Oprah's inspiring speech at the Golden Globes

[DesertRat]

Here's the entire speech

Link to tweet

[malaise]

1. She was excellent

Thanks

[DesertRat]

3. I thought it was inspirational and empowering

you're welcome

[spanone]

11. Yes she was.

[SunSeeker]

2. K & R & bookmarked!

[Iliyah]

4. K & R

[PoliticAverse]

5. They gave her time to give her whole speech, that's something the Oscars don't do. n/t

[DesertRat]

6. She was there to be honored with the 2018 Cecil B. DeMille Award

The Golden Globes' lifetime achievement award.

[underpants]

7. Watching later

Thanks

[DesertRat]

8. you're welcome!

[vi5]

9. It was a good speech, but I'm still not a fan.

She's always struck me as an intellectual snake oil salesman. For every good thing she's done like give author's Toni Morrison or Cormac McCarthy a national platform, there's hoisting a Doctor Phil/Doctor Oz or a James Frey on the worldor giving Jenny McCarthy a platform for her anti-vaxxer bullshit, or letting a nutjob like Tom Cruise go unchecked with a softball interview.

I respect how successful she is and how she's built an empire from nothing. But there's just too much bullshit mixed in with the good for me to ever be able to fully get on board.

And someone explain something to me: Reece Witherspoon in her introductory speech spoke about how Oprah can tell you what it's like to be the only female board member on a huge corporation. But I'm assuming that corporation was Oprah's own? If that's the case then.....why was she the only female board member? Or was she referring to a different corporation that Oprah is a board member of.

I'm sure I'll get heat for this, and if everyone liked the speech (I did too!) then great. But let's not forget some of the other stuff which really is pretty bad.

[RandomAccess]

12. OFFS

For every good thing she's done like give author's Toni Morrison or Cormac McCarthy a national platform,

there's hoisting a Doctor Phil/Doctor Oz
Don't look now, but Oprah is an infotainer, not a journalist. Further, your biases are showing. I think Dr Oz is topnotch, and while I've soured on Dr. Phil a bit (never a HUGE) fan, he still has value to audiences whether you like him or approve of him -- or them -- or not. FURTHER (and this is important) how in God's name would you have expected Oprah to have come to the conclusions you and others arrived at (and which you think , erroneously, are the only appropriate conclusions) BEFORE their YEARS of public exposure which her sponsorship gave them?

Same thing with:
or a James Frey
You expect Oprah to be psychic too??

or giving Jenny McCarthy a platform for her anti-vaxxer bullshit,
Why not? There are plenty of people who share McCarthy's position on vaccines (though she has since recanted somewhat and changed her rhetoric, no doubt because of savage public attacks). For some of us, whether Jenny McCarthy believes that or not doesn't matter one whit.

or letting a nutjob like Tom Cruise go unchecked with a softball interview.
Her show isn't a NEWS show; she's not a JOURNALIST. "Softball interview" is EXACTLY what her job was when he was on. And few people thought of Cruise as a "nutjob" at the time. Again, you're expecting her to be psychic.

Your expectations are not just unrealistic, they're fantastical, as in delusional. What other celebrities do you hold such high (unrealistic, downright delusional) expectations for?

And oh, btw, your metrics are way wrong too. "For every good... " there's a bad nonsense. First it's highly arguable that SHE did bad, and second, the good she's done is immeasurable, frankly, and far, far, far outweighs the "bad" you think she's responsible for.

I will never understand the resentment so many people hold for Oprah. They resent her money, they resent her success, they resent her charity, they resent absolutely everything possible thing about her. EVEN if they have to go invent things to resent and criticize about her, as in this instance.

[vi5]

13. I don't resent her....

...I have a lot of respect for her as an entertainment mogul. Just that "entertainment". The problem is when she tries to get into science and medicine like with the people I mentioned, she spreads horrible, dangerous misinformation which Dr. Phil, Oz, and Jenny McCarthy did and continue to do.

Sorry, giving anti-science quacks a forum to spout bullshit to already poorly informed citizens is just as dangerous as if she was giving climate change deniers a forum. I'd say worse. I've seen family members and people I knowput off actual medical treatment because of something they saw on her show or the shows of the quacks she's foisted on the world. Every day those people are out in the world spreading their bullshit it's an actual danger to actual people and an affront to science and medicine.

As I said she deserves a lot of respect for what she's accomplished from starting with nothing. And for her charity work. But that doesn't mean I need to give her a pass on what she's done by promoting A LOT of anti-science quackery.

If a lot of people are stupid enough to believe vaccines cause autism then the solution is to remedy that problem by presenting the facts not reinforcing their idiotic beliefs, which is what she does.

[RandomAccess]

14. And I'd say that your attitude

which is labeling things you really don't understand as "anti-science" and calling for them to be outlawed, apparently, is far greater danger.

You can count me among the people who are "stupid enough" to KNOW that vaccines have an impact on whether children develop autism or not. I'm also "stupid enough" to KNOW that our pharmaceutical industry IN CAHOOTS with the CDC sometimes AND the FDA a lot of the time, very purposefully skew the results of their clinical studies or lie in other ways (e.g. side effects).

I find YOUR attitude absolutely terrifying. We should all have the benefit of as much information as possible -- including that which the science-as-religion crowd (like you) find objectionable -- especially when it's based on what I'd call "outlawed science" and loads of anecdotal evidence from parents. Anyone who wants to deny the vaccine-autism connection really needs to watch some of the many heartbreaking YouTube videos from parents. You ought to also take a look at the vaccine injury court and its decisions and monetary awards.

Mehmet Oz is a highly respected cardiologist. He does NOT spread misinformation. I doubt Dr. Phil is spreading any misinformation either. Jenny McCarthy is entitled to "spread" her personal experience and personal opinion, as well as what she may have learned in her research of the subject. YOU are perfectly entitled not to watch, and to object. And thankfully that's the end of your rights on the subject.

[vi5]

15. No, I understand science and facts....

the things you are talking about have been debunked time and time and time again. There is zero evidence. Zero. This are mountains of evidence to the positions contrary to your opinion.

Dr. Oz has spread tons of misinformation and the medical community has called him out on it countless times.

At this point, yes if someone believes that vaccines cause autism, that person is an anti-science zealot and yes an idiot (which is the nicest possible thing I can call someone so dangerously deluded).

If you fall into that category then I know all I need to know.

[Scurrilous]

10. K&R