Michael Moore's view of women/relationships

[Mutie]

Look humorous or no, I enjoyed Stupid White Men, I thought it had vital things to say about racism, poverty and globalism. And even if he has simplified things or misinterpreted anyone in the book, our society is in a mess right now and anyone who wakes "regular folk" up to that is important.

However, I found that particular "end of men" chapter, to be unhelpful and divisive. I thought it had the same tone as all those men-mocking commercials where women roll their eyes at how useless they guys are. I think that kind of humor only creates more conflict between the genders.

I think a better approach is one which see that the gender imbalance in society is a result of both men and women being unhappy at their traditional "place", (such as men being told by the media they need to be violent and dominant) and both genders working together to raise each other's confidence and making the world better for each other.

[MarkBastable]

his films contain a righteous message, his "cause" is one that is worthy and often ignored,

...I tend to agree...

and so I forgive him the self-righteousness and smugness...

...Just can't do it myself.

Or would people prefer there be no left-leaning voice in the American mainstream

It is rather odd that America produces so few for a country so large - especially as there are so many on the right.

In fact, now that I think about it, I could probably name - off the top of my head - four or five right-wing commentators in the US media, but not a single left-wing one.

Why is that?

... some fat poorly dressed dude who isn't a professor or scholar comes on lecturing us we do not accept it....

For me, at least, that has nothing to do with it. Britain specialises in producing fat, poorly-dressed, working-class satirists. We even let them on TV.

[Pierre Menard]

And yeah, noble left-wing intellectuals often do get beat down by larger forces. What planet are you living on my friend? Look at Chris Hedges. The man won a Pulitzer prize and less than a year later was given an ultimatum by his employer the New York Times to either shut his mouth about the Iraq war or get canned. Look at Dan Rather and I.F Stone.

Look, putting aside just how downtrodden you think left-wing intellectuals are for a second, it's arrogant on your part to assume that anyone who dislikes Moore on this thread dislikes him because of propaganda. Could it be that a number of people on here have actually watched his films and heard him speak and have made up their own minds about the man?

I think we're used to people we see on television being either beautiful or possessed of noteworthy credentials. We'll listen to someone with a pretty face or nice hair or with a Harvard Phd, but when some fat poorly dressed dude who isn't a professor or scholar comes on lecturing us we do not accept it.

Or maybe it's because the 'fat poorly dressed man' is someone with no desire to properly discuss issues, but prefers cheap tactics and manipulation, and (speaking personally) maybe some find little intellectual depth to the man. I've heard more insightful things from the 'left' on internet blogs.

[Darcy88]

Look, putting aside just how downtrodden you think left-wing intellectuals are for a second, it's arrogant on your part to assume that anyone who dislikes Moore on this thread dislikes him because of propaganda. Could it be that a number of people on here have actually watched his films and heard him speak and have made up their own minds about the man?
.

Because a lot of posters claimed that Moore's stuff is not factual. Another poster came on here essentially proving that it is factual. Where would people get this belief that his stuff is not factual if not from propaganda?

...I tend to agree...



...Just can't do it myself.





It is rather odd that America produces so few for a country so large - especially as there are so many on the right.

In fact, now that I think about it, I could probably name - off the top of my head - four or five right-wing commentators in the US media, but not a single left-wing one.

Why is that?

I'll try not to too badly transgress the no-politics rule and lay it out for you. Media concentration has led to a mere four corporations owning and controlling most of American mainstream media. Corporations are right-wing. Its in their interests to skew news and information towards their side, or to some blandly warped grey area of neutrality. Fox News pundit-puppets make up obscene lies on an hourly basis, but when Dan Rather puts out a false news story, perhaps by mere accident, he fades and soon finds himself without a job.

Right-wing radio pulls in millions and millions of dollars in syndication. Left-wing radio is running on fumes, the hosts actually making appeals for listeners to sponsor air-time. Which is odd since the left-right divide in America is roughly commensurate.

There are a lot of people who like the democratic party, and that is why they have been given Msnbc. Right-wingers consider the channel radical, but to a true radical like me its staffed by a soulless pack of Obama apologists who irritate me to no lesser degree than do the right-wing hacks spouting lies and deceit over on the inglorious channel of Fox News.

I still don't see the justification behind many's dislike for Michael Moore. The worst thing he did was betray Ralph Nader. OrphanPip said that his films have been objectively fact-checked and deemed factually correct.

[YesNo]

Because a lot of posters claimed that Moore's stuff is not factual. Another poster came on here essentially proving that it is factual. Where would people get this belief that his stuff is not factual if not from propaganda?

I assume what people say is factual to the best of their knowledge, but no one states all the facts and two different people can start with the same facts and arrive at opposing positions. What this means is that proving that a person's facts are technically correct, is not adequate to accept that person's argument.

Even when one agrees with the basic conclusion of the argument one might be annoyed with the way it was presented.

Here is the scene from Bowling for Columbine where Moore interviewed Charlton Heston displaying a card proving he was a lifetime NRA member and even praising Canada that it had more guns than the US but fewer murders using guns. All of this lead up to Moore asking that Heston apologize for appearing at an NRA rally in Flint after a child was killed by another child with a gun. I may be wrong, but I suspect Moore was misrepresenting himself, that is stating "facts" about himself, to Heston that were not true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1iuEcu7O50

It seems that Moore's argument is that it is OK for Heston to exercise his US right to bear arms, which he explicitly acknowledged, but it was not OK for Heston to exercise his right to freedom of speech. Now, that is something that I would disagree with. I assume that Moore's facts about the murder rate in Canada and the US are correct, but those facts are irrelevant to what he was apparently showing.

I recall thinking that Heston behaved himself better than Moore in that scene.

Moore doesn't need propaganda from his enemies to discredit him. He does a good job discrediting himself on his own.

[Darcy88]

I assume what people say is factual to the best of their knowledge, but no one states all the facts and two different people can start with the same facts and arrive at opposing positions. What this means is that proving that a person's facts are technically correct, is not adequate to accept that person's argument.

Even when one agrees with the basic conclusion of the argument one might be annoyed with the way it was presented.

Here is the scene from Bowling for Columbine where Moore interviewed Charlton Heston displaying a card proving he was a lifetime NRA member and even praising Canada that it had more guns than the US but fewer murders using guns. All of this lead up to Moore asking that Heston apologize for appearing at an NRA rally in Flint after a child was killed by another child with a gun. I may be wrong, but I suspect Moore was misrepresenting himself, that is stating "facts" about himself, to Heston that were not true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1iuEcu7O50

It seems that Moore's argument is that it is OK for Heston to exercise his US right to bear arms, which he explicitly acknowledged, but it was not OK for Heston to exercise his right to freedom of speech. Now, that is something that I would disagree with. I assume that Moore's facts about the murder rate in Canada and the US are correct, but those facts are irrelevant to what he was apparently showing.

I recall thinking that Heston behaved himself better than Moore in that scene.

Moore doesn't need propaganda from his enemies to discredit him. He does a good job discrediting himself on his own.

Heston holds pro-gun rallies in communities reeling from recent gun-related tragedies, Moore makes a clip about that, and between the two men it seems many view Moore as the villain. That's unbelievable to me. Moore's work is intended not only to inform but also to entertain. Some people it appears would deny him practically all creative license.

[BienvenuJDC]

Heston holds pro-gun rallies in communities reeling from recent gun-related tragedies, Moore makes a clip about that, and between the two men it seems many view Moore as the villain. That's unbelievable to me. Moore's work is intended not only to inform but also to entertain. Some people it appears would deny him practically all creative license.

Again...propaganda...

People who carry guns legally do not promote crime, but it is proven that those who are legally carry firearms in fact DO promote safety and reduce crime.

MOST of the media in the US is liberal...again, don't insult my intelligence. While there is FOX on one side, there is MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and Public Radio on the left side. If you don't think that those are on the left, then that may be an indication how far you are on the left.

[Darcy88]

Again...propaganda...

People who carry guns legally do not promote crime, but it is proven that those who are legally carry firearms in fact DO promote safety and reduce crime.

MOST of the media in the US is liberal...again, don't insult my intelligence. While there is FOX on one side, there is MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and Public Radio on the left side. If you don't think that those are on the left, then that may be an indication how far you are on the left.

Why did CBS axe Dan Rather then Bien? Why did the New York Times push out Pulitzer Prize winning outspoken leftist journalist Chris Hedges? And are you kidding me? CNN leftist? That is a hyper-absurd delusion and I laugh at it, hard. That is an indication of how far you are on the right. A network which gives Ari Fleischer a job is left-leaning only in a world where night is bright and day dark, where the sea is above and the sky below, where two plus two equals five and all roads go the same one way. Forget how radical I myself am, every person I know with but a modicum of liberalism in them considers American media right-leaning. You may call the ocean orange and Joseph Kony a good Christian, but that won't make them so.

But yeah, I suppose the fact that 12 right-wing talk radio stations have broadcasts that slither across the border to here while only one left-wing talk station comes in clearly, I suppose that is clear proof that "most of the media in the US is liberal." And pigs outnumber gulls in the skies.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

In fact, now that I think about it, I could probably name - off the top of my head - four or five right-wing commentators in the US media, but not a single left-wing one.

Right now the biggest three seem to be Bill Maher (whom I also can't stand), Stephen Colbert, and Jon Stewart, Colbert and Stewart especially. Both are in the news more and more, and in a poll not too long ago Stewart was rated the must trust-worthy personality on TV (I think). The funny thing is, both of these guys are reasonable--they criticize both the democrats and republicans and all of the media outlets, but that gets the labeled as far left, apparently.

Look, putting aside just how downtrodden you think left-wing intellectuals are for a second, it's arrogant on your part to assume that anyone who dislikes Moore on this thread dislikes him because of propaganda.

I don't think Darcy ever said that.

Again...propaganda...

Again...prove it...(and that can go for Pierre, too).

MOST of the media in the US is liberal...again, don't insult my intelligence. While there is FOX on one side, there is MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and Public Radio on the left side. If you don't think that those are on the left, then that may be an indication how far you are on the left.

More like that's an indication if how far you are to the right, Bien. MSNBC is definitely liberal, but CBS, ABC, and CNN? They aren't liberal or conservative, just inept. Hell, I've even heard people claim 60 Minutes is a liberal propaganda machine, which is just insane. And Public Radio is a bit liberal, but not extremely so. They just happen to have a lot of intellectual programming which happens to be liberal . . . coincidence? And aside from Public Radio and a few token programs, almost the whole of broadcast raido is right-leaning, local and national.

[JuniperWoolf]

Right now the biggest three seem to be Bill Maher (whom I also can't stand), Stephen Colbert, and Jon Stewart, Colbert and Stewart especially.

Yeah, this thread's been forgetting about those two. I respect them way more than Moore, they're not manipulative or repulsive.

[Darcy88]

Yeah, this thread's been forgetting about those two. I respect them way more than Moore, they're not manipulative or repulsive.

I love those two in small doses. Its hilarious to me that one can probably get a clearer representation of the day's political events by watching a couple comedians on a network that airs South Park and the Simpsons than they can by tuning into the evening news or one of the all day politically-oriented news channels.

[JuniperWoolf]

I love those two in small doses. Its hilarious to me that one can probably get a clearer representation of the day's political events by watching a couple comedians on a network that airs South Park and the Simpsons than they can by tuning into the evening news or one of the all day politically-oriented news channels.

They make great points too. After that crazy guy shot that liberal politician in the states (and a little girl, and a few other people) Stewart said something along the lines of "look, he wasn't a Republican, he was just a crazy person. Relax everyone, this isn't the spark that sets off the class war powder keg. That being said, wouldn't it be nice if the delusional ravings of a mad man weren't eerily similar to the way we actually talk to each other?"

What a great joke that the best place we can go for moderate views is The Comedy Network.

[Pierre Menard]

I don't think Darcy ever said that.

Darcy: "I think the dislike we see for Michael Moore materializing here is in large part due to the massive ideological propoganda machine which tries to chew him up at every opportunity."

[Darcy88]

Darcy: "I think the dislike we see for Michael Moore materializing here is in large part due to the massive ideological propoganda machine which tries to chew him up at every opportunity."

And what is incorrect about that? Its been proven in this thread that what I said there was true. Many claimed that Moore lies and is dishonest. A member pointed out that he in fact doesn't, as confirmed by an objective political fact-checking organization. Is this too nuanced? It seems simple to me.

[Darcy88]

I said "in large part" Pierre. And many of the complaints had to do with Moore's facts and honesty. So there you go. Next!