Michael Moore's view of women/relationships

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

I agree with all OrphanPip has said. 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.

---

You aren't seriously doing the 'noble left-wing intellectual beaten down by larger forces' line are you? My god...

Especially considering a number of posters have given well-thought out views on why they dislike him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pierre Menard

You aren't seriously doing the 'noble left-wing intellectual beaten down by larger forces' line are you? My god...

Especially considering a number of posters have given well-thought out views on why they dislike him.

---

Yes, and then OrphanPip proceeded to obliterate any of the seemingly substantive charges laid against the man. None have so far responded.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

This is pretty much my mindset, the I may not dislike Moore so vehemently. I agree with almost everything he says, it's the way he says it that is usually off-putting. Hell, even his voice is grating.

---

His voice is the worst, especially when he's trying to sound sympathetic. His political stance means nothing to me, I just don't like him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

And the style of the cartoon from Bowling for Columbine doesn't even look like South Park, apart from being cheap because it was done on low budget. And Moore didn't ask Stone and Parker to make a cartoon for his film, after the fact they felt the cartoon looked too much like South Park, even though nothing about their involvement with the cartoon is mentioned in the film, nor is it in any way implied that they were involved with it. It's a stupid complaint.

---

He put it directly following an interview with Matt Stone. I thought they did it, a lot of people did. That's what Moore does, he doesn't overtly lie but he does those stupid tricks in the editing process. Also, I think they do look similar and not just in quality, especially the color tones used and the whole giant heads thing:

http://static2.dmcdn.net/static/vide...20111008145750

Check out that lime green and those massive eyes. It resembles South Park more than any other cartoon I can think of off the top of my head, and due to where it's situated in the film it's vague resemblance is enough. He obviously can't say they did it in the credits, but he doesn't have to for a million or so people to make that assumption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

In relation, I don't buy Parker and Stone's "equal opportunity offenders" bull****, it's a disingenuous handwaving effort to avoid criticism.

---

I don't like republicans or democrats either, they're on opposite sides but they're still both ridiculous. It's not too outlandish a concept to make fun of both. Parker and Stone call themselves "equal oppertunity offenders," but they don't attack at random, the views espoused throughout their various projects are consistant and seem to genuinely represent their beliefs. It's true that they don't openly offer their support very often, but I don't think it's that they're afraid of criticism (given their history), it seems more likely that they just don't want to be anyone's poster boys as that would limit them professionally.

I would have put the cartoon at that spot too. The climax of the movie I think was when Moore and the kids injured at Columbine got K-mart to cease its sale of bullets for automatic weapons (I think, am pretty sure but not certain). I'm all for gun rights, but ammunition for automatic weapons is most likely going to be used by either criminals or crazy ****s, and so I applaud Moore for doing what he did. Why Parker and Stone would refuse to lend a hand in the movie I don't know. I doubt composing a one minute cartoon would have taken much effort, and there was a truthful and satirical quality to the cartoon reminiscent of the very best of South Park. Whether the man is smug or self-righteous, his films contain a righteous message, his "cause" is one that is worthy and often ignored, and so I forgive him the self-righteousness and smugness. Or would people prefer there be no left-leaning voice in the American mainstream besides the Msnbc Obama butt-kissers who act like zombiacal members of the democratic party cult.

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.

I really enjoyed that letters from the iraq soldiers book, It was a great chance to hear from them and their experience, really good read. It had a less annoying cover here in the UK with a more neutral photo IIRC.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

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

---

...I tend to agree...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

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

---

...Just can't do it myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

... 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pierre Menard

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

...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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pierre Menard

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Again...propaganda...

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

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.

---

:yesnod: 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pierre Menard

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.

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!

ABC is left wing? Seriously?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

ABC is left wing? Seriously?

---

And CNN too. Anderson Cooper is a regular Karl Marx, Wolf Blitzer the Lenin of our time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

And CNN too. Anderson Cooper is a regular Karl Marx, Wolf Blitzer the Lenin of our time.

---

Haha. It's embarassing that many of my fellow Americans don't know left from right. Sesame Street has failed them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

Haha. It's embarassing that many of my fellow Americans don't know left from right. Sesame Street has failed them.

---

Must make for a traffic accident prone people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

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.

---

Dishonest entails a lot of things, manipulation and cheap tactics can come under such a label.
The claims of 'lies' is your only point, and yes, the people who claimed outright lies haven't responded in detail, but Orphanpip's reference to politifact ( an organisation which is not without criticism) mentioned he scored well on his latest movie...here's the link:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...vie-factcheck/

Nothing on any of his other movies, nothing on his books, nothing on his speeches and public appearances. No, simply one page on his latest film (probably the film that's received the least heat) that examines about 9 facts. Hell, the site itself says Moore used selective statistics to distort the Reagan era.
Are there other links on this 'objective' fact-checking site about all his other work that I've missed? There may be and I'm certainly happy to read them.

I'll have to let the people who claimed 'outright lies' defend themselves, but you've hardly proven much.

However, what we can see, is that there are definitely some concerns over Moore's 'honesty' in the larger, non-technical sense of the word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

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.

---

I watch them ever time they're on. I've learned more about the media and our political system from their two shows, Daily Show in particular, than from anything else. They're hilarious shows, but they also kind of make me sick from time to time.

Also, as far as I know, Comedy Central doesn't shows The Simpsons, fyi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

Also, as far as I know, Comedy Central doesn't shows The Simpsons, fyi.

---

The Canadian version does ("The Comedy Network").

Simpsons on Comedy NETWORK?? You kooky Canadians.

Haha, we get Todd and the Book of Pure Evil too (which I think you'd actually really like, it's about metal heads that live in a town which was created by Satanists). No Trailer Park Boys, though.

That does sound like something I'd like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pierre Menard

Dishonest entails a lot of things, manipulation and cheap tactics can come under such a label.
The claims of 'lies' is your only point, and yes, the people who claimed outright lies haven't responded in detail, but Orphanpip's reference to politifact ( an organisation which is not without criticism) mentioned he scored well on his latest movie...here's the link:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...vie-factcheck/

Nothing on any of his other movies, nothing on his books, nothing on his speeches and public appearances. No, simply one page on his latest film (probably the film that's received the least heat) that examines about 9 facts. Hell, the site itself says Moore used selective statistics to distort the Reagan era.
Are there other links on this 'objective' fact-checking site about all his other work that I've missed? There may be and I'm certainly happy to read them.

I'll have to let the people who claimed 'outright lies' defend themselves, but you've hardly proven much.

However, what we can see, is that there are definitely some concerns over Moore's 'honesty' in the larger, non-technical sense of the word.

---

If you compare Moore to his ideological counterparts - Beck, Oreilley, Coulter, Limbaugh - in the true Ponochiocal sense of honesty, his nose is perhaps a bit bigger than normal, a veritable schnoz, but those others have noses that stretch to infinity, noses illimitable across deserts and oceans and way off into the outer reaches of space.

If you want to get down to the heart of the matter, as a political figure in the American mainstream, compared to almost all others, the man is a saint, a noble man of truth and integrity, decked out in his plaid shirts and blue jeans as one holier than any white virgin robed Pope. Jesus and Buddha and Confucius themselves would all supplicate at Moore's spotless balmy feet and seek his sagacious council on moral matters, if Moore was considered against the back-drop before which he speaks and writes and directs. Context matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

If you want to get down to the heart of the matter, as a political figure in the American mainstream, compared to almost all others, the man is a saint, a noble man of truth and integrity, decked out in his plaid shirts and blue jeans as one holier than any white virgin robed Pope. Jesus and Buddha and Confucius themselves would all supplicate at Moore's spotless feet and seek his sagacious council on moral matters, if Moore was considered against the back-drop before which he speaks and writes and directs. Context matters.

---

Can we just agree to disagree on this one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Can we just agree to disagree on this one?

---

Damnit Bien! You quoted me before I had applied the last few essential strokes to that masterpiece! All is ruined! Ah, the horror, the inhumanity. I curse thee!

Oh and yeah, agree to disagree. Sounds good.

But how could you disagree? What I wrote seems reasonable to me. Self-evident in fact.

*Sarcasm off

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

Damnit Bien! You quoted me before I had applied the last few essential strokes to that masterpiece! All is ruined! Ah, the horror, the inhumanity. I curse thee!

Oh and yeah, agree to disagree. Sounds good.

But how could you disagree? What I wrote seems reasonable to me. Self-evident in fact.

*Sarcasm off

---

I won't admit to it, but I probably did it on purpose...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

Haha, we get Todd and the Book of Pure Evil too (which I think you'd actually really like, it's about metal heads that live in a town which was created by Satanists). No Trailer Park Boys, though.

---

Ahh, Trailer Park Boys. Funny thing is growing up my two best friends were so similar to Ricky and Julian. Travis was as stupid as Ricky and many who first saw him said "omg you look like Ricky off Trailer Park Boys." And then the other guy always wore a black t-shirt, had hair just like Julian, and I kid you not had invariably in his hand at home or in a bar a rum and coke. And he was like this before a mutual friend turned him on to the show. Plus living in a trailer, having a dope-growing father, and being overall pretty white-trash myself, the show really resonated with me. I haven't watched it in a while. I wonder if they're still making new episodes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

If you compare Moore to his ideological counterparts - Beck, Oreilley, Coulter, Limbaugh - in the true Ponochiocal sense of honesty, his nose is perhaps a bit bigger than normal, a veritable schnoz, but those others have noses that stretch to infinity, noses illimitable across deserts and oceans and way off into the outer reaches of space.

---

...Okay. I don't remember anyone saying these guys weren't like that. Not sure of the relevance to my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

If you want to get down to the heart of the matter, as a political figure in the American mainstream, compared to almost all others, the man is a saint, a noble man of truth and integrity, decked out in his plaid shirts and blue jeans as one holier than any white virgin robed Pope. Jesus and Buddha and Confucius themselves would all supplicate at Moore's spotless balmy feet and seek his sagacious council on moral matters, if Moore was considered against the back-drop before which he speaks and writes and directs. Context matters.

---

Yeah, again, little relevance to the point I was making in my above post (which was a response to your assertion that people dislike him because of some massive propaganda machine). And I don't really remember anyone sticking up for the rest of mainstream media, so again, I'm not sure of the relevance overall in regards to my post.

If we consider the backdrop in which he writes and directs, then in my view, he comes out as a intellectually shallow manipulator who I wouldn't recommend anyone going to for balanced, reasonable discussion. Which was my original reason for disliking Moore. Now that I've come full-circle, I don't know if I have much else to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pierre Menard

...Okay. I don't remember anyone saying these guys weren't like that. Not sure of the relevance to my point.



Yeah, again, little relevance to the point I was making in my above post (which was a response to your assertion that people dislike him because of some massive propaganda machine). And I don't really remember anyone sticking up for the rest of mainstream media, so again, I'm not sure of the relevance overall in regards to my post.

If we consider the backdrop in which he writes and directs, then in my view, he comes out as a intellectually shallow manipulator who I wouldn't recommend anyone going to for balanced, reasonable discussion. Which was my original reason for disliking Moore. Now that I've come full-circle, I don't know if I have much else to say.

---

That's your opinion. I don't see anything objective about it. I guess you must side with gun nuts, health care insurance companies and Wall Street bankers, otherwise I don't see the point to your gripe.

Damn those charities for manipulating viewers with images of starving children. Damn the environmentalists for showing footage of devastated forests and slaughtered dolphins and manipulating us. Damn the broadway actor for conveying the sadness and tragedy of the scene as it was written and manipulating the audience. Heck, forget creativity and directorial intent, let's just have a robotic voice read straight facts and figures without the gratuitously manipulative inclusion in the film of poor people who can't afford health-care, children who were wounded in a school shooting, and people who were fore-closed on by banks.

In a media environment which overwhelmingly opposes Moore's positions, its downright ridiculous for people to be dumping on him for making films that he himself has said are meant not only to inform but to entertain. He is a film-maker, not a statistic-obsessed bureaucrat or laboratory-confined research scientist. I really doubt you yourself would jump on a right-winger who utterly lies and distorts facts so long as those lies and distortions accord with your own beliefs. Just a guess, a hunch.

His facts are for the most part accurate. So why the hate? Oh, there's no way the constant hail-like barrage of ideologically based attacks coming from the right could have anything to do with that - no way. It must just be due to ambiguous qualities he has as a "manipulator" and an "intellectually shallow" man. You think someone less intellectually shallow would be as popular as Moore? If Noam Chomsky made a film would it gross as much as Fahrenheit did? And does Moore ever pretend to be an intellectual? No he doesn't. He acts as he is - a common man possessed of a keen social conscience and a knack for making films. He's not perfect and I'm sure he would personally apologize to you were he to be made known of your immense annoyance at his imperfection. You must be perfect. If you made political films in support of the issues you yourself are passionately wrapped up in I'm sure they would be cold dead catalogues of non-emotive facts, like credits running the whole extent of the movie. Right on.

Yes, it is my opinion...as I was asked why I dislike Moore...


Okay, so, you've come to the assumption that I'm a right-winger, a gun-nut and and a patsy for the insurance companies. Nice assumptions all, but all completely wrong. You doubt I'd jump on a right-winger who distorts as long as he follows my views...and you make that 'hunch' based on....my 99 posts here? What? Well I can happily tell you you're wrong. Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and the rest would get my vehement disapproval and have in the past.

Sorry, when on earth did I make a comment on Moore's talent as a filmmaker? Another baseless assumption. Moore is extremely talented at making films, you'll get no disagreement here.

If those charities and environmetalists were more interested in manipulation than in really having thorough reasonable discussions about issues, then I'd level the same criticism there way. If they distorted issues and relied on cheap stunts, then their 'social conscience' doesn't give them a free pass from criticism, in my view.

Okay, so you're first couple of lines of the last paragraph are now implying that I have been influenced by the 'barrage' of attacks from right-wingers, considering I was the one talking about 'intellectual shallowness'...again, it's a baseless assumption. I take little notice of mainstream media, least of all right-wing media. Do I disagree with a number of Moore's positions? Absolutely, especially economically. Do I agree disagree with a number of right-wing positions? Absolutely. Especially socially.

The rest of your last paragraph descended into petulance and irrelevance. It's clear that after a while you are unable to continue a discussion without resorting to petulance and baseless assumptions. Unless you can ease up on the petulance, baseless assumptions and irrelevance, I think I'll leave it there. :smile5:

We on the left should worry about self-righteousness and manipulation and "fairness," "objectivity." The issues themselves and the human lives they affect, the very substance of the discussion, must be relegated to a role of secondary importance behind that of presentation, of style. Thus we shall accomplish our ends. Thus shall social justice be realized. A pox on Moore for assuming a degree of creative license in telling stories of suffering and oppression. I don't care if the man has made millions or if he has on occasion stretched the truth. His purpose for being on this planet is to advance an agenda that has its roots in truth and in compassion, however crudely he sometimes does it, however short he falls of some airy ideal some of us demand he live up to.

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.


You could as justifiably say that if you think those are on the left, it's an indication of how far to the right you are.

But actually it's an indication of the lack of breadth of political debate in the US, compared to the rest of the world. I can think of no other democracy in which any of those organisations would be considered left-wing.

Really, Bien, in the US you needn't worry about the left - in the media or in politics. It's not possible for the left to wield any power in America, because there's no one there to do it. In any other country, Obama would be thrown out of the national leftwing party for being a conservative reactionary.