Michael Moore's view of women/relationships

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

Just to expand on that slightly - though I agree with all of it - it's not his clothes, it's not his views, it's not his beard, it's not his background, it's not his body shape, it's not his politics. It's his personality.

And as his personality is intrinsic to his films, I don't like the films as pieces of work, even when I agree with the premise that drives them.

---

This, This, This.

For all that I have seen and learnt about Moore I have gotten the impression oh him as a spitefull little man. Now I generaly like all types of people, but I hate little men, those men who in youth were bullyed and opressed because they were awkward and when they become adults you can tell they have so much rage and vengance and small mindedness within them, that if these little men ever gained power they would be scary. I hate little men.

I agree with what he says, but as a person not only do I not like him, I find him scary.

Just because you and someone agree on certain points does not mean you have to like them. I agree with Mussolini on several points, I also don't like him. I agree with Obama on certain points, but I don't like him (patriot act).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

Now I generaly like all types of people, but I hate little men, those men who in youth were bullyed and opressed because they were awkward and when they become adults you can tell they have so much rage and vengance and small mindedness within them, that if these little men ever gained power they would be scary. I hate little men.

---

:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

:rolleyes:

---

...I always find it a bit worrying when he agrees with me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

[I]
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.

---

I actually don't care what the rest of the world is doing, or how liberal the rest of the world is. And if you want Obama in England as a conservative, please take him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

I actually don't care what the rest of the world is doing...

---

This is no surprise to anyone outside the US. The impression we get is that a lot of you take that attitude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

This is no surprise to anyone outside the US. The impression we get is that a lot of you take that attitude.

---

The impression that we get is that you take the same attitude, but you act as if you don't. You can live your lives the way you want, just don't expect us to do the same. There are those who think it's "cool" to be like Europe. um...ok? So, why should it matter to me here in America what you are doing in London? If it's a point of finding something interesting that is great. But if I should be more liberal BECAUSE you guys are far more liberal, that is dumb logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

There's your problem right there. We should always care if the person telling us something stretches the truth, that should play a vital role in our judgement. The ends never justify dishonesty, because you can't see the end. On the other hand, the opposite side has it's fair share of cheap tricks and emotional string-pulling as well (although they seem to focus on fear and anger more than the feel-good emotions) so maybe it balances out. Also, anyone who would watch Moore's films is likely already pretty left-leaning in the first place.



Manipulation isn't a weak reason for disliking someone. Dishonesty is an important quality, especially if we're talking about politics. But actually Micheal Moore isn't that important, it's not like he has much of an effect. He makes money, but his irritating personality has kind of run it's course for most people and he's not well liked in general, even on the left.

Regarding the assertion that emotional manipulation is to be contrasted and preferred to "laboratory-confined research scientists" (by which I assume you mean "objective analysis"): would I prefer it if a film succeeded that both sides agreed was objective (or rather, as would much more likely be the case, that both sides insisted overly represented the opposite side)? Yes, very much so. It won't happen though, because sensationalism is what sells and most people just want to hear what they already believe being validated. That's fine actually, no harm done. No progress done either, no thoughtful dialogue prompted. The only changes made are slight, a few liberals are feeling better about their views, a few conservatives are pissed off (nothing new there) and Micheal Moore makes money.

---

This would all be good and dandy if you could demonstrate that Moore is consistently dishonest. Maybe he is, even though most of the analyses of his facts I've seen from objective sources give him a thumbs up. Otherwise this is all libellous. I think people who dislike his personality are just being nit-picking Foo-foos. Every passionately fire-blooded liberal I know gets up on their soap box and castigates the oligarchs with a furious tone of annoyed self-righteousness ala Moore, and considering what those oligarchs do and have done they damn well should.

Manipulation does not equal dishonesty. Otherwise, as I said earlier, the charities would be dishonest for showing us the starving children, the environmentalists for showing us the sad-faced polar bears. If Moore used no cheap emotional tactics his movies wouldn't reach a wide enough audience and they'd have zero net effect. Jun if you or I or Pierre made movies about things we are passionate and obsessed about, things that pertain to our core values and deal with other people's suffering, well those movies we made would in all probability be just as "manipulative" as Moore's. And if they weren't then we wouldn't have tried hard enough.

Everyone probably thinks "oh you just like him because he's on the left." I don't like him, his content is not very thought-provoking and there are enough thought-provoking left-wing individuals out there to make me never need someone like Moore. But I heartily approve of his work and his message and I still contend that any liberal who doesn't is in grave error.

Plus, more than rednecks I dislike the Ras Trents of the world who are faaaaaaaar left too and are everywhere here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcK0MYgnHjo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

The impression that we get is that you take the same attitude, but you act as if you don't. You can live your lives the way you want, just don't expect us to do the same. There are those who think it's "cool" to be like Europe. um...ok? So, why should it matter to me here in America what you are doing in London? If it's a point of finding something interesting that is great. But if I should be more liberal BECAUSE you guys are far more liberal, that is dumb logic.

---

I think we moved on from the political spectrum argument when you said, "I actually don't care what the rest of the world is doing..." In the post to which that was the response, I was merely pointing out that there's not actually much breadth to political debate in the US. That's just the case, when you consider the breadth of political debate in other democracies. I wasn't saying you should 'be more liberal'. I can't even see how you managed to think that I was saying that, given what I typed. I was just pointing out the fact that you don't actually have a political left in the US. So, you mistook the logic, and it wasn't dumb.

However, I entirely believe you don't care. Believe me, America is more insulated, more self-regarding and more self-justifying than any country in Europe. It's not a question of "Well, we're no less interested in you than you are in us." You are. And you may think that's a good thing, and I might think it's a bad thing. But, believe me, it's a thing.

We - the Brits - were in much the same position a hundred years ago. We'd been the boss of almost everywhere for a long time - economically and, unlike you, colonially. And, like you, we'd been so powerful and so rich we really didn't have to care much what anyone else did or thought. But it was the end of Empire, and we were in for a shock. It took us about eighty years to adjust.

You're going to have to do the same. And that will mean looking outwards rather than inwards. Soon, you'll have to care. I don't expect you to agree with that. I don't even really expect you to agree that the US is coming to the end of its global dominance.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

We have to care now. And like I've said before, I hope we aren't the world power soon. Let someone else be the world power and police the world.

It's a bad thing. There's no way or logical mindset that justifies the thinking of, "I don't care about the rest of the world, we should worry about ourselves." In this age, we can't worry about ourselves without taking into account the world stage, because it's impossible to be insulated, unless we become a nation like North Korea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

This is no surprise to anyone outside the US. The impression we get is that a lot of you take that attitude.

---

A lot, yes, but not all. Unless it's about war; than most of the "I don't care" folks are all for world-involvement, and still just as uninformed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

So, why should it matter to me here in America what you are doing in London?

---

So, I guess you think we shouldn't be in any of the wars we're in? I assume you think we should just leave th middle east alone? I mean, you don't care about the rest of the world, right? Why should you?

There's a difference between emotionally manipulating people for money which you then use to help people, and emotionally manipulating people to a political end for money which you then use to buy a mansion. I'm not against someone making money, but I can't respect a person who makes their money in that way. Politics, like all things, are healthiest when they're balanced. Moore is the antithesis of balance, but he himself is balanced out by Fox news so I'm not too concerned about him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

Jun if you or I or Pierre made movies about things we are passionate and obsessed about, things that pertain to our core values and deal with other people's suffering, well those movies we made would in all probability be just as "manipulative" as Moore's. And if they weren't then we wouldn't have tried hard enough.

---

Nope. If I were to make a film describing my position in an effort to sway people to my way of thinking, the first thing I would do is present the absolute best arguments the opposition has to offer. If I can do that and then, when I present my position, dismantle and counter each point one by one and come out on top, then that makes my positon much, much stronger. That's another reason why Moore is so useless and no one takes him seriously, his films are like watching someone walk down a gentle slope. It's easy to spoonfeed people biased information and play sad music at them, it's a bit harder (and way more impressive and effective) to aptly defend your position in the face of logical opposition.

Yeeeeaaaah, I tried responding to everything, but it would take a while and I don't care enough about Moore to discuss him at any great length. I've said what I had to say, he's an ineffectual, uninformative sensationalist creep and I don't like him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

There's a bit of a difference between emotionally manipulating people for money which you then use to help people, and emotionally manipulating people to a political end for money which you then use to buy a mansion. Politics, like all things, are healthiest when they're balanced. Moore is the antithesis of balance, but he himself is balanced out by Fox news so I'm not too concerned about him.

Yeeeeaaaah, I tried responding in length, but I don't care enough about Moore to discuss him at any great length. I've said what I had to say, he's an ineffectual, uninformative sensationalist creep and I don't like him. /bowout

---

Well said....and I agree totally about the "balance" thing. Both ideologies have merit, and they need each other to keep themselves in check.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

Moore is the antithesis of balance, but he himself is balanced out by Fox news so I'm not too concerned about him.
.

---

There is no place for cool objectivity when tens of thousands are dying from lack of health insurance and many more are being kicked out of their homes. And Fox News and Michael Moore are simply in no meaningful way comparable. Its like a year ago when the President went on a trip to India you had every host and guest on Fox News saying the trip was costing the American tax-payer 200 million dollars a day. In fact it was only 200 thousand. Even after the administration released a statement correcting them they persisted in their calumny. Michael Moore does not so brazenly lie. He uses tactics to elicit sympathy on the part of the viewers. Its like a tragic playwright inflicting woe upon his characters to make the audience weep. Except Moore is doing it not only for personal glory but also to turn a spotlight on the poor and downtrodden. As someone who is politically passionate I applaud Moore, even if I consider his work crude. Anyone in this thread who has an opinion on Moore but who hasn't seen Capitalism:A Love Story should go download or rent the video sometime. Then tell me how that film renders him in any way similar to Glen Beck or Bill O'reilly. That movie I actually did enjoy and learn a little from, unlike his others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

There is no place for cool objectivity when tens of thousands are dying from lack of health insurance and many more are being kicked out of their homes.

---

Is this REALLY true?

You talk about FOX...what are you doing but exaggerating?

Is the lack of health care really an issue to that extent? We don't have such epidemics here in America.

And I'm not talking about in Africa. It's the churches who are providing those services (although quite limited).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Is this REALLY true?

You talk about FOX...what are you doing but exaggerating?

Is the lack of health care really an issue to that extent? We don't have such epidemics here in America.

And I'm not talking about in Africa. It's the churches who are providing those services (although quite limited).

---

You have a big country man, very big. They say its 50 000 people who die a year from that particular cause, a figure I've heard bandied about by sources of all sorts, and one that is very much believable if you take into account your aging population. I'm an idiot who didn't file last year's taxes and so I'm having to pay 100 dollars a month until I rectify my mistake. This is enough of a burden I can't imagine what someone does down there who lacks employer health insurace or medicare. I really didn't want to start a debate on health care. I've been trying best as I can to keep my posts focused on Moore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

You have a big country man, very big. They say its 50 000 people who die a year from that particular cause, a figure I've heard bandied about by sources of all sorts, and one that is very much believable if you take into account your aging population. I'm an idiot who didn't file last year's taxes and so I'm having to pay 100 dollars a month until I rectify my mistake. This is enough of a burden I can't imagine what someone does down there who lacks employer health insurace or medicare. I really didn't want to start a debate on health care. I've been trying best as I can to keep my posts focused on Moore.

---

I never believe any claim that I hear from "them". "They" say lots of things, but no one really knows who "they" are. I currently don't have health insurance, but that isn't something that I think that the government should be required to provide. If Health Care is something that should be provided for free, then so should food and housing. Housing is a much higher expense than health care. I'd rather see health care reform, than health care to be provided.

If there are some real statistics that support your claim that 10,000 - 50,000 people die because they don't have health care, then I'd like to see it. How many people are homeless? WHY are they homeless?