hits the spot midway between that and a Becky Transexual—not as off the wall as that, where all you can do is say: "WTF? Who are you talking to?", but definitely different from an Al B. Quirky or a Piltdown Man. "And the Mama Bear's bed was juuuust right...."
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 11, 2010 1:16 AM
Y'know who I admire?
Drug dealers.
They're out there busting their asses every day, just trying to make a living. Some have become millionaires, and they are the ones I admire most. After all, they had to be smart and savvy to get rich pushin' the smack. It's not everyone who can contribute such happiness to the world.
And to think of their poor ethnic background! Many pushers are from poor black neighborhoods, yet they manage to make something of themselves. They have carved out a niche* for themselves, working in one of the toughest markets around. You have to be smart to stay alive. It's like writing a thousand novels a day!
Fortunately, they have persevered and become extremely successful, making millions a year, and being a role model for poor hoodlums everywhere.
* Not to mention a nark or two
Posted by: myama
|
September 11, 2010 1:19 AM
Sheer idiocy. That's what lost Hillary the nomination, not anyone's endorsement of her opponent
You can get away with sheer idiocy if you have a million vote edge and that’s what economists at the University of Maryland say Oprah denied her.
"whore" is only an insult if you think it has something to do with character- but it doesn't. It has to do with being really lucky. Lucky you weren't born somewhere that traffickers frequent, lucky you didn't get pimped by your family, lucky you never had to choose between prostitution and starvation.
Excellent comment.
I get that you think she's incredibly influential, but she isn't.
Then why are you and dozens of others here so passionate about arguing with me about her, 24 hours a day? Why not move on to topics you consider relevant?
If she was as influential as you claim, she would have used that mighty influence to bring all the efforts to impeach Bush to fruition.
Perhaps she was saving her influence to help Obama. Influence like any other capital is finite, and once you spend it, you don’t have as much.
The only reason she did shows at all was because other people were doing it first, along with a lot of actual journalists.
I don’t know about that. Colin Powell’s UN presentation got very positive media coverage and was considered the turning point in getting the public to support the war, which is why Oprah hosting a two day anti-war show the day after his presentation showed integrity. No she was not nearly influential enough to stop the war but I don’t think any other woman in the world could have stopped it either. She is in my opinion influential enough to put a book on the best seller list or swing an election if its already very close.
Posted by: ambulocetacean
|
September 11, 2010 1:29 AM
If Oprah is god, who made Oprah?
Could an argument be made that the likes of Martin Luther King and Germaine Greer are technically more historically important than Oprah simply because they made it possible for Oprah to exist?
I wish Germaine had a talk show. Partly because she's really, really smart and funny and partly because it'd give her some much-needed counterculture cred.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 11, 2010 1:31 AM
Y'know, this whole thread makes me wonder: why are people so fucking predictable? It seems like there ought to be variation here. Yet it's getting so predictable, my parrot is dictating this post.
myama -- shake it up a bit! Stop with the same old tired discredited story lines. Come up with something new, something interesting! Oprah is not the Perfect Human Being you have so craved to give oral pleasure. She's OK, but has some serious flaws. Admit she has those flaws, point out that she has overcome great adversity (yet one more time!), but fucking stop with the idiotic hyperbole!
It's really gotten old.
She's done good. She's fucked up. She's sold out. That's Oprah.
I'm thinking you need to start idolizing Carlos Slim Helu. He's the richest person in the world! Sure, he's a man. But he's Hispanic!
Posted by: The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
|
September 11, 2010 1:39 AM
myama @ 759:
So you still think Obama won that national presidential primary that exists only in your mind by a million-vote landslide, huh?
Hint: We don't even have a national presidential election. Counting D.C., we have 51 presidential elections!
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
September 11, 2010 1:40 AM
You can get away with sheer idiocy if you have a million vote edge and that’s what economists at the University of Maryland say Oprah denied her.
and yet this does not address what The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge said.
Then why are you and dozens of others here so passionate about arguing with me about her, 24 hours a day? Why not move on to topics you consider relevant?
No one person is spending twenty four hours a day arguing with you. Everyone has been to jobs, reading, doing chores and just getting on with life. This is for shits and giggles. But as many people have already pointed out, they dislike Oprah because she gives a forum to bad ideas that can and will harm and kill people.
Perhaps she was saving her influence to help Obama. Influence like any other capital is finite, and once you spend it, you don’t have as much.
So, she was saving her great but limited powers to work on immediate harm for a situation that may or may not happen.
I don’t know about that. Colin Powell’s UN presentation got very positive media coverage and was considered the turning point in getting the public to support the war, which is why Oprah hosting a two day anti-war show the day after his presentation showed integrity. No she was not nearly influential enough to stop the war but I don’t think any other woman in the world could have stopped it either. She is in my opinion influential enough to put a book on the best seller list or swing an election if its already very close.
And yet earlier you argued that Oprah's achievements and power eclipsed those women who headed empires. I guess there is not need for the Secret Oprah Troll&trade to be consistent.
Decayed porcupine...sideways...
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
September 11, 2010 1:46 AM
Oh shit, I fucked up the Comic Sans. I am sure the dear reader can figure out what words belong to the Secret Oprah Troll&trade.
Posted by: myama
|
September 11, 2010 1:58 AM
Oprah isn't the only one pushing alt med. But she's a significant promoter of it.
I haven't seen Oprah do a single show about alternative medicine all year. Not one.
Technically both are selfish; you're just redefining the word to exclude behaviors you admire, revealing your intellectual dishonesty in the process. And Oprah's promotion of THE SECRET came at the expense of the group? I don't know how the world will ever recover from reading a silly self-help book. And what about her endorsement of Obama (which cost her fans and thus money and will cost her tens of millions more if he lets the Bush tax cuts on the rich expire as he promised)? That's putting the group ahead of her own financial interests, but don't let the facts get in the way of a good tirade. They never have with you before.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
September 11, 2010 2:07 AM
I haven't seen Oprah do a single show about alternative medicine all year. Not one.
Well shi-it! That absolves Oprah for unleashing "Drs" Phil and Oz on the public and promoting harmful things like The Secret, Somers' cancer madness and McCarthy's murderous anti vax bullshit.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 11, 2010 2:17 AM
Y'know what I love about you, myama? You just love your object of affection so much, you are willing to say anything.
I mean, that is just so sweet. You are like the best stalker BFF ever!
Hold on now. I think I'm gonna get creative.
Everyone! Listen to me. Watch Firefly, 'cause it's good. Read Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun. It's really great! Check out David Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. It changed my life!
Oh my God. I think I just wrote a thousand books!
In my trousers.
Posted by: myama
|
September 11, 2010 2:21 AM
Hint: We don't even have a national presidential election. Counting D.C., we have 51 presidential elections!
Yes Captain Obvious, I know all about how your elections work. They are not decided by the popular vote, however the popular vote is highly correlated with electoral success and thus serves as a good proxy.
And yet earlier you argued that Oprah's achievements and power eclipsed those women who headed empires.
And I still do. Conceding that there are limits to Oprah's influence doesn't change that. Women still don't have anywhere near as much influence as women deserve, so one doesn't have to be anywhere near omnipotent to be the most influential in the world.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
September 11, 2010 2:38 AM
You're an idiot, babe.
It's a wonder you still know how to breathe.
Posted by: pixelfish
|
September 11, 2010 2:45 AM
While Caine might perhaps disregard this as a derailing*, I think Skeptifem's objection to the word "whore" is pretty spot on. Incidentally, Skeptifem points out that many women in prostitution don't have a choice, sex slavery being very real, whereas Oprah DOES in fact have a choice as to whether or not she promotes something. It's not an equivalent thing to say that prostitution equals pedalling snake oil to the masses, even if that particular peddler believes whole-heartedly in her own snake oil.
*Derailing what though? Thread: Somebody mentions that Oprah peddles woo. Myama shows up to say that Oprah DOES NOT peddle woo! Superlatives about how awesome Oprah is fly around! Folks say, yes, okay Oprah has had some accomplishments, but she's still a woo peddler. Myama alights on this statement and once again proclaims the awesomeness of Oprah. Wash, rinse, repeat, ad infinitum. I'm not sure it will disrupt this much to say I personally wouldn't mind ditching the slut-shaming usage of the word "whore" to equate it with "selling out"?
Posted by: myama
|
September 11, 2010 2:46 AM
Well shi-it! That absolves Oprah for unleashing "Drs" Phil and Oz on the public and promoting harmful things like The Secret, Somers' cancer madness and McCarthy's murderous anti vax bullshit.
As I've said a million times, McCarthy was on Oprah to discuss being an autistic's mother. Her ant-vax views only came up in the last 30 seconds of the show (and Oprah web article explaining who she is) and was contradicted by a statement Oprah read. Somers was only on once and discussed hormones, not cancer. Both women have discussed their views on other shows far more frequently and explicitly so the association with Oprah is pretty weak.
Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz however are fair game because Oprah has had both men on her show many many times and gave both men their own show. Dr. Phil can be a little sleezy but has a heart of gold and is a brilliant strategist who focuses mostly on relationships.
Dr Oz promotes mostly mainstream medicine and has superb credentials, is one of the best heart surgerons, and is highly respected by the medical establishment. Indeed when Newsweek did the article trashing Oprah for promoting the likes of Somers, they praised Dr. Oz for his excellent health advice.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
September 11, 2010 2:55 AM
Not that I expect the Secret Oprah Troll&trade to give a shit about this but this is what one surgeon/scientist had to say about Jenny McCarthy's appearance on Oprah. And for more shits and giggles, here are links to more of Orac's posts about McCarthy. Yes, he does take her dangerous stupidity seriously.
And by extensive, why some of the people here take Oprah's irresponsibility seriously.
But, hey, Oprah's twenty five years chatting is of greater historical importance than Queen Elizabeth I making England into a power greater than Spain.
And fucking stop it with the thirty second bullshit.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
September 11, 2010 3:02 AM
Speaking of which, here's the Newsweek article for everyone: Why Health Advice on 'Oprah' Could Make You Sick.
This is quackery and it's quite irresponsible for any person to get it national air time.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
September 11, 2010 3:09 AM
More from the Newsweek article:
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
September 11, 2010 3:13 AM
...the hormones, which are synthesized from plants instead of the usual mare's urine (disgusting but true)...
Where did the author think the name of Premarin comes from. Pregnant mare urine.
I know I "r" in bold twice. I like to think of it as linkage.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
September 11, 2010 3:17 AM
Oprah told viewers that McCarthy would be available to answer questions and give guidance later that day on Oprah.com.
Thirty seconds!?! My shiny metal ass!
Posted by: Peapoh
|
September 11, 2010 3:19 AM
Holy majoly. o_O
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate
|
September 11, 2010 3:22 AM
@ 741:
Unless you grow up in Thailand, where the girls take up jobs in the CST, & some even aspire to become bar girls.
Of course, if prostitution was legal, you wouldn't have all the abuse, the drugs, the pimps, or the organized crime.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
September 11, 2010 3:27 AM
More from the article:
Posted by: myama
|
September 11, 2010 3:28 AM
But back on the Oprah show, McCarthy's charges went virtually unchallenged. Oprah praised McCarthy's bravery and plugged her book, but did not invite a physician or scientist to explain to her audience the many studies that contradict the vaccines-autism link.
Seeing as they were not mentioned until the last 30 seconds of the show, why would she? Reading a staement was sufficient.
A year later, McCarthy was back on the show for an episode about "Warrior Moms," which gave her another opportunity to expand on her claims about vaccines and autism.
Unless you know the nature of her comments, how long they were, or whether any disclaimers were given, this is pretty meaningless.
Oprah must have liked what she heard. McCarthy became a semiregular guest on the show,
A semi regular who only appeared a couple more times to discuss pop culture and not anything more to do with autism.
Oprah announced that her production company had signed McCarthy for a talk show of her own.
A show that was never produced.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
September 11, 2010 3:39 AM
It wasn't just mentioned 30 seconds in the show. She also talked about afterward on Oprah.com.
Giving any publicity to Jenny McCarthy, the face of the anti-vaccination campaign, is irresponsible.
Was it because of her anti-vaccination nonsense? Otherwise, Oprah deserves no credit for not making a show with her.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
September 11, 2010 3:46 AM
I see that the Secret Oprah Troll&trade will not read my link. Or read what Feynmaniac posted. What the fuck, it is all meaningless anyways.
Oprah told viewers that McCarthy would be available to answer questions and give guidance later that day on Oprah.com.
A disclaimer and "thirty seconds", my shiny metal ass. You have the integrity of a creationist.
Posted by: myama
|
September 11, 2010 3:47 AM
Oprah told viewers that McCarthy would be available to answer questions and give guidance later that day on Oprah.com.
And the only vaccination comment she made on Oprah.com was to answer someone's question by saying she personally would not vaccinate again. She never told anyone else not to.
One woman asked about the HPV vaccine, which protects women against a sexually transmitted virus that can cause cervical cancer. Northrup advised against getting the shot. "I'm a little against my own profession," she said. "My own profession feels that everyone should be vaccinated." But Northrup cautioned, "There have been some deaths from the vaccine."
This is a completely different vaccine issue. Northrup's view is not fringe. Other medical experts agree with her:
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Health/20070801/hpv_vaccine_070801/
Oprah's done thousands of shows so it's very easy for critics to cherry pick quotes (without telling us whether they were balanced by opposing comments) to paint whatever image you want, but unless you actually saw the show or have a transcript, such selective evidence is pretty meaningless. You could do the same with any show that discusses issues.
Posted by: Militant Agnostic
|
September 11, 2010 3:49 AM
Nerd of Redhead @659 - A minor nitpick - the Emily Rosa study referenced was on Healing Touch, not Reiki. The two are similar in that both involve manipulation of an undetectable "Energy Field" by hand waving, however they contradict each other. Reiki practitioners have to be "attuned" by Reiki Masters (except of course for the guy who "discovered" it) whereas Healing Touch does not require any "attunements" as far as I know. Also, Reiki is supposed to work over the telephone and I think it can be done over a distance without any aids. Good luck with getting a controlled study like Emily Rosa's done with Reiki - it would be easy, but the special pleading would be strong and you would have a hard time getting practitioners to participate.
I have endured a couple of Oprah's "webinars" with Eckhart Tolle (who as near as I can tell has just repackaged Buddhism in a form more acceptable to Xtians and Oprah worshippers). They were rather amusing since Eckhart is always going about overcoming the ego letting go of the ego etc and Oprah is such an egotist. Eckhart Tolle seems to be mostly about flogging his own brand so I think there will be a parting of the ways if it hasn't already happened.
And - Myama it's been said here before, but I am going to follow up on what Janine said about you going on about "thirty seconds" of Jenny McArthy's anti-vaccination lunacy. Oprah was going to give Jenny McNowNothing here own TV show alhough that may be on hold now (thank the FSM). The guy who created the Jenny McArthy death toll widget had some inside info on that.
As for Jenny McNasty being the mother of an autistic child - there is no independent evidence that her son Evan ever was autistic to start with.
Prize bit of Jenny McArthy medical idiocy. "I check Evan's poop and make sure there is no bacteria in it". I am a petroleum engineer, but even I know that if someone had no bacteria in their poop they would be in deep shit medically.
As for Dr. Oz - he promoted quackmeister Dr. Mercola on his show and has show anti-vaccination leanings as well as promoting Reiki. Oz is one half science and one half bullshit - you can get a lot better advice any science based doctor.
Posted by: desertfroglet
|
September 11, 2010 3:51 AM
I think you mean 'A show that hasn't been produced yet'.
Now, Myama, wouldn't it be a good idea for you to step down from your Oprah defending duties for a while? Looks like you've been Defending the Faith for over 10 hours straight.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
September 11, 2010 3:53 AM
Nope:
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
September 11, 2010 3:53 AM
Oprah told viewers that McCarthy would be available to answer questions and give guidance later that day on Oprah.com.
The bloody fucking celebrity face of the anti vax movement and you claim that she is not telling that they should not vaccinate? A couple of people have tried to make nice with you but I will not. You are an irresponsible fool.
Posted by: ambulocetacean
|
September 11, 2010 3:57 AM
Myama, Stop fucking lying please.
McCarthy's anti-vaccination lies are all over Oprah's website right this very minute.
http://www.oprah.com/relationships/Questions-About-Autism
That disgusting page recommends that parents of autistic kids take them to Defeat Austism Now, which recommends chelation therapy, which can cause brain damage, kidney failure and death. Now that is fucking child abuse.
McCarthy's autism treatment plan, the Oprah site
So autism is caused by fungus and sugar now?
Maybe not. From the same page, still on Oprah's fucking website:
Oprah is still pushing anti-vax lies.
Posted by: myama
|
September 11, 2010 4:00 AM
I think you mean 'A show that hasn't been produced yet'.
Oprah's network is about to start in January and there's been no mention of any show, nor has McCarthy even appeared on Oprah in well over a year. If she were giving her a show, she'd be promoting her.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
September 11, 2010 4:01 AM
Man, if I looked at that article right at the beginning of this thread it would saved everyone a lot of time. Read it years ago and forgot about it until myama mentioned it.
More:
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
September 11, 2010 4:02 AM
Ooops. That should be over a year ago.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
September 11, 2010 4:07 AM
I LOL'd.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
September 11, 2010 4:07 AM
Feynmaniac, people have pointed all of this out a few times in this thread. All the Secret Oprah Troll&trade says about this is that The Secret is about positive thought. Those facts means shit to the SOT&trade .
Posted by: myama
|
September 11, 2010 4:18 AM
Oprah's web page may give an anti-vaccine quote from McCarthy, but there seems to be far more information promoting vaccines:
"Learn about the vaccinations and the diseases they prevent.
Hep B and Hep A
Vaccines are administered to prevent two kinds of hepatitis, A and B. Hepatitis affects the liver and is transmitted through bodily fluids—especially through sex, fecal matter, sharing needles or from a mother to child. Hepatitis B is more common and deadly. In mild cases, it can last a few weeks. In severe cases, it can lead to liver disease and death. Between 800,000 and 1.4 million Americans have the virus, and 2,000 to 3,000 die of it every year.
DTaP
The DTaP shot contains several vaccines. DTaP stands for diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis. Because of vaccination policies, diphtheria is not common in the United States. It spreads quickly, moving from what could be mistaken as a sore throat or fever to something much more serious—signs of shock and life-threatening organ complications. Tetanus bacteria can cause an infection that leads to muscle spasms and lockjaw. Pertussis, commonly called whooping cough, is a respiratory infection. It's one of the leading causes of vaccine-preventable deaths worldwide—and the risk of death in newborns is particularly high.
MMR
Like the DTaP, this single shot contains three vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella. The CDC says measles is the most deadly of childhood illnesses that cause fever and rash. Mumps causes fever, headaches, tiredness and swollen glands in the neck—but rarely progresses to more severe inflammations. Rubella causes fever and rash that can last for two to three days. Side effects from this vaccine include fever, rash, malaise and joint pain. The vaccine was the subject of decade-long controversy claiming that it caused autism in some children, which lead many parents to avoid the vaccination. Recent outbreaks of measles and mumps have been reported in countries like the United States, Canada, Japan and the United Kingdom.
Rotavirus
According the CDC, rotavirus is the most common cause of severe diarrhea in children, resulting in the death of 600,000 children worldwide annually. Before the vaccine was introduced in 2006, more than 200,000 American infants were taken to emergency rooms because of rotavirus infection.
PCV
Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine fights the bacteria that cause pneumococcal pneumonia (when the bacteria invades the lungs), bacteremia (when it gets in the blood) and meningitis (when it gets to the brain's covering). The CDC reports it is one of the most common causes of vaccine-preventable diseases in America.
Hib
Haemophilus influenzae type B bacteria were once a leading cause of childhood blood infections, pneumonia and meningitis. Hib can also lead to inflammations in the throat, bone marrow, joints and connective tissue. After the introduction of the vaccine, Hib infections have declined 99 percent.
MCV4
While there are two vaccines against meningococcal diseases, the MPSV4 and the MCV4, the MCV4 is more commonly used. Without a vaccination, meningococcal diseases can cause meningitis (inflammation of the protective layer around the brain and spine) and sepsis (infection of the blood). Those most at risk of infection include college students, military recruits or anyone living in close proximity to other people. Meningococcal infection has a fatality rate of 10 to 14 percent, and between 10 and 19 percent of survivors suffer serious side effects including deafness, amputation and brain damage. The CDC is investigating reports of adolescents who, after getting the MCV4 vaccine, contracted Guillain-Barré syndrome—an autoimmune disorder. The data suggest there may be a small increase of risk in the vaccine in relation to Guillain-Barré syndrome, but the CDC recommends doctors inform parents of the investigation before the vaccination."
http://www.oprah.com/health/Dr-Sears-Alternative-and-CDCs-Childhood-Vaccine-Schedules/2
Posted by: The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
|
September 11, 2010 4:22 AM
Actually, Janine, she says THE SECRET is about positive thought. Perhaps THE SECRET, as opposed to The Secret is a magical sparklepony book that only exists in her (and Oprah's) mind.
Posted by: TheBlackCat
|
September 11, 2010 4:25 AM
@ myama: you conveniently leave out of the link where she puts a delayed vaccine schedule and the idea that vaccines are full of "chemicals" and aren't safe promoted by one "Dr. Bob" on equal footing with the entire CDC.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
September 11, 2010 4:26 AM
Well, if we're using the power of positive thinking then I'd like a pony and a plastic rocket. I tried asking Buddha for them, but I got nothing.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
September 11, 2010 4:30 AM
Oprah's web page may give an anti-vaccine quote from McCarthy, but there seems to be far more information promoting vaccines:
And yet again you show yourself to be a blithering idiot. Any useful information is undermined by mixing toxic shit into it. How can you trust anything on that site if there is harmful bullshit mixed in.
And I will leave it to medical experts about if any of this is useful and truthful.
mumble mumble decayed porcupine mumble mumble sideways mumble mumble
Posted by: ambulocetacean
|
September 11, 2010 4:30 AM
Not one quote, loads and loads and fucking loads of them.
And Oprah doesn't get credit for having some accurate info about vaccine-preventable diseases alongside demonstably false anti-vaccine lies.
If you set a kindergarten on fire throwing a bucket of water at the fire doesn't make it OK.
Posted by: TheBlackCat
|
September 11, 2010 4:30 AM
@ WowbaggerOM: But the universe is a genie not a Buddha, and everyone knows genies (or rather djinnis or djinns) are from the middle east, so you should have been asking Allah
Posted by: Militant Agnostic
|
September 11, 2010 4:38 AM
Feymaniac
Rashid Buttar, a "DAN" doctor has killed an autistic child with chelation therapy. The chelator EDTA depleted the child's calcium such a low level that his heart stopped. Another "cure" recommended by DAN is do-it yourself hyperbaric oxygen - a good way of starting a really hot and fast fire. All the biomedical cures promoted by DAN are completely implausible given what is known about autism (it has a genetic component and there are physical differences in the brain). However, they get testimonials because autism is often a condition of developmental delay and many autistic children move off the spectrum as they get older.
myama - you should lurk at Respectful Insolence (also on Science Blogs). Many of the commenters there have children on the autistic spectrum and they accept their children rather than exposing them to dangerous quack therapies in a futile attempt to "fix" them. A word of advice - don't use "autistic" as an insult over there.
With regard to Jenny McArthy's show the guy who created the Jenny McArthy Body Count website and widget is a showbiz insider. He was on a podcast recently and said that contacts of his said they did a pilot or part on pilot for the show and then dismantled the set. If I recall correctly the show is currently on hold. I cannot for the life of me remember which podcast it was - I follow half a dozen sekpticla podcasts. So, myama the absence of a Jenny McArthy show in the current Oprah Channel line up is not evidence that Oprah did not plan of giving Jenny McArthy here own show. I suspect the breakup with Jim Carry and a growing backlash against the anti-vaccination whackaloons (what with the pertussis outbreak in California and all) may have dimmed Jenny's star a bit.
Janine -
Interestingly, myama does not seem to be an antivaxxer at all.
Posted by: ambulocetacean
|
September 11, 2010 4:58 AM
Maybe not to begin with, but she is happy to defend them because that, by extension, is defending Oprah. That level of demented dishonesty is extraordinary.
Posted by: Militant Agnostic
|
September 11, 2010 5:55 AM
Demented dishonesty or willful ignorance and is there a difference? I think myama has tremendous cognitive dissonance because she knows that promoting antivax bullshit is horrendously irresponsible, but she is still compelled to defend Oprah.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 11, 2010 7:29 AM
I see ambulocetacean and militant agnostic have already covered it, and it was mentioned upthread as well, but please finally address this, myama: Jenny McCarthy is a threat to the physical well-being of children even if you leave the antivaccine stuff out of it. She views autistic children as damaged, and encourages physically harmful and dangerous "treatments" to try and "fix" them. Oprah having her on the show as an "autistic's mom" was wrong and dangerous for autistic children. Even if you keep parroting that the "30 seconds of antivax" did no damage, the rest of the show fucking did. Jenny McCarthy has absolutely no useful advice for anyone, her son probably isn't autistic, and what she promotes is harmful both physically and psychologically. She encourages parents to think of their children as broken goods, and to spend time and money poisoning them to try and make them "better". And Oprah didn't just have her on once, she had her on multiple times and gave her an open forum on her website. OPRAH WAS WRONG.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 11, 2010 7:34 AM
Then you aren't open minded. So shut the fuck up about us needing to be more open minded, until you actually open yours first.As a scientist, the easiest way to lose my career is to deliberately lie to my colleagues. Kiss of death. Unlike you Myama. You lie about everything, looking at the world through Oprah colored glasses (mine are clear).Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
September 11, 2010 7:47 AM
Wow, I never knew that. Doing some Googling I see:
Arghhh!!!!
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 11, 2010 7:58 AM
Feynmaniac - part of her story is also that the autism diagnosis came after a doctor at the ER had spent 20 minutes examining him following one of his first seizures. She's never said whether there were any further tests than that for autism. Hell, there are almost no psychological issues that can be properly diagnosed after a 20 minute exam in the emergency room, much less one as varied in presentation and severity as autism.
As an example of how it's done in the real world, the child and adolescent psych clinic at the major regional hospital in my area requires 4-5 2-hour evaluation sessions, a 120(ish) question survey, and half-hour interviews with every available caregiver (home and daycare/school) a child has ever had in order to determine any diagnosis, autism or otherwise. 20 minutes my ass.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 11, 2010 8:05 AM
Not quite a good enough proxy, as a certain election illustrates. Or were you not alive in 2000?
In my experience, it's well on its way to losing the female-bashing slut-shaming qualities to describe someone who sells something of value (i.e. integrity) for money, and not just because it's the only way to buy food. Not there quite yet, but definitely on its way. This is good, because we really need such a word.
In the cool, clear light of morning, I see that my "you might be able improve yourself" hope for myama was probably wrong. Sure she could, but so could Ken Ham and Eric Hovind. Unfortunately, the Dan Barkers of the world seem to be few and far between.
Myama, Jenny McCarthy and the anti-vax movement has killed people. The Secret and similar types of wishful thinking magic has also killed people. And not just one person, killed by an unmedicated schizophrenic with a unique interpretation of a novel, they have killed lots of people. Many of these people were children, denied medical care by their magical-thinking-enthused parents.
Defending this in any way implicates you in those deaths. I'll grant a very minor exception for ACLU-type defense of First Amendment rights, but I'll hand my ACLU card back with a glob of spit on it the moment the ACLU invites white supremacists onto a major television network to promote their views and calls this "free speech." Free speech means you can stand in the park with a sign, muttering to yourself, or that you can set up a website promoting the wisdom of a collective of extraterrestrials interested in giving ungrammatical advice to earthlings. It does not mean you get to be on a major commercial television show.
Caine, hop in the car and go collect that porcupine for Secret Oprah Troll™. And SOT? Thanks for the fang-growing supplement. Obviously my diet was deficient - they're nice and sharp now.
Posted by: lykex
|
September 11, 2010 8:08 AM
Did you seriously just make that argument? OK, 'fess up, are you a troll? Because that's just too funny for words.Anyway, assuming you're for real, allow me to address your attempt to offer evidence for Oprah's massive influence.
I presume that the (non-peer-reviewed) study in question is this one. A 59 page study, which you want us to read and critique for you.
You haven't shown any particular ability in the area of science or social studies. You've specifically avoided repeated questions about your credentials and training and demonstrated your ignorance of basic scientific ideas. Finally, you compound this by showing a complete disregard for actually informing yourself on a topic before engaging in a discussion about it.
And yet, you want us to read a 59 page report just because you say so.
Well, if you're asking us to do that, then surely you've read it yourself, right? You know it well, right? You wouldn't be, once again, talking shit about something you hadn't bothered to read, would you?
Nah, that would make you a disgusting, lying sack of human waste, wouldn't it? So that couldn't be the case.
So, since you're so familiar with this study, you won't mind giving us a quick break-down of methodology and the most important findings, will you?
Posted by: lykex
|
September 11, 2010 8:11 AM
Maybe you could even do it as a 250 word summary :)
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 11, 2010 8:19 AM
But at least she knows her way around a bell curve. Unlike some slacker J.D./Ph.D. transsexual homeschooler fiber enthusiasts we could name. (Universe? I'd like to have more of these please. Along with another cookie.)
Posted by: Dania
|
September 11, 2010 8:25 AM
Great. But I note that you forgot to add "promotes dangerous quackery" to your rather short list. Still in denial?
I know this has been pointed out already, but: you're a fucking idiot. Here's the first sentence you wrote on this thread:
And now, 687 comments after, you tell us you have no interest in defending that claim? It can't be said often enough: you're a fucking idiot.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
September 11, 2010 8:43 AM
It's naive to equate lack of self-discipline with weight problems. For instance, I have very little self-discipline and actually regard it as a bad thing, yet I have about 60 kg and don't gain weight. When I'm not hungry, I just can't eat, no matter how much appetite I have. Others are not that lucky.
Posted by: titmouse
|
September 11, 2010 8:55 AM
myama,
If a speaker says, "A is true," and later, "Not-A is true," that's a contradiction. Listeners will have to guess what the speaker *really* means. They'll look to context, body language, and emotion to determine the speaker's genuine position.
When Oprah gives the leader of Generation Rescue a platform on her show, that's an implicit endorsement of Jenny McArthy's views on autism, vaccination, and the cultish "DAN!" community.
If Oprah does not wish to endorse these ideas, she must do more than merely read a quack Miranda from a 3x5 card. She must say without hesitation, "scientists looked for a link between vaccines and autism and didn't find one," and "parents, get your kids vaccinated."
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 11, 2010 9:39 AM
Myama, you have heard that obesity appears to be a metabolic disease and not a self-discipline issue, right? Or do you treat people with other difficult to treat metabolic diseases (brittle diabetes?) with the same amount of compassion?
Oprah has many flaws of character, but these are not reflected in her dress size.
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
September 11, 2010 9:57 AM
myama:
Okay, then I'll ask you again:
What is your stake in this?
As I have pointed out before (search my name, you'll find my posts in this morass), Oprah/her show/her empire is, at its base, trashy entertainment. Why are you spending so much time defending an entertainer?
I'm a fan of various entertainers (actors*, mostly), but I will not go through any lengths to defend them-- especially if they act foolishly or dangerously. Quite frankly, I have more important things to worry about other than people I don't know.
Oh, and to whoever brought up Oprah's school (waaaaaaay upthread. I've been meaning to get to this for a while)-- students were (allegedly) abused while attending the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls.
MSNBC/Today
CNN
Wikipedia
So, yeah. As far as only doing good? Not so much, Oprah. You get a cookie for trying, I guess.
*Although, if you dispute Tom Hardy's incredible hotness, we're gonna have words.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 11, 2010 10:04 AM
I am uniquely qualified to comment on this thread since I know an enormous amount both about reiki and about myama. I have manipulated the energies of myama* from afar. After 20 minutes, I was able to discover a diagnosis:
She suffers from one of the worst cases of SDOOTI** I have ever seen.
Unfortunately, her treatment will require chelation therapy.
* Not one of the most pleasant phrases I've uttered
** Someone Dislikes Oprah on the Internet, of course
Posted by: Chgo_Liz
|
September 11, 2010 10:15 AM
So, wait...Oprah doesn't have a lot of influence in TV production, the one thing we ALL agree is her strong suit?
lykex @ #810: *snort* Excellent!
To add to Mattir's point in #815, lifetime weight issues are a common occurrence for women who were abused in childhood.
Posted by: Dania
|
September 11, 2010 10:18 AM
Excellent point.
This person actually thinks Oprah is the most successful woman to have ever lived. And the best artist ever. And a "king-maker". She will never agree with you on the "just trashy entertainment" bit.
Posted by: Chgo_Liz
|
September 11, 2010 10:21 AM
nigel, you've been smokin' hot on this thread!
Have a cookie...from the universe, of course.
Posted by: Militant Agnostic
|
September 11, 2010 10:23 AM
I always wondered why these hyper-intelligent extraterrestrials go to all the trouble of communicating over such vast distances but are too lazy to use a spellchecker.
And myama uses the word autistic as an insult - interesting.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 11, 2010 10:32 AM
Awww . . . *blush*
Mmmmm. Ethereal LoA cookie. With chocolate chips! How'd you know?
Have you been remote-sensing again? I was just massaging a groinal cramp. Really! I swear!
Posted by: Militant Agnostic
|
September 11, 2010 10:34 AM
Nigel the Bold on myama
I was going to recommend colon hydrotherapy but then I realized there would probably be nothing left afterward.
Posted by: Dania
|
September 11, 2010 10:41 AM
Yes, myama, you still haven't apologized for that. Just a reminder. You seem to agree with skeptifem about the use of the word "whore", but somehow it looks like you think your use of the word "autistic" was acceptable. It wasn't.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
September 11, 2010 11:11 AM
I can imagine! Don't know why I didn't imagine.
Methinks you overestimate the power of the placebo effect rather drastically.
Not even when the current (metaphor) flows in the wrong direction (metaphor)?
You know, it's actually a good idea to change horses in midstream when it turns out the one you're flogging is dead. (Not original; I forgot where I took it from.)
So what? You've evidently never heard of Thomas Gottschalk.
Win.
I can't see how the career I'm trying to have could ever require me to lie to people.
I'm stealing that euphemism.
Posted by: myama
|
September 11, 2010 11:21 AM
The Secret and similar types of wishful thinking magic has also killed people. And not just one person, killed by an unmedicated schizophrenic with a unique interpretation of a novel, they have killed lots of people.
Name one person who was actually killed because of what they read in THE SECRET and provide a citation. Btw science has killed people. And not jut by a schizophrenic, killed LOTS AND LOTS OF PEOPLE!. Ever heard of the atomic bomb? Idiots.
demonstrated your ignorance of basic scientific ideas.
That’s pretty funny coming from several dozen scientists who can’t correctly answer a first years stats question that takes 15 seconds to solve. What are these basic scientific ideas I’ve demonstrated my ignorance on and please provide quotes revealing my lack of knowledge.
Oh, and to whoever brought up Oprah's school (waaaaaaay upthread. I've been meaning to get to this for a while)-- students were (allegedly) abused while attending the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls.
Another fucking idiot. Sexual abuse happens at virtually every school in the world and there’s no way to screen out potential child molestors who are attracted to jobs working with children. Oprah had the courage to build a school in a country with the highest rape rate in the world and when alleged abuse occurred (conveniently right after she held a fund raiser for Obama), instead of pushing it under the rug as is so often done, she held a live press conference where she gave thorough non-evasive answers to the media, launched an investigation, completely cleaned house, and convinced the girls to testify in court even though a lengthy trial would bring her negative publicity for years to come. So not only did she have the courage to take on a tough challenge of building a school there, but handled inevitable problems with grace, intelligence, and intergrity while all you can do is take cheap shots.
Posted by: bastion of sass
|
September 11, 2010 11:23 AM
Indeed. I've sometimes thought about how much more I'd admire Oprah if she used her show to debunk woo instead of promoting it and giving woo believers an opportunity to mislead more people: If she had people on her show explaining why The Secret is stupid, wrong, and dangerous, if she brought on experts explaining why Jenny McCarthy is stupid, wrong, and dangerous, if she brought doctors on her show and--actually put them on stage with her--to explain why Suzanne Somers is stupid, wrong, and dangerous.
But now that I know, after reading myama's posts that Oprah's the most powerful living woman in the universe, with the abilities to boost a political underdog with no possible chance ever! of becoming the U.S. President, into the White House--it makes me sad that Oprah has failed to use her awesome powers wisely. :-(
Posted by: myama
|
September 11, 2010 11:28 AM
Yes, myama, you still haven't apologized for that.
I don't have to apologize for a FUCKING thing. I used autistic as a description, not an insult. Autistic like minds have both their strengths and their weaknesses. I pointed out both.
Posted by: Cheezits
|
September 11, 2010 11:33 AM
And the only vaccination comment she made on Oprah.com was to answer someone's question by saying she personally would not vaccinate again. She never told anyone else not to.
Saying that she wouldn't do it, in the larger context of her crusade, is tantamount to telling people not to.
Posted by: Skippy
|
September 11, 2010 11:33 AM
And you have no fucking evidence for that fucking stupid claim, you FUCKING IDIOT.
Fuck you with a depleted uranium rod.
Posted by: Robert H
|
September 11, 2010 11:34 AM
Catch and release, people; catch and release...
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
September 11, 2010 11:40 AM
I know the chew toy is lots of fun, but once this thread hits around 900 comments, I'll be closing it.
I may have to ban this myama idiot, too.
Posted by: Skippy
|
September 11, 2010 11:41 AM
BTW, my comment at #830 was in response to our resident FUCKING IDIOT, myama and her bullshit comment at #828.
Posted by: Dania
|
September 11, 2010 11:41 AM
Word. (Except we're not trying to have the same career, but the principle is the same. You're not supposed to lie in a scientific career. If you lie, you are doing it wrong.)
*headdesk*
What a ridiculous false equivalence. The Secret conveys a potentially dangerous message based on a false claim about how our universe works. Science... what? How are the two equivalent in any way, shape or form?
We. aren't. all. scientists.
I see you ignored the answers to you pathetic challenge.
And you can't see what's wrong with what you did? We can't what's wrong with calling a group of random strangers on the net "borderline autistic" and "hyper-male"? And are you really trying to convince anyone that you didn't mean it as an insult in this context?
Please.
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
September 11, 2010 11:45 AM
myama:
You'll notice that I never said anything about Oprah's reaction to the abuse. She reacted as she should have-- firing the people responsible and making the girls feel more secure. However, this does not excuse the fact that girls were abused.
Hm. Maybe those defenseless children simply weren't thinking enough positive thoughts! We should buy them all copies of The Secret so they can effectively protect themselves from abusers.
(You know, that's a hell of a way for the universe to punish those negative thinkers.)
As for
fucking citation please. This is perhaps the most asinine thing you've said yet.
If sexual abuse was that rampant, don't you think that the public school system in places like the US and Canada would have crumbled long before now? If tax payers are effectively paying to have their children victimized, one would think there would be some massive outrage.
And you're still dodging my initial question:
What is your stake in this?
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
September 11, 2010 11:46 AM
Name one person who was actually killed because of what they read in THE SECRET and provide a citation. Btw science has killed people. And not jut by a schizophrenic, killed LOTS AND LOTS OF PEOPLE!. Ever heard of the atomic bomb? Idiots.
Replace "God" with "Oprah".
…Love of Oprah and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
September 11, 2010 11:48 AM
myama:
You'll notice that I never said anything about Oprah's reaction to the abuse. She reacted as she should have-- firing the people responsible and making the girls feel more secure. However, this does not excuse the fact that girls were abused.
Hm. Maybe those defenseless children simply weren't thinking enough positive thoughts! We should buy them all copies of The Secret so they can effectively protect themselves from abusers.
(You know, that's a hell of a way for the universe to punish those negative thinkers.)
As for
fucking citation please. This is perhaps the most asinine thing you've said yet.
If sexual abuse was that rampant, don't you think that the public school system in places like the US and Canada would have crumbled long before now? If tax payers are effectively paying to have their children victimized, one would think there would be some massive outrage.
And you're still dodging my initial question:
What is your stake in this?
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
September 11, 2010 11:52 AM
"Name one person who was actually killed because of what they read in THE SECRET and provide a citation. Btw science has killed people."
I'll take Category Error for $500, Alex.
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
September 11, 2010 11:52 AM
Shit, sorry for the double post, guys. My computer is having a melt-down.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
September 11, 2010 11:53 AM
PZ, please do not ban the Secret Oprah Troll&trade . My pelt has not been this sniny since Barb was around.
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
September 11, 2010 11:57 AM
In addendum:
So... because abuse happens VIRTUALLY EVERYWHERE!, the girls in Oprah's school should have expected it? Or are you saying it's no big deal 'cos it happens VIRTUALLY EVERYWHERE!?
And you have the gall to call me a fucking idiot.
By the way, what's your stake in this? Still waiting on an answer to that.
Posted by: Dania
|
September 11, 2010 11:59 AM
Ugh. I should really learn to always proof-read what I write, especially when I'm typing fast in English...
Agreed.
Posted by: myama
|
September 11, 2010 12:01 PM
The "distance" between the most internal male and the most internal female would thus be 5.6 - 4.67 = 2.83 maleSD
Your logic and methodology is correct, but you arrived at the wrong answer because overestimated how many sigma the most internal male and female would be expected to deviate from a Gaussian curve given the population size. If it were a multiple choice test you would fail, but if it were a test where you show your work, you would only be deducted one point despite getting an answer that is wildly wrong.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 11, 2010 12:07 PM
myama, for someone who seems to love using the term "autistic" to the point of refusing to apologize for using it as an insult, you're being surprisingly silent on the fact that Oprah brought Jenny McCarthy on her show more than once specifically to spread lies about autism that have gotten actual, real children hurt and killed. Deafeningly silent, in fact. Care to explain? Care to defend Oprah giving Jenny McCarthy a platform (what you describe as an immensely powerful platform, in fact) to spread her damage?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 11, 2010 12:08 PM
Advances in medicine and agriculture have saved vastly more lives than have been lost in all the wars in history - Sagan
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 11, 2010 12:09 PM
Stop hiding behind a stats quiz, dumbass. Try addressing points that people have actually made.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
September 11, 2010 12:12 PM
I asked the question a long time ago and I would like the Secret Oprah Troll&trade to answer it. How are you able to determine the gender of a commentator?
Also, please answer the Mother Of Death's question.
(Do you think that the Mother of Death is a male?)
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
September 11, 2010 12:26 PM
Janine, #836 was brilliant!
One of my late professors of sociology, though struggling mentally because of brain damage in a car wreck, did not hesitate to group Oprah with the class of wealthy capitalist exploiters, which I wasn't expecting when I offered her as a counterexample to people like the Bushes, and it did make me laugh at the time.
Posted by: TheBlackCat
|
September 11, 2010 12:27 PM
Science kills people because it WORKS. The Secret kills people because it DOESN'T WORK. You don't see any difference between the two? That's bullshit and you and everyone else here knows it. This is what you wrote:That is as clear an insult as anything could possible be. You link "borderline autistic" with not being able to "comprehend" how great a book is, then you link it to us being "dumb" and "lightyears" less evolved then Oprah. It was used as an obvious, unambiguous insult. Everyone has been wondering whether you are a liar or just delusional, now we have our answer. You blatantly lied.
People keep warning you about the first rule of holes: listen. Insulting people then lying about it not being an insult is not going to help your case. It would better if you just fess up and admit you were wrong.
Despite what you asserted there, we are not stupid, we know an insult when we see one. Deluded but sincere people are tolerated here, liars are not.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 11, 2010 12:29 PM
PZ, please please please don't ban Secret Oprah Troll™. And please do a post on the inanity of women's magazine and talk show culture in general so that she can come back. I am so sorry to have missed the Golden Age of Trolls™ and this has been unbelievably fun. I now have testicles and some cookies, and I got to read some interesting stuff in the reality-based-social-science universe about attributional style and locus of control, which SOT™ never responded to, but which made me more knowledgeable.
If she shows up on 10 other threads with her Speshul Snowflakeness, then sure ban her. But in the meantime, give us all something to live for - crunching on sweet-marrowed troll bones brings sparkles to my drab life.
Posted by: myama
|
September 11, 2010 12:33 PM
Care to defend Oprah giving Jenny McCarthy a platform (what you describe as an immensely powerful platform, in fact) to spread her damage?
I've already responded to the vaccine issue. As for the other allegedly dangerous views McCarthy holds, I would have to do more research, but given the massive campaign to discredit McCarthy, I would want to hear her views herself, not the summaries her critics provide. I'm also more than a little skeptical in the 100% blind faith you people have in mainstream scientists. I have enormous faith in science, but I don't have 100% faith in scientists always practicing science in a pure unbiased way. Science like any other tool can be abused, and scientists are people too, and thus are capable of dishonesty, bias, mistakes and less than pure agendas; just like everyone else (including McCarthy and Oprah).
You seem to be saying that anyone who does not have the approval of the majority of scientists should not have access to the media, no matter how many non-scientists agree with them. That seems to be an even more dangerous view. There have been many moments in history where science needed to be challenged from the outside, and emerged better as a result. And some of the greatest advances by defenition come from the scientific minority (not those who accept the conventional wisdom)
None of this is an endorsement of McCarthy; only making a larger point.
Posted by: Cheezits
|
September 11, 2010 12:35 PM
I don't see why people keep calling the obsessed fan a troll. Traditionally, a "troll" in Usenet lingo was someone who posted deliberately outrageous b.s. - that they may not necessarily even believe - just to get a reaction. Now people are using it to label anyone who posts stupid shit, even when they are sincere. (She did crow about how much reaction she was getting, but I think that's just an indication of newbieness.)
Posted by: Dania
|
September 11, 2010 12:45 PM
BTW, myama, did you know that trying to deflect criticism from the position you're defending by pointing out that others (especially the authors of the criticism) do it too is a fallacy, more precisely a type of ad hominem called tu quoque?
Rather ironic, given that you wrongly accused someone up-thread of committing an ad hominem fallacy and you've been sort of doing it yourself...
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
September 11, 2010 12:49 PM
So, the Secret Oprah Troll&trade is just a bit like those strange trolls that show up here. You know the ones, they do not buy into creationism but they also have grave doubts about these untrustworthy Darwinists.
Yet again, you show that you have no fucking idea about what you are talking about. Mainstream scientists get head buy not agreeing with each other but by criticizing each other. This questioning of methods and results is how they try to work the bias out.
Also, I am so sorry that my links to Orac's essay were unacceptable to you. (And I was not the only one to suggest that you read his essays.)
So sorry, but your larger point is stupid and uninformed.
On a completely different note, I have a question for Mattir. Now that you have testicles, do you find beer commercials to be funny? I do not see the humor of the Miller Lite "Man Up" bullshit. (Also, Miller Lite has no taste.) And I find the mooks of Coors Lite to be anti funny; i.e. they suck the funny out of surrounding objects.
Posted by: TheBlackCat
|
September 11, 2010 12:50 PM
They aren't hard to find. Strawman. Mind-reading strawman at that. Another mind-reading strawman. Care to show any examples where anyone here has said anything remotely similar to this? That doesn't mean everyone who tries to challenge science from the outside is right. In fact very, very, very few such people are right. How many such instances in history can you name?In the end, what McArthy says directly contradicts all the evidence we have. How many cases where someone's ideas contradicts a large amount of evidence and still turned out to be right can you name?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 11, 2010 12:50 PM
Career change!
Posted by: Zabinatrix
|
September 11, 2010 12:51 PM
Cheezits: I'd say that a troll is also someone who deliberately derails discussions - even if they are sincere about the thing they derail it into.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
September 11, 2010 12:53 PM
David Marjanović (#813)
I have limited self-discipline and would probably be twice my weight if I didn't have an incredibly shitty metabolism. I often wish I had a better one because I get sick if I exercise without eating the right things at the perfect time before I start to exert myself.
~*~*~*~*~*~
PZ Myers (#832)
That would be sad since she would likely take it as a sign that we were so bad at arguing with her we had to get you to silence her.
~*~*~*~*~*~
myama (#851)
Then you're doing it wrong.
Access to media is not the same as uncritical promotion by major, influential media stars.
But fring ideas only advanced science if they were actually scientific. Vaccine denialism, the Secret, bio-identical HRT, reiki, etc., those are all pseudoscience. If they weren't, there would be scientific evidence supporting their efficacy, and there isn't. Pseudoscience thrives because people like Oprah both promote it.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 11, 2010 12:53 PM
Science and the scientific method, if you really studied it (doubtful) is designed to weed out those biases and agendas. Peer review puts unbiased eyes on papers. Since work is always questioned, bad papers are exposed, and if a researcher has a significant number of bad papers, or deliberately lies in a paper, their career path suffers. Show us similar error correction methods in your line of work.Nope, I think at this stage she is just trolling. Still hasn't presented any real scientific evidence to back up her inane allegations, and avoids all embarrassing questions.Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 11, 2010 12:54 PM
Which was very specifically NOT what I was referring to. Please read for comprehension.
Wait, you mean you didn't watch the Oprah episode she was on? I'm pretty sure you must have, given the number of times you've said that she spent only 30 seconds on antivax. I'm talking about the rest of the damned hour she was on. You absolutely can't declare over and over that you know for certain what she said about vaccines on the program, but that you haven't heard "her views herself" on what she said on the rest of that very same episode!
See above, Militant Agnostic, #801. She supports and touts a chelation therapy that has killed at least one child.
Posted by: Dania
|
September 11, 2010 1:01 PM
The point here is most definitely not if someone should have access to the media or not. The point is that Oprah is promoting this bullshit, which makes her integrity questionable at best.
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
September 11, 2010 1:05 PM
myama:
Awe, come on! I've replied to your inanities, you could at least do me the favor of responding to my post.
Questions that still need to be answered:
1) What is your stake in this?
2) Would you provide evidence for your claim that sexual abuse happens in virtually all schools?
3) Do you believe that the abuse that occurred at Oprah's school is a non-issue and why?
(courtesy of Janine)
4) How do you determine a poster's gender?
5) What gender do you think I am?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
September 11, 2010 1:06 PM
QFlulz
Come on, that's classic comedy gold right there.
she...what, now?
Why would you do that?
bwahahahahaha
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
September 11, 2010 1:09 PM
http://www.oprah.com/community/thread/2716
Posted by: myama
|
September 11, 2010 1:17 PM
So... because abuse happens VIRTUALLY EVERYWHERE!, the girls in Oprah's school should have expected it? Or are you saying it's no big deal 'cos it happens VIRTUALLY EVERYWHERE!?
No you idiot. I'm saying there's no way to stop it. When you hire adults to work with teenagers, a certain percentage are going to be molestors and until they come up with a fool proof way of screening for such people; it's inevitable that sexual abuse will occur in schools.
Posted by: Dania
|
September 11, 2010 1:23 PM
I don't get it. How can someone be this ignorant? How did they manage to go through school without ever learning this basic fact? It's mind-boggling.
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
September 11, 2010 1:26 PM
myama:
Once again with calling me an idiot. It's tedious, you know. You could at least come up with a better insult.
So, how's about backing up your claim that students face abuse in virtually all schools?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 11, 2010 1:26 PM
Myama, still avoiding ODS, MoD questions. Stop trolling and answer them.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
September 11, 2010 1:30 PM
myama (#865)
Wow, what happened to positive thinking?
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
September 11, 2010 1:30 PM
PS myama:
After Oprah poured $20-40 million dollars into that school and splashed her name all over the facade, one would think every precaution would be taken to prevent any whiff of scandal.
Are you saying that abuse in schools is just going to happen, so we shouldn't be outraged? Should we not be holding people accountable for their actions (yes, even Oprah)?
By the way:
1) What is your stake in this?
2) Would you provide evidence for your claim that sexual abuse happens in virtually all schools?
3) Do you believe that the abuse that occurred at Oprah's school is a non-issue and why?
(courtesy of Janine)
4) How do you determine a poster's gender?
5) What gender do you think I am?
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 11, 2010 1:39 PM
And 6) Do you support Jenny McCarthy's position on how to treat autism and how to view autistic children?
Posted by: pixelfish
|
September 11, 2010 1:55 PM
Myama seems so very insistent that Oprah isn't destructive or that she hasn't killed people. She seems to think that Oprah-as-God should be immune from criticism, even when we've said that we think Oprah is a talented woman who misuses her power to promote pseudosciences. After I went to bed last night, I read the following passage from Terry Pratchett's Going Postal and thought it was apropos:
"Yes," Pump said. "You Have A Talent. It Is A Pity You Misuse It."
"Do you understand anything I'm saying?" shouted Moist. "You can't just go around killing people!"
"Why Not? You Do." The golem lowered his arm.
"What?" Moist. "I do not! Who told you that?"
"I Worked It Out. You Have Killed Two Point Three Eight People," said the golem calmly.
"I have never laid a finger on anyone in my life, Mr. Pump. I may be all the things you know that I am, but I am not a killer! I've never so much as drawn a sword!"
"No, You Have Not. But You Have Stolen, Embezzled, Defrauded, And Swindled Without Discrimination, Mr. Lipwig. You Have Ruined Businesses And Destroyed Jobs. When Banks Fail, It Is Seldome Bankers Who Starved. Your Actions Have Taken Money From Those Who Had Little To Begin With. In A Myriad Of Small Ways You Have Hastened The Deaths Of Many. You Did Not Know Them. You Did Not See Them Bleed. But You Snatched Bread From Their Mouths And Tore Clothes From Their Backs...."
And so it is with Oprah. She has a talent, and she has done lots of great things, but she also promotes things that are unsafe without fully researching them. Oprah's parachute is already made, her bunker already prepared, and her safety is no doubt assured. She can afford the finest of doctors and doesn't have to pin her hopes for her and her loved ones safety on the snake oil she sells in the form of The Secret and anti-vaccination and Suzanne Somers' whacky hormone therapies. And if she doesn't agree with them, as Myama keeps trying to imply, she needs to take a harder stance to keep her viewers from being confused about that. Because the products she shills take money in return for hopes they can't fulfill. Even if they didn't kill directly, in small increments, they are stealing from somebody's life and expectations.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 11, 2010 2:05 PM
I mean really folks.
Is there any question that myama is prima facie evidence of the cult status of Oprah fans and their blind hero worship?
Posted by: Randy (not Randy)
|
September 11, 2010 2:08 PM
Rev. Chimp, I've currently got a little bit of a question about it. Of course, not being Myama, I am going to look Prima Facie up and run the risk of learning something new.
...
Wow. That didn't hurt at all. Nope, I've got no question about it anymore.
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
September 11, 2010 2:21 PM
myama:
Also, if you had bothered to read the articles I linked to (the Wikipedia one is borked*, I know. There were two others though), you would have seen that there were charges of physical abuse as well.
How does this fit into you assertion that sexual abuse happens in virtually all schools? Should we also expect physical abuse to happen in virtually all schools as well? And since it's apparently a rampant problem, should we not be outraged, especially when a celebrity pours $20+ million dollars into a project (and not to mention an assload of marketing), because her intentions were good but her execution was lacking?
And once again, I'd like some proof that sexual abuse happens in virtually every school.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprah_winfrey_leadership_academy_for_girls#Alleged_physical_and_sexual_abuse
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
September 11, 2010 2:23 PM
Good lord, I will never get that link to work. Here's one more shot. If it doesn't work this time, we'll just pretend this never happened, mmmmkay?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprah_winfrey_leadership_academy_for_girls#Alleged_physical_and_sexual_abuse
Posted by: chigau (◦_◦)
|
September 11, 2010 2:33 PM
Does anyone else think that the SOT™ is actually more than one person? Or personalities. There are wild fluctuations in style and vocabulary between posts. Any forensic linguists in the house?
Posted by: Shala
|
September 11, 2010 2:35 PM
Yes, myama! Keep posting! Oprah's lifespan is dwindling as you speak! Ha ha ha! Good pet, good...! You pretend to be a fan of Oprah, but you're the one who is killing her! What a terrible person!
Posted by: pixelfish
|
September 11, 2010 2:44 PM
Kiyaroru: That thought did cross my mind, although I actually thought the textual stuff stayed relatively consistent, but because I was wondering when Myama sleeps. :)
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
September 11, 2010 2:49 PM
Rust never sleeps.
Posted by: lykex
|
September 11, 2010 2:59 PM
Well, allow me to clarify. Two examples come readily to mind, though there may certainly be more.
I take this to mean that you don't know what a control is. After all, if you did, why ask the question.
The second is harder to find an actual quote for, since it's more what you didn't say.
You seem to not quite understand why peer-review is important and why we might want a peer-reviewed article, rather than just any old article.
Please feel free to correct me on either of these points.
Incidentally, are you going to respond to the rest of #809? I made several points and you've deliberately ignored most of them. Should I take it that you accept my critique on the other points without debate?
You've obviously read the post (your quote came from it), so I'm left to speculate why you didn't acknowledge the rest of it.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 11, 2010 3:09 PM
The shrill alarm cut through my sleep like a buzzsaw through a corpse's skull. It interrupted a dream in which Jenny McCarthy and Suzanne Somers were trying to orally pleasure me. It was one of the worst nightmares I'd had in years.
I jolted upright, a rope of drool mooring me to the bar. The bartender, a burly fellow with yellowish eyes and a yellowish disposition, said, "Hey, Buddy. That damned thing's been going off for eight-and-a-half minutes." He cut my mooring with a greasy bar rag that smelled of sour beer and cheap gin. He poked it at my face. "You wanna answer it, or what? It's pretty fucking annoying."
With this ringtone, it could only be one of several people. Very special people. Like, short-bus special. But they paid well, though I suspected with money skimmed from a church fund or high school bake sale.
I answered. Mostly, just to stop Celine Dion wailing about how her heart would go on. I really need to change that ringtone some day. It's fucking annoying.
"Yeah," I said. "Oprah Internet Task Force. How May I Help?" I'm not sure why I misuse the word "may" in this way. I think mostly because the person on the other end has no fucking clue.
An androgynous voice crackled out of the earpiece. "This is bad," she said. I assumed it was a she, anyway. Mostly so I could picture her face. "This is real bad."
"Slow down, Oprah fan," I said. "What's the sitch?"
She said, "I'm on an internet forum." There was a deep sigh. "One that focuses on science and rational thinking."
Oh. This was worse than it sounded. "Okay." I flipped open my pad to take some notes. "Have you tried equivocating? First step is to insist they don't know Oprah like you do. Have you done that?"
There was a slight hesitation, but she answered, "Yes. I said I was very qualified, since I have a deep understanding of Oprah. And science." I bit through the end of my marshy cigar. I tried to scream, "Nooooo!" but she cut me off. "And psychology." I swallowed the bit-off butt.
This was far worse than it sounded.
"Okay, listen." I frantically thought through all my typical gambits, but this was going to be tougher than a sirloin at Sizzler's, medium rare. "You need to do some serious round-robin."
She giggled into the phone like someone who'd been told to swim around the Joad family dustbowl. "What's a round-robin?"
Jesus. Doesn't anybody read the fucking manual anymore? "You have to start cycling through your defenses," I explained. "This keeps them from pinning you down on a single issue." I imagined her scenario. "Do you have any actual science training?"
"No," she admitted, "but I did take a stats class once at community college."
I shook my head. Why the fuck did she claim scientific knowledge, and try to defend Oprah at the same time? Don't these idiots know anything? That's like claiming to live a green life while texting from your Escalade.
"Okay," I said. "Avoid topics that involve science. If anyone tries to bring actual evidence, demand they provide citations to the research that backs them up. Under no circumstances offer your own evidence or citations! That's important. No matter how wild a claim you make, don't try to back it up. That'll slow them down." I considered a second and added, "Not for long, but long enough to move on to the next defense."
"What's that going to be?" Her relief was as palpable as the pulse of a geek at Star Trek convention.
"Next step is to claim they are misrepresenting Oprah. Point out that she has done some good science, too."
"But," she stuttered, "what's she done?"
"Just go to here website and post some random shit. By the time they read it, you'll be on the last defense." I paused dramatically. "Give 'em the stats question."
The pause was longer than the line at the supermarket, when you are only buying the *ahem* female essentials, and it's an emergency.
"You don't have a fucking clue what that is, do you?" I asked, politely. "The stats question from chapter seven of the manual?" Again with the silence. "The chapter titled, Strawmen, Non Sequiturs, and Red Herrings?"
"Oh!" she exclaimed with relief. "That one. I know that one."
"Good, I said, ready to hang up.
She barged in like a father that suspects his daughter is canoodling. "But what do I do then?"
"Just start over," I said. "Defend Oprah. Praise Oprah. Demand citations. Ask nonsensical or irrelevant questions. Cycle through all these defenses. Hell, you can just cut-and-paste each post in turn."
She sighed, but this time with relief and joy. "And Oprah will be defended? She'll notice me?" She sounded so cute, like a three-year-old urchin waiting to see Santa for the first time.
"Sure, kid," I lied. "Oprah will notice you."
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
September 11, 2010 3:15 PM
Nigel:
I fucking love you. :P
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 11, 2010 3:15 PM
awesome
Posted by: TheBlackCat
|
September 11, 2010 3:17 PM
Nigel wins the threat.
Posted by: pixelfish
|
September 11, 2010 3:23 PM
*tips hat to Nigel* Well done, sir!
Posted by: Dania
|
September 11, 2010 3:24 PM
That's Molly worthy stuff right there, Nigel. Well done.
(And what ODS said too :P)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 11, 2010 3:28 PM
Jebus, we have some good story tellers around here.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 11, 2010 3:30 PM
Aww, shucks, folks. *twists toe in dirt* I'm just keeping my chops sniny, like the rest of you.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
September 11, 2010 3:32 PM
Oh, wow, I missed the "more evolved" bit. I'd bet money that you don't know what the technical term evolution means. Please provide a definition.
<rubbing hands>
Bombs aren't science, they're all-caps applications of science exclamation mark period.
1) So what? Google is your friend. McCarthy has a homepage...
2) Science is not a "he said, she said" business. Questions are answered by the evidence, not by who shouts louder. It's not enough if you only look at people's statements; look at what the statements are based on.
<sigh>
If you have faith in science, you're doing it wrong. You're committing a category mistake.
Science is short for "don't take my word for it, look at the data I provide and tell me how my conclusion isn't the best explanation for the data, or tell me what data I've overlooked and how they suggest another explanation".
Yes, and?
When an idea is shown to be wrong, scientists stop promoting it. McCarthy and Oprah don't.
(I'm deliberately ignoring the rest of that sentence because I want to make another, more general point.)
Science isn't about the majority of any group of people. It's about what the data say.
Contradictions between theories in geology aren't decided by how many geologists support them. They're decided by which ones contradict the rocks.
And when has science been successfully challenged from outside of science?
myama is evidence that one such fan engages in cultish, blind hero worship...
nigel, please accept 1 (one) sniny new intarwebz.
Posted by: Sastra
|
September 11, 2010 3:46 PM
Nigel, that was brilliant.
I bet even myama liked it.
Posted by: TheBlackCat
|
September 11, 2010 3:47 PM
Perhaps, but yours are a lot sninier.Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
September 11, 2010 3:50 PM
Don't do it! This is fun.
Also, it's better to have myama be here than have him/her watching all that "good TV". myama has a chance (even if very small) of learning something here.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
September 11, 2010 3:55 PM
he's going to anastomose this to the Thread, I just know it
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 11, 2010 4:02 PM
Bravo Nigel.
*Makes note for September Molly nominations*
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 11, 2010 4:07 PM
Sven, there, there. The Poopiehead is evil.
Posted by: heatherly
|
September 11, 2010 4:45 PM
I seriously cannot believe this is still going!
myama: Unless you actually have the credentials and experience to talk about child sexual abuse, SHUT THE FUCK UP.
You see the name I'm posting with? Google the Maryland Social Work Board of Examiners. Click on the link that says license verification. Search for the last name of Hodges.
Yes...see that name there? That's me. Licensed social worker. I just left 5 years of work in Social Services as a foster care social worker.
So as I say every time I take the witness stand: I give this clinical opinion based on my knowledge, experience and education:
Sexual abuse happens at virtually every school in the world and there’s no way to screen out potential child molestors who are attracted to jobs working with children. I'm saying there's no way to stop it. When you hire adults to work with teenagers, a certain percentage are going to be molestors and until they come up with a fool proof way of screening for such people; it's inevitable that sexual abuse will occur in schools.
Sexual abuse does NOT occur at every school in the world. There are certainly sexual abuse VICTIMS at nearly every school in the world, but not every school has rampant abuse of children WHILE AT SCHOOL. It IS true that there is currently no foolproof way to screen for sexual offenders, but there are ways, and every school in the US (and Canada, btw) are required to use them. Sexual abuse CAN be reduced--perhaps not completely and totally prevented--but reduced.
There are TONS of ways to stop child sexual abuse, and the biggest one is to get EDUCATED about it, and actually make the fucking effort to do so.
If you adore Oprah and all her ideals so fucking much, take a walk down to your local school or mental health agency and volunteer to be a Kids on the Block puppeteer. Volunteer at a domestic violence agency or children's advocacy center. Donate money or volunteer with your local Children's Aid Society.
Do something instead of regurgitating bullshit out all your orifices.
BTW--tell me what city you live in Canada and I'll give you a personalized list of places to volunteer at. That is, if you're willing to get off the couch.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 11, 2010 4:53 PM
But heatherly you're just to be as trusted as much as science. You and SOCIAL WORKERS can make mistakes. Who's to say you know better than Oprah?
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
September 11, 2010 5:04 PM
Oprologetics?
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
September 11, 2010 5:06 PM
Heatherly:
myama did say virtually all schools-- you know if myama shows up here again, she's (he's?) going to try to weasel out of that assertion. I can hear it now, "I didn't say EVERY school, you fucking idiot!"
myama:
What's your stake in this?
Why aren't you bothered by the allegations of abuse at Oprah's academy?
Posted by: heatherly
|
September 11, 2010 5:20 PM
RBDC: Oh, of course. What was I thinking! All those years of standing in front of an audience talking is a much more valuable education that six years of college/grad school and over a decade of experience in the field. :)
ODS: Very true--but even that ticks me off, because while we (including Canada) do have significant problems with sexual abuse by child care providers (school, day care, coaches, etc), it's nowhere near 'virtually every school.' We've made a lot of progress in keeping kids safe--we still have miles to go, but it's insulting to every professional in this country to imply that sexual abuse in our schools is the equivalent of sexual abuse in South Africa, where they have a literal rape epidemic.
It was incredibly arrogant of Oprah to assume her school would be immune from the current problems in that country, and flagrantly irresponsible to not have put more safeguards in place.
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
September 11, 2010 5:29 PM
Thank you! That's what I was floundering around trying to say.
Posted by: Chgo_Liz
|
September 11, 2010 5:30 PM
If PZ had done as threatened and cut this thread off at the knees, we would have never read nigel's magnum opus.
May it be considered only "summa" in comparison to your future postings.
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
September 11, 2010 6:15 PM
No doubt Oprah makes the sun rise in the morning, too.
*sigh* How obsessed can one person be? You're not a fan, myama... you're a worshipper at an altar.
I'm not saying Oprah is a bad person. She's an incredibly admirable person in many ways, and I don't want to downplay the good she's done throughout her career, or the strength of her character.
But it's also undeniable that she has a long record of publicly supporting crank pseudoscientific and pseudomedical theories. That isn't some trivial eccentricity that can be waved away. Misinformation about science and medicine kills people. Children die because their parents subscribe to anti-vax conspiracy theories, or give them "alternative therapies" instead of real medicine. And when someone with a highly influential public platform actively promotes that kind of crap, honest people are morally bound to call them out on it.
One of the most important aspects of maturity is coming to terms with the fact that one's heroes can be wrong about things. An intellectually honest person does not simply accept the word of authority-figures: because even the most brilliant and admirable person in the world is still capable of getting things wrong. Rather, an intellectually honest person examines and evaluates the evidence for him- or herself, and comes to his or her own conclusion. Nullius in verba: don't take anyone's word for it.
From your posts on this thread, you're clearly not stupid or illiterate; nor are you incapable of reading and understanding the evidence. You have a responsibility, therefore, to learn about the evidence, think for yourself and come to your own conclusions, rather than assuming that Oprah's position must be right. That doesn't mean you have to agree with me, or Professor Myers, or with anyone else here: but it means you have to exercise your own critical reasoning skills and engage with the actual evidence. When you use reasoned, evidence-based arguments instead of blind hero-worship, then you will be taken seriously around here. And I strongly suspect you're perfectly capable of doing that.
Posted by: myama
|
September 11, 2010 6:32 PM
Are you saying that abuse in schools is just going to happen, so we shouldn't be outraged? Should we not be holding people accountable for their actions (yes, even Oprah)?
I think we should hold the abusers themselves accountable, but I don’t think we should hold Oprah accountable for being generous enough to spend $50 million of her own hard earned money (and counting) to provide the poorest girls in South Africa with a world-class education, just because one member of the staff allegedly committed abuse, because Oprah had no way of preventing that from happening.
Now if the staff member had a criminal record for abuse that the school failed to check, or if Oprah were informed of the abuse and failed to take action; then Oprah deserves blame for incompetent or negligent management. However the simple fact that abuse occurred is not grounds for blaming Oprah because statistically, abuse is inevitable when you open a school in a country with the world’s highest rape rate and you have that many students and that many staff members.
If anything Oprah should be praised for having the courage and compassion to have founded and continued to run a school in a country where statistics tell us that continued scandal and bad publicity will be inevitable
1) What is your stake in this?
I have been watching Oprah regularly since I was a little kid to the point where I feel like she practically raised me, so I get very angry when I see her get libeled. In addition, the more time one spends in an argument, the more invested one becomes in it.
2) Would you provide evidence for your claim that sexual abuse happens in virtually all schools?
My evidence is simple logic. Statistically we know that a large number of children are sexually abused (and even more cases go unreported) and it’s also logical to assume that molesters will be attracted to professions where they have access to children and teens. Given the large number of students and staff and the enormous amount of time they spend together and the number of decades a typical school stays open, the probability of abuse occurring at the vast majority of schools approaches certainty, especially in a country like South Africa which has the world’s highest rape rate.
3) Do you believe that the abuse that occurred at Oprah's school is a non-issue and why?
I think it’s an issue at every school, however it got enormous media coverage at Oprah’s school, only because she’s a celebrity.
4) How do you determine a poster's gender?
The same way you guys have been assuming my gender.
5) What gender do you think I am?
The opposite of my gender.
6) Do you support Jenny McCarthy's position on how to treat autism and how to view autistic children?
No.
Sexual abuse does NOT occur at every school in the world. There are certainly sexual abuse VICTIMS at nearly every school in the world, but not every school has rampant abuse of children WHILE AT SCHOOL.
I never said rampant abuse happens at every school. I said abuse happens at virtually every school in the world, and is especially common in South Africa which has the world’s highest rape rate
.
I take this to mean that you don't know what a control is. After all, if you did, why ask the question.
I asked the question because a poster was incorrectly asserting a lack of controls in a study where multiple variables were indeed controlled.
You seem to not quite understand why peer-review is important and why we might want a peer-reviewed article, rather than just any old article.
Not only do I understand the importance of peer review but I was the first person in this thread to use the term. Peer review is important because it shows that a study has withstood intense criticism and scrutiny from multiple reviewers with relevant expertise and been corrected for possible errors, however one should never rely on peer review to do our thinking for us. There is a lot of excellent work by well respected scholars that has been published in non-peer reviewed sources, and there are also a lot of crappy studies that pass peer review because of mistakes or bias in those reviewing. Ultimately every study must be evaluated on its intrinsic merits, and not on where it was published.
It was incredibly arrogant of Oprah to assume her school would be immune from the current problems in that country, and flagrantly irresponsible to not have put more safeguards in place.
It’s incredibly arrogant and irresponsible of you to jump to that libelous conclusion without knowing what safeguards she put in place, especially when you already admitted that there is no foolproof way to screen out abusers
Very true--but even that ticks me off, because while we (including Canada) do have significant problems with sexual abuse by child care providers (school, day care, coaches, etc), it's nowhere near 'virtually every school.'
I agree with you that it's rare at any given North American school, but given the number of people who work at a typical shcool and the number of students who attend and the number of decades a school is open, even rare events approach statistical certainty.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 11, 2010 6:38 PM
Go Heatherly. Screeds like yours delight me hugely.
Also, DaughterSpawn just announced "NigelTheBold is awesome." Dude, you have teen girls proclaiming your coolness. Or at least one strange, unsocialized, teen girl who can glare like Wednesday Adams. Be afraid, be very afraid.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 11, 2010 6:45 PM
Another Pharyngulista grows testicles!!!!
I hope some of you real scientist types are planning on studying all of us new manly men types.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
September 11, 2010 6:47 PM
Who is this Oprah? Does he/she have a blog or something?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 11, 2010 6:49 PM
such as?
What percentage of studies fall into this?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 11, 2010 6:52 PM
Wrong. Evidence is physical. Like a molecule, its NMR, MS, etc. Logic is for sophists. Philosophical liars and bullshitters. Which explains a lot about your lack of knowledge of the scientific method, what constitutes scientific evidence, and the fallacy that your testimony is anything other than bullshit. Welcome to science cupcake. Your grade so far is an "F".Posted by: heatherly
|
September 11, 2010 6:52 PM
My evidence is simple logic. Oh, honey. Nothing simple about it.
Statistically we know that a large number of children are sexually abused (and even more cases go unreported) and it’s also logical to assume that molesters will be attracted to professions where they have access to children and teens.
Statistically we know that the 80% of child abusers are parents. Statistically we know that over 70% of abuse victims are neglected, less than 10% are sexually abused.
I never said rampant abuse happens at every school
Neither did I. And thanks for repeating exactly what ODS said you would.
It’s incredibly arrogant and irresponsible of you to jump to that libelous conclusion
Libelous? Really? *snickers* Sure, kiddo. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
It is admirable of Oprah to want to help children, and particularly admirable to do so in South Africa, where children, particularly female children, are at such high risk. However, with all of her money and writes a thousand books a day brilliance, she should have maintained enough oversight to ensure that the dorm matrons at her school were the trained and educated nurses she orginally asked for, rather than women highered from a temp agency.
Her goals were laudable. Her execution was faulty.
Posted by: Randy (not Randy)
|
September 11, 2010 6:52 PM
Moronama,
You keep using variations on the word 'libel' to describe when you think we are being too mean to your Oprah, who we just found out is your legal guardian.
Since in these last 900+ posts you have proven yourself to be too intellectually lazy to look up anything new, I'll provide you with a definition.
From Wiki: Libel is a false, malicious statement published in mainstream media (i.e. on the internet, in a magazine, etc.)
There is a mile of pixels above this post. I dare you to find a false statement about Oprah that was not uttered by you.
Posted by: Dania
|
September 11, 2010 6:54 PM
I feel sad for you, I really do. Read what Walton said, please. It doesn't matter how much you love Oprah. No one deserves the kind of blind worship you've been displaying on this thread. It makes you look pathetic. Stop it.
Okay, that settles it. ("It" being my two next Molly nominations.)
Posted by: TheBlackCat
|
September 11, 2010 6:58 PM
In other words you don't actually have any evidence whatsoever, you may an assertion with no evidence whatsoever to back it up. That doesn't mean that it "happens at virtually every school in the world"/ That doesn't mean that it "happens at virtually every school in the world".Also, logically, they would avoid professions where safeguards are in place to prevent abuse.
First, you didn't say "the vast majority", you said "virtually every". Second, you leave an essential factor out of the equation. I wonder if you can figure out what it is. You weren't talking about South Africa, you were talking about the entire world. You must be tired from carrying all these goalposts all over the place. So to answer everyone's question, no you don't know what a control is. Thanks for clearing that up.Everyone bow down to myama's awesome mind-reading powers. Not only can myama reliably determine anyone'g gender, myama also can peer into your mind and determine how you guess genders. How could we ever hope to beat such an awesome telepathic ability? Did you just not read the passage you quoted? Here is the first sentence you quoted again: Care to address this rather than just cherry-picking the part that is most convenient to you? Great, so do you understand why want we want to know what experts in the field think about an entirely new and unvalidated methodology? Mind reading again. What makes you think she doesn't know? For someone who brags about knowing a lot of statistics, you sure demonstrate a total lack of understanding of probability here. I'll give you a hint: there is a certain probability that is essential to the question but that you are leaving out of your equation here. Without knowing that value it is totally, 100% impossible to draw a conclusion.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
September 11, 2010 6:58 PM
I'm looking forward to the time when, in a few years, we can say we experienced the birth of the Oprah-as-messiah movement firsthand. Will the religion be called Oprahism, or something else?
Because myama seems more deluded and dishonest about her deity than all the religious nuts we get here; an actual religious movement can't be too far away.
Posted by: Dania
|
September 11, 2010 7:07 PM
Maybe it's just me, but I'm so amused by this.
Heh. Myama's trying to confuse us.
Posted by: heatherly
|
September 11, 2010 7:09 PM
I'm looking forward to the time when, in a few years, we can say we experienced the birth of the Oprah-as-messiah movement firsthand. Will the religion be called Oprahism, or something else?
Bite your tongue! Good grief, the universe might be listening! ;)
I really, really, really, really, really believe he didn't mean it! I wish it lots and lots!
Also, I cannot believe I typo'd this: highered. That's meant to be hired, obviously.
Posted by: JeffreyD
|
September 11, 2010 7:17 PM
myama at #905 - tl;don't give a shit
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
September 11, 2010 7:19 PM
myama (#905)
She's a terrible parent, then, to let you grow up thinking it's libel to tell the truth about someone.
My deck chair is immoral.
Many people haven't and the rest don't care either way. You're just likely to be female on account of how you use "male" as an insult, talk about women taking back power and haven't objected to any of the feminine pronouns being used to talk to/about you.
Posted by: chigau (◦_◦)
|
September 11, 2010 7:19 PM
#908 Antiochus Epiphanes
She was in a Spielberg movie about 25 years ago.
Posted by: bastion of sass
|
September 11, 2010 7:19 PM
I note your lack of mention of The Law of Attraction as one of the ways.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 11, 2010 7:24 PM
Wow. I was pretty invested in some shows I watched when I was a kid, but I've never felt like any tv character raised me. Not even Mr. Rogers. Not even Ma Ingalls. Not even Mrs. Huxtable. Seriously, that's some frightening levels of television dependency there.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 11, 2010 7:28 PM
The children that were abused weren't thinking positively enough about their lives.
It's their fault they were abused people.
Posted by: myama
|
September 11, 2010 7:30 PM
So to answer everyone's question, no you don't know what a control is. Thanks for clearing that up.
Actually your reply to what I wrote reveals that you have only the most rudimentary understanding of what a control is and have no conception at all of how it would be applied in a semi-experimental design. Thank's for clearing that up.
Wrong. Evidence is physical. Like a molecule, its NMR, MS, etc. Logic is for sophists.
It's logic based on empirical data.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
September 11, 2010 7:32 PM
Ehem. I guessed yours from the -a at the end of your name (a strategy that has misled me before). Not from your writing style or anything.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
September 11, 2010 7:32 PM
"You and SOCIAL WORKERS can make mistakes. Who's to say you know better than Oprah?"
It's not so much that Oprah is incapable of making mistakes, it's just that the mistakes that she does make, well, everybody makes them, so it's no big deal. Pseudoscience gets hawked every day, people lie in their jobs all the time, child molestation happens in every school. You're just trying to distract from the important fact that Oprah is a very rich talk show host who has the power to move continents.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 11, 2010 7:36 PM
And that data is to be found where? Without a citation (link) to the peer reviewed scientific literature, it's just your inane and insane opinion. What an idjit. Still batting 0.000 in the real science department cupcake.Posted by: lykex
|
September 11, 2010 7:37 PM
Myama, props for actually getting down to answering some questions. However, the answers do leave a bit to be desired.
Did anyone suggest we should?
In fact, if you read older posts on this blog, you can find examples of peer-reviewed articles being ripped to shreds. Here's an example where pharyngulites cooperated to expose a case of plagiarism.
This "blind faith in science" thing that you mentioned earlier is just a myth.
This leads us directly to the question I asked earlier, repeated a bit later and you still haven't answered: Have you actually read the study yourself?
Maybe it's because I tend to debate religious fundamentalists, who are (phrased kindly) not the most honest people on this fine planet, but when I ask several questions and my conversation partner repeatedly evades a particular one, I start to get the feeling that they're doing it deliberately, because they can't answer, or because answering the question would show them to be wrong.
Kindly dispel these paranoid thoughts by clearly demonstrating that you've read and understood the study in question.
Personally, I've been making an effort to avoid making such assumptions, though I do lean towards female, based on your misandric comments earlier.
Statistics again, huh? Curious. Do you work in a field related to statistics?
Posted by: Randy (not Randy)
|
September 11, 2010 7:38 PM
May we see ANY of this empirical data?
Posted by: Randy (not Randy)
|
September 11, 2010 7:44 PM
Okay, there you go being libelous to all of the females here. (Again.)
You found our instances of libel yet?
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 11, 2010 7:44 PM
It is very sad when kids are neglected so much that they feel like they are being raised by a television character, but it's even sadder when an adult can't look objectively at the people who raised him/her and identify their strengths and flaws. Ms. Winfrey has plenty of good qualities, although I admit to liking her first couple of years WAY more than her more recent stuff. She has a lot of flaws as well, and it would behoove you to take a more arms-length view of the matter.
I was a pretty seriously neglected kid and realized many years ago that almost everything I learned about how to be a human being I got from children's literature. It was sad, yes, but I went back and reread most of the books that I read as a child (yes, hundreds of them - children's literature became a pretty serious hobby for several years). Some books were terrific, with subversive messages that I didn't recognize explicitly when I was a kid; some were totally horrid with messages that I did not really contribute much to the "how to be a human" knowledge or gave affirmatively counter-productive advice.
Ms. Winfrey has flaws beyond her difficulty with weight and probably strengths that are more subtle than what you have articulated. Think about what you got from her and what you want to shed and/or keep.
/touchy feely mode
Now back to the snine...
Posted by: Dania
|
September 11, 2010 7:44 PM
For the record, I'm guilty of doing that too. Same with -o. And, yes, both strategies have misled me before too.
Posted by: John Morales
|
September 11, 2010 7:47 PM
Well, myama may be an obsessed fan, but at least she's not near the extreme end of the scale¹.
It seems a bit sad when someone's hero is a chat-show host, though. Ah well.
--
¹ DiCaprio "Wife" Told to Keep Away for Three Years.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 11, 2010 7:53 PM
myama, is there anything that Oprah could do that would change your opinion of her? Or would you defend her and rationalize anything she did in order not to upset that pedestal you have her on?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 11, 2010 7:53 PM
When Oprah crosses the Street the cars have to look both ways
Oprah wasn't just in the Color Purple, she invented the Color Purple
Oprah gave birth to Phil Donohue, then traveled forward in time to knock him off the air
carry on
Posted by: Skippy
|
September 11, 2010 8:06 PM
Before God said, "Let there be light," he asked Oprah if it was okay.
Churches tithe to Oprah.
Oprah isn't a lesbian. She is the lesbian.
Oprah has never had a toothache in her life. When a tooth dares cause problems, it immediately and painlessly detaches itself and casts itself into a fire.
Posted by: Randy (not Randy)
|
September 11, 2010 8:08 PM
C'mon guys. You should stop being so mean to Oprah. She is on TV after all.
Posted by: Chgo_Liz
|
September 11, 2010 8:11 PM
Miasma's claim that Oprah practically raised him/her (not even going to touch that one) sent me to the Pffft of all Knowledge (3 "f"s, right?), which says that her first show was September 8, 1986. Take a look at the start date for this thread. September 8th, 24 years later.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 11, 2010 8:12 PM
Oprah invented civilization, just so she could revolutionize it.
Plato had a vision of Oprah. That was the culmination of Greek society.
The only reason Oprah isn't a superhero is because she wanted to give Superman a chance.
Oprah writes a thousand books a day. Then she has to burn them at night, because we're not worthy.
Posted by: lykex
|
September 11, 2010 8:15 PM
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, because Oprah nodded approvingly.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 11, 2010 8:20 PM
Dude, she invented TV. Before her, there were only first-runs of Kolchak: The Night Stalker and syndicated repeats of Gunsmoke. And those were broadcast via flipbook.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 11, 2010 8:22 PM
Oh, and, you know who raised me?
The Spice channel.
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
September 11, 2010 8:23 PM
Oh, honey. Do we need to define "evidence" for you?
I asked for citations and you gave me assumptions. Nobody else seems to assume that sexual abuse is a given in all schools, considering how many parents still send their kids to public schools (as opposed to homeschooling them). If you can actually link to a study or a poll that states that sexual abuse happens in X% of schools, then I will consider your point proven and leave you alone.
But you can't do that, can you?
You didn't give us any empirical data. You gave us assumptions.
Now, I assumed you were female because of all of your slurs against the analytical/unfeeling/autistic male mind. Plus, women are Oprah's key demographic. If you're not female, then I apologize.
I also feel very very badly for your upbringing. It also pains me that I actually have to say that the tv is not an acceptable caregiver. You annoy the shit out of me, myama, but I feel bad about the choices your parents made.
Posted by: Skippy
|
September 11, 2010 8:24 PM
Oprah knows The Secret. Oprah is The Secret.
"Eloi, Eloi, Lema sabachthani," means "Oprah, Oprah, why have you forsaken me?"
Oprah is the only being predicted in every world religion's sacred text.
When Oprah takes a shit...wait. She doesn't need to excrete waste.
Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic).
|
September 11, 2010 8:25 PM
For nigelTheBold, Captain Smug, another hat held reverently oover the heart. That was beautiful.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 11, 2010 8:43 PM
That, my wonderful, is an honor. It really and truly is. Certainly nothing to fear. I will face the deadliest glare with pride.
Posted by: lykex
|
September 11, 2010 8:43 PM
Oprah is the Key and the Guardian of The Secret. Past, present, future, all are one in Oprah.Posted by: Skippy
|
September 11, 2010 8:43 PM
The first Buddha achieved enlightenment after reading Oprah's Book of the Month.
Posted by: skeptifem
|
September 11, 2010 8:46 PM
Randy
Not that it means that anyone should be nicer to her, but she had a very difficult life before her extrodinary success. She was sexually abused for years as a child by family members, was a runaway at 13, and gave birth to a baby that died right after she gave birth to it at 14, and still managed to go to college and become a success. She didn't have support from her family. That is pretty darn remarkable, even if you hate her show or her views. She is the only black woman on the forbes list. Growing up in a white supremacist patriarchy must have made her success that much harder.
I am pretty certain that extreme fame and wealth warps people beyond recognition, and I have no idea what she is like personally, but I kinda frown on the "take her down a peg" style of insult that people throw at her. There are people who are bothered by her being successful.
Ok, regarding the "sex abuse happens at every school thing"- on a long enough time line I am certain that is true. I don't know how it would be calculated though. Many young people get stockholmy with their abusers and don't recognize it as such until years later.
In utah there has been a teacher that got caught like every two months since I have moved here... including a seminary president, multiple women. It is really really weird. I wonder how much unknown abuse happens.
Posted by: Skippy
|
September 11, 2010 8:49 PM
All your base are belong to Oprah.
Posted by: lykex
|
September 11, 2010 8:59 PM
Quite right. Something we've already been over and which is completely irrelevant to the matter of her promoting bullshit.
Posted by: Randy (not Randy)
|
September 11, 2010 9:02 PM
Skeptifem,
First and foremost, I was just summarizing Moronma's entire three days worth of postings into one sentence.
I do know all of that, and can say that I am truly and honestly impressed at what she has been able to accomplish in a society that, as a whole, hates successful blacks and women. My disgust at Oprah comes from her using her pulpit as a means to push nonsense.
Had I said "Be nice to Jesus, he's in the Bible," that would have been perfectly ok, right?
Well, Oprah's followers and Jesus's followers have been pushing the same amount of bullshit.
Posted by: skeptifem
|
September 11, 2010 9:03 PM
Mattir
That is crap. Prostitution is still around. The word "whore" cannot possibly come to have a non sexist meaning in a time where whores exist as abuse receptacles free for any man to use as he wishes. Pornography literally means the depiction of whores, and the word "whore" is still plastered on pornography as a selling point, said to real women in pornography, heard by real women as a threat of what being unchaste means for their future. The same things are in turn done to prostitutes in order to fufil pornography based fantasies for men. It is used to threaten young women, so that they do not turn in people who abuse or prostitute them. It is a word that is used to further sexism right now. The normalization of pornography has increased rather than decreased, so I don't know how it could be 'on its way' towards being not sexist.
Not to mention that even by YOUR definition the word is incredibly sexist- our bodies are not "something of value", we are our bodies. It is us. We are human beings with feelings and who do not degrade in value upon use, like an object does. Human beings merely gain experience. Words like "cheap" are in the same vein- they mean to make it seem like the sexuality of women is a commodity, a thing that exists to be bought and sold.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 11, 2010 9:11 PM
Which is exactly no excuse for her to promote the type of dangerous bullshit she promotes.
I couldn't give a fuck about her being successful or not. Yes her story is a pretty damn amazing and inspirational one but it's what she does with that success that is the issue at hand.
Should she we all treat her with kid gloves because of her sex? Her race? Her past?
Should her promotion of bullshit be any less subject to criticism because of her inspirational story?
Posted by: Randy (not Randy)
|
September 11, 2010 9:11 PM
OPRAH IS the Bread of Life. OPRAH IS the Light of the World. OPRAH IS the Gate. OPRAH IS the Good Shepherd. OPRAH IS the Resurrection and the Life.
No one comes to the Father except through OPRAH.
Posted by: Randy (not Randy)
|
September 11, 2010 9:14 PM
Jenny McCarthy is a failure as an actress and only a mild success as a "hot person." Far from a success.
But, like Oprah, she pushes bullshit. And gets called on her pushing of said bullshit. THAT is what we are bothered by here.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
September 11, 2010 9:19 PM
Brilliant idea, Sven! If you must continue this discussion, do it here.
Since people opposed banning, I'll let the (c)Oprahphiliac stay.