posted
I don't really understand you Bao. If I were an athlete, and I saw a world class, idolized athlete publicly doing something bad that was going to lead to thousands of idol-worshipping kids going down a bad path, I'd be incensed. I'm not an athlete, so although I would be annoyed and disapproving, I might not feel quite as personally irritated at the athlete. If I were a vet, or were older than, say, 5 years of age when Jane Fonda did her thing, I'd probably take it more personally too.
As it is, I am in health care. Therefore, when I see a hugely famous person making terrible, misleading statements about depression and ADHD that might lead to thousands of people to turn away from mental health care and seek alternative therapies that don't work, I AM incensed.
That's just the way it is, Bao. CT probably feels similarly. So might anyone who has a problem with mental illness or a friend or family member with mental illness. I can take his statements personally if I want to. He is a national figure and his words carry far greater weight than an ordinary person. He has the ability to cause great harm to many people when he carries on like this.
I'm actually thinking of seeing MI3 anyway.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Ahhhh, so Cruise really just offended/caused harm to a larger group of people- most women and those on meds as opposed to vets and their families.
lol
BTW, I am a vet. I was also an EMT/Medic.
Fonda hasn't made a movie in years, and what she did was decades ago. She also apologized more than once, although they were half-assed apologies.
Cruise is far more dangerous than Fonda is now.
Also, I said every person has the right to decide if it is important enough to them to boycott these movies. I also said I understood why some vets would still boycott Fonda, and have no problem with it at all.
You know nothing about me, really, nor do you have a very good grasp of why this matters to me, so please stop trying to put words in my mouth. My reasons are good enough for me, and if you can't grasp that then the problem lies with you, not me.
posted
Would you be surprised if people were offended when a public figure said that, say, no one should seek medical treatment for high cholesterol, diabetes, hormone imbalances, arthritis, epilepsy...or any other number of ailments?
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: ...dismissed post-partum depression as anything more than a vitamin imbalance & incorrect thinking...
<aside> This has confused me for some time. Psychiatrists (who talk you through understanding your problems and how to view them) and drugs that balance seretonin levels are evil, but Auditors (who talk you through understanding your problems and how to view them)and vitamins that balance the body's chemicals are good. Wha? </aside>
[Edited again to clarify: I am not disagreeing with the lovely Chris Bridges, just expanding further on the topic.]
Psychiatrists should be willing to prescribe (evidence-based) medication on top of therapy when warranted. In some cases of depression, talk therapy is not going to help until you first do something to adjust the neurotransmitter balance. In many cases, talk therapy on its own or in combination with proper medication will help. However, this is not always feasible.
Granted, the evidence for common anti-depressants is establised to be quite strong in only some groups (and, in other, risks may outweigh benefits). But the established evidence for vitamin therapy, in all cases, is nil.
And -exactly- what Theca said. (Thank you, Theca.)
---------------
Edited to add:
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Pardon my phrasing. Would "When a movie comes out with Jane Fonda in it, do you try to piece through how [her public statements and actions] affects your (limited) interaction with her as a viewer" be better?
I can't make any sense of this which doesn't presume things about your motives in asking it that are, themselves, quite insulting.
Of course I don't mull over everything anyone in the mass media does or says. (That would be a ridiculous assumption on your point, so you must not be making it. I am, you see, applying the Principle of Charity to you. Certainly I expect you to do the same.)
I do, however, react to things which catch my attention, as does, well, everyone. And TC's statements have been discussed on my professional newsgroups. Topics are flagged which patients might bring up, as most physicians (at least, the ones I know) tend not to watch much pop media.
*still puzzled at the comment/question/wordstring, although some of the words do seem to flow together in an aesthetically pleasing manner
posted
I was not getting "surly" out of that. Possibly good-natured annoyance. But then, I can't measure your posts on my scale because I skew much eviler. Hmmmm.
posted
I was going to call you, but I mislaid the bit of paper I had your home number on. I think I have about seven of the numbers right, buT I don't have the nerve to risk it. *is lame*
*wish I could make you tea, and fluff your pillows*
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you putting the boys to bed right now? Do you have a minute, or would tomorrow be better? (I'm actually doing okay, having done various astonishing maneuvers to correct the proble. I didn't know I bent that way!)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*snort* I'm free at the moment, but the boys will bedding down in about a half hour. I'd love to chat though. Whenever. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But she's (Fonda) not showing up for discussion in CT's medical newsgroups. I think we can forgive her(CT) for not being up on every little pop culture thing, what with the medical research and all. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Theca: I don't really understand you Bao. If I were an athlete, and I saw a world class, idolized athlete publicly doing something bad that was going to lead to thousands of idol-worshipping kids going down a bad path, I'd be incensed. I'm not an athlete, so although I would be annoyed and disapproving, I might not feel quite as personally irritated at the athlete. If I were a vet, or were older than, say, 5 years of age when Jane Fonda did her thing, I'd probably take it more personally too.
As it is, I am in health care. Therefore, when I see a hugely famous person making terrible, misleading statements about depression and ADHD that might lead to thousands of people to turn away from mental health care and seek alternative therapies that don't work, I AM incensed.
That's just the way it is, Bao. CT probably feels similarly. So might anyone who has a problem with mental illness or a friend or family member with mental illness. I can take his statements personally if I want to. He is a national figure and his words carry far greater weight than an ordinary person. He has the ability to cause great harm to many people when he carries on like this.
I'm actually thinking of seeing MI3 anyway.
I understand that he's a public figure. But he's an actor, not a health care professional. IMO, his views are definitely out there. I just don't take him seriously. I'm beginning to understand why there's such a campaign/backlash against him though.
quote:Therefore, when I see a hugely famous person making terrible, misleading statements about depression and ADHD that might lead to thousands of people to turn away from mental health care and seek alternative therapies that don't work, I AM incensed.
Is it the fear that if his image isn't destroyed then people will actually believe the stuff he says?
I just view TC as another celebrity that can be enjoyed for his product while his personal views can be ignored. For example Tool extolls illegal drug use. Barry Bonds shows that you can use steriods to get to the point where you are breaking world records. Gangster rap promotes violence and murder not only in their lives, but as part of their product.
I understand that Tom Cruise's statements were offensive and possibly dangerous. I guess what I didn't understand is that people out there consider doing what he says simply because he's a box office star.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bao, these things are not unconnected. You really can't just say: "Hey I like the music," if you think what they're singing about is horribly wrong.
There is that happy medium of ridiculous I have heard described many times, I think the last time in the book "1984" : It is that thing which any sensible person can immediately recognize and dismiss as utter garbage, but which is just credible enough to insite fear that the more suggestible mind may be taken in by it.
Ironically 1984 puts this medium in the opposite light, the teachings of Goldstein, which the party members are taught to abhore and lash out against in the 2 minutes' hate.
Now here is a question for you. What purpose do Cruise's nonsensical rantings actually serve? So far each of us here as done this same thing: dismissed them as lunacy, and yet expressed concern that lessers among us may actually believe them. So far none has sighted anyone who actually DOES believe these things that Cruise says, but are any of them out there?
I for one, also find TC to be ridiculous, spoiled, and downright laughable. I am also not terribly concerned that anyone is going to believe his ideas, but I would like to discourage something different. I would like the entertainment industry to stop engaging in what I see as insidious manipulation of the culture climate. The entertainment proclaims, and thus it comes to be: no matter how stupid and obvious, the entertainment industry will sell ANYTHING if they can.
We first need to stop buying it, that is the claim at least from the sensible economist who understands better than I, the workings of supply v. demand. But more than that, the supply defense does not justify the souless, scrupleless, mindless selling out that is going on, and has been going on for so long in our culture. My 2 pennies, just don't go and see the movie, a stand on principle is still a stand.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cruise's personal views are kooky, in the same way that most cultists are viewed as kooky. He only gets attention because he used to be an attractice sex icon/film star who DIDN'T act kooky.
I won't NOT see a movie that he's in, just because of his personal views. But I'll refuse to give his personal views any attention of legitimacy.
Does anyone SERIOUSLY take him for anything other than a crackpot actor with a big mouth? I don't get what the big deal is about him.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My issue with Cruise and others who give really crappy mental health advice is that there is already SO MUCH misinformation floating around about mental illnesses.
posted
I see patients every week who have a firm, unshakable belief that antidepressants are evil. Many more think ADD meds are evil. They get these ideas from partly, at least, from alternative medicine practitioners, books, and friends. I firmly believe that many people would let TC's views sway them. Especially if they are already distrusting of traditional medicine. Some people are very impressionable and confirmation from a superstar is sometimes just what they don't need to hear.
I had a patient this week who refuses to go on a single medication for her diabetes. Her good friend was a diabetic and finally let her doctor put her on medication and she got worse and then her kidney failed. So my patient is firmly convinced that diabetic meds cause harm and her health will be better if she refuses meds. She doesn't have the willpower to stay off the sweets, and her sugars are slowly rising. I spent a half hour describing the complications of diabetes and the mechanisms of injury and by the end she was crying, because her son and her mother are both diabetic and both already have the complications I mentioned. Her son is only 40.
She still won't take medication.
Seems crazy, but I see things like this all the time. People ARE greatly influenced by their friends and by poorly written books and articles. The views of national figures like movie stars and Princess Di definitely have an affect on people too. I can't say I've met anyone so far who was definitely negatively influenced by TC, but I know they are out there.
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Is it the fear that if his image isn't destroyed then people will actually believe the stuff he says?
This phrase means nothing to me. Has anyone here said they are afraid or they want his image destroyed? I just want him to shut up about mental health and Scientology and just be an actor, husband and father.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Is it the fear that if his image isn't destroyed then people will actually believe the stuff he says?
I don't understand your hyperbole about this. It's like you are having a separate conversation. (Not trying to be rude here -- I'm honestly puzzled.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Theca: I can't say I've met anyone so far who was definitely negatively influenced by TC, but I know they are out there.
How do you know they are out there?
Being influenced by friends, family, and 'alternative medicine' practitioners is different than being influenced by a stranger on the street who happened to make a few movies.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Is it the fear that if his image isn't destroyed then people will actually believe the stuff he says?
I don't understand your hyperbole about this. It's like you are having a separate conversation. (Not trying to be rude here -- I'm honestly puzzled.)
I'm not refering to you or anyone in reference to the destroying his image. However, what I see in the media is certainly negatively impacting his image. I'm not saying he's not the root cause of that. I'm just wondering if part of the reason there continue to be articles about how wacky TC is might be that people feel that his statements will cause genuine harm to people if he is seen as credible.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Bao, these things are not unconnected. You really can't just say: "Hey I like the music," if you think what they're singing about is horribly wrong.
Sorry if that's how I came across. What I was trying to get at was examples of the medium not being directly related to what the artist does. Admittedly, some were poor examples.
OSC might be a better one. People come here for the most part because they love his writing. However, many (if not most), differ wildly from his political views. Should his books not be read because of his views on homosexuality? Psychologists may suggest that some of the views he puts forward on how to deal with homosexual impulses are harmful to homosexuals.
All I'm trying to get at is that I just don't see people taking medical advice from an actor. I don't see people taking relationship advice from Bill Clinton, moral guidance from Ted Bundy, or political views from the Dixie Chicks.
I understand intellectually that there are people that can't see the guy in an action movie without thinking about his anti-depressant rant. It just doesn't bother me personally at all, which is probably why I'm coming across as super-dense.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if you understand how pervasive these negative attitudes towards medication and psychiatry really are, Bao. Or the devastating effects they can have.
posted
Keep in mind that at least part of my problem with his acting at this point is that I DO think of that every time I see him now because ti angered me that much. I wouldn't be able to see him in any role other than an ass at this point, and that would affect my enjoyment of the movie as well.
My main reason for refusing to see his movies at this point is that he is attempting to use his publicity to influence people about very complex, dangerous situations about which he has no knowledge or expertise. I see it as poetic justice when people use that same fame against him and his message. It is one of the only ways non-famous people can get any publicity for their disagreement with him and his views, because individually we AREN'T famous like he is.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
OSC might be a better one. People come here for the most part because they love his writing. However, many (if not most), differ wildly from his political views. Should his books not be read because of his views on homosexuality? Psychologists may suggest that some of the views he puts forward on how to deal with homosexual impulses are harmful to homosexuals.
I see your point as well. I would suggest that in that case OSC is attempting to put forward his views (however wrong they may be) in an honest way. He doesn't (for the most part) use his books or his fame as an author as a pulpit for his beliefs, but instead tries to express them as a nearly seperate part of his life. He at least understands that he would be asking far too much of his readers to simply spout his beliefs overtly, but instead he invited them to a website where those beliefs find their proper context.
I suppose too that TC comes across so badly because he is uneducated and his ideas are not well thought out. If he had given more time and energy to at least trying to appear as if he had a clue about anything, then I wouldn't feel so manipulated by people like him.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I may not like all of OSC's views, but he doesn't use this board or book signing sessions to try and "convince" me to follow his example, against everything I know personally to be true.
Plus, while I don't agree with OSC, I at least understand his points and respect his intelligence.
Neither of those is true about Tom Cruise.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
