Oprah,mind-control for the masses

[Disfunction]

Originally Posted by edible_eye

i agree. no biggie.

although, to what you just outlined, what sponsor wouldn't want to be associated with her when her corporate empire's out there doing all this humanitarian work?

good p.r. begets sponsors. sponsors beget money.

she's america's sweetheart. i just don't buy the selfless motives of her actions.

There's no such thing as selflessness.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Disfunction

There's no such thing as selflessness.

That is true, but discussing this statement would again make us go off the subject

[edible_eye]

Originally Posted by Disfunction

There's no such thing as selflessness.

does mother theresa count within that qualification?

[WolfMoon]

Originally Posted by edible_eye

does mother theresa count within that qualification?

Mother Teresa just did it to score points in the afterlife.

Geez, I thought everyone knew that!

[edible_eye]

heh. good one.

[edible_eye]

Originally Posted by GeishaGirl

You're disagreeing just to be difficult.

kinda. that's not an entirely untrue statement.

i don't dig oprah, that's true. and i agree with you, to a certain extent, that the image she portrays nowadays is one of virtue. that image began to surface 10+ years ago, as a challenge to the talk shows that worked to shock their audience. she was just another face in the crowd then and turned the tide to her own advantage. she made a calculated move and it paid off. good for her.

i think oprah does what she does because it makes her money. and i think that if her particular brand of talk show should start to lose ratings, she would have no difficulty reverting back to the style that put her on the map - that of exploitation.

does that make her a bad person? absolutely not. it just makes her who she is - a shrewd businesswoman who had the wherewithal to read the market and adjust herself appropriately.

as far as her "product" is concerned - said product encompasses herself, her show, her movies, her books, her friends (read that as those who are loyal to her) she wishes to endorse, her magazines, her book club, etc. there's quite a bit of influence she wields - and she wields it with the same cunning scrutiny with which she measures the content of her topics.

i don't see an altruist. i don't see a sainted soul. i don't see someone who is concerned with doing "good" in the world, unless there is some sort of gain for her in return. i see, in short, a capitalizer. and it doesn't bother me that she capitalizes on those who have given her their trust, either. that's the foundation of american economics - capitalism.

[Ben Lahnger]

E_E, c'mon, fess up. You don't believe in altruism at all, do you? Well, you can believe what you want. But to pick one thing apart a little further, I want to respond to your statement:

"although, to what you just outlined, what sponsor wouldn't want to be associated with her when her corporate empire's out there doing all this humanitarian work?

good p.r. begets sponsors. sponsors beget money."

If by this you wish to maintain that her plan to build schools in Africa is the smartest, surest way to profit that she could have chosen at this point, I'd have to assert that is a looney business plan. The money the sponsors are throwing into that project are going into that project, not her bank account. The indirect means by which this project could generate personal profit (good P.R. driving more business) for her are a longshot at best. I'm not saying she isn't a shrewd business woman. I'm not saying she doesn't make a lot of money, and I DO believe she wants to make more. I just don't believe if you analyze every one of her actions, that they are all profit motivated. If you look at this project in particular and understand the personal cost in time and energy, there just are too many better, easier, more obvious ways to court p.r., sponsors, consumers, media and profit available to her.

But ultimately, this is just about your perception of her. It's your philosophy, not mine.

BTW, I have a philosophy about some things. I don't believe in religion. I don't worship a god, don't have any concept of a creator, don't have any expectations for my existance beyond the years my mortal body enjoys on this earth.

I am a good person because I am the ultimate believer in personal responsibility. Each individual person who decides to live a life dedicated to good (living by the golden rule of treating others the way you want to be treated) makes the world a better place for each of us to live in. So my choice to be good makes the world better, in some small way. I find it to be an incredibly freeing philosophy.

So do I have a problem with other people believing in religion? Hell no! (heh!) Because, by and large, religion gives people a moral guidepost to live by. And despite the many evils that have been perpetrated in the name of religion, I do believe that the mass of people who believe in a religion are better behaved people because of it.

So what does this have to do with this thread? Because I believe that people who follow the church of Oprah are generally better behaved people for it. And I am all for that.

[WolfMoon]

Church of Oprah?

Heh.

Never thought of it that way. That's almost scary.

[Ben Lahnger]

By the by, there's also a bit of elitism or prejudice running through this thread. It seems as if some people have the opinion that people following someone else without question makes them idiots or invaluable.

I have always been of above average intelligence. But does my intelligence make me superior to those less intelligent than me? No, of course not. For one thing, I've seen a lot of super-smart fuckers that haven't got a lick of common sense. And I have seen some people who would test very low on an IQ test, but who do very well in managing their life.

And I have always been a rebel when it comes to thinking for myself and not blindly accepting any authority figure without question. But does that mean that I am superior to people who don't think in this rebellious, self-assertive manner? Not usually. The definer for me is who do they choose to follow and how do they manifest that following in their actions. If they choose to follow someone useless or evil, or if their actions become useless or evil as a consequence of following someone, then I have an issue with it.

I once knew a guy who had probably had an IQ of 60 or 80. He would not have been described by people who knew him as being bright. But he was a very nice guy. He worked as a janitor, and he was always going to be a janitor. And that was okay with him and he was good at it. And he belonged to the Catholic Church. Now I have no love for the Catholic Church, but the fact that he followed the Catholic Church unquestioned was a good thing. It gave him a moral roadmap to follow. And for me to have said to him that he should think for himself would have just been insulting.

So I don't believe that people following Oprah blindly is inherently bad or stupid. Now if they do evil or useless things, then I have an issue.

[Ben Lahnger]

Yes, but then if Oprah hasn't done anything evil or useless (no evidence of that so far) then I just have an issue with that individual.

[Ben Lahnger]

Because timing is everything, and I just got this in my e-mail. I don't care which side you come down on this issue, this is just funny!

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c3...h_WTFDITIA.jpg

Man, I love The Onion!