Michael Moore's view of women/relationships

[Pierre Menard]

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.

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.

[Darcy88]

...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.

[Pierre Menard]

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.

[Darcy88]

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.

[MarkBastable]

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.

[Darcy88]

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.

Well you attack Moore without pretending to do so with even any gloss of specification or objective criteria. He is a "manipulator" and is "intellectually shallow." I don't see how these things are at all relevant. He doesn't present himself as an intellectual and he wears his political passions on his sleeves. The fact that his facts are factual has apparently no bearing on how you regard him. What more is there to say? Indeed. Let's leave it there then.

Wait are you the libertarian? I think of libertarians as ones not unlike those who still sacrifice to Zeus or who avoid trans-continental travel for fear they will fall off the earth's end. If that's another baseless assumption I apologize.

And the last paragraph in my last post was on the contrary by far the most relevant. Anyway.

Can't dispute the charge of petulance. I am a rather petulant individual.

[Pierre Menard]

Look, I'm happy to leave the other stuff where it lay. I feel we've both exhausted our views on the matter.

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.

I'll quickly try to address this...though it's hard to without breaking the 'no politics' rule.
A few quick points then:
- "we on the left". There are a number of left-wingers who dislike Moore for the same reasons that have been mentioned in this thread. You might give him a free pass because you're also of the 'left', but let's not speak for all of the 'left'.
- An agenda that it's roots in your conception of 'truth'. Probably why you give him a free pass.
- It's nice to be compassionate blah blah etc, but ones intentions don't necessarily result in the best outcomes. I'm sure many young socialists have great compassion and intentions...doesn't mean the outcomes of their beliefs result well. Just an example.

Lastly, and this is best I can articulate it: I care little for ones compassion and intentions, if I believe their means ultimately don't result in enlightened or thoughtful dialogue on issues. I believe Moore's methods are ultimately unhelpful. You disagree, that's fine. Leave it there?

Wait are you the libertarian? I think of libertarians as ones not unlike those who still sacrifice to Zeus or who avoid trans-continental travel for fear they will fall off the earth's end. If that's another baseless assumption I apologize.

At the very most, if I had to label myself, I'd say the closest label that'd apply is 'moderate libertarian'. I certainly believe in a general capitalistic economic system, free trade, low tariffs and so on, and I also certainly believe in a large degree of social freedom...but I'm no full-blown Ron Paul-esque Libertarian.

I'm highly critical of all parties, most ideologies, and tend to take a detached view of politics. If you ever see me make fun of the left more on this forum...then it's purely because I find it more fun, I assure you. :P

All good?

[Darcy88]

I'll quickly try to address this...though it's hard to without breaking the 'no politics' rule.
A few quick points then:
- "we on the left". There are a number of left-wingers who dislike Moore for the same reasons that have been mentioned in this thread. You might give him a free pass because you're also of the 'left', but let's not speak for all of the 'left'.
- An agenda that it's roots in your conception of 'truth'. Probably why you give him a free pass.
- It's nice to be compassionate blah blah etc, but ones intentions don't necessarily result in the best outcomes. I'm sure many young socialists have great compassion and intentions...doesn't mean the outcomes of their beliefs result well. Just an example.

I don't even like Moore all that much. When I want good liberal content there are over a dozen other names I go to before I even consider his. But that post was directed at other liberals who have attacked Moore. For them to do so when his movie Sicko was the only mainstream American media product to really look at the issue of privatized vs socialized medicine in I don't know how many years, or how his movie Capitalism: A Love Story tells honest important stories and in a way anticipates by a year or two the Occupy Movement, and I could go on and on and on, it makes no sense for me when others on the left attack him for very weak reasons like because he's "self-righteous" or a "manipulator."

[Pierre Menard]

I don't even like Moore all that much. When I want good liberal content there are over a dozen other names I go to before I even consider his. But that post was directed at other liberals who have attacked Moore. For them to do so when his movie Sicko was the only mainstream American media product to really look at the issue of privatized vs socialized medicine in I don't know how many years, or how his movie Capitalism: A Love Story tells honest important stories and in a way anticipates by a year or two the Occupy Movement, and I could go on and on and on, it makes no sense for me when others on the left attack him for very weak reasons like because he's "self-righteous" or a "manipulator."

Well I certainly can't speak for those of the left around here. It'll be interesting to see more of their response, if they do respond in more detail.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Like I said, I'm just not a huge fan of the guy's manner. Like I said, I agree with most of what he says, but don't usually like how he says it. Like I said, I can't even stand the sound of his voice when he's doing voice-over narration.

I don't think being in the left obligates me to like anyone.

[MarkBastable]

Like I said, I'm just not a huge fan of the guy's manner. Like I said, I agree with most of what he says, but don't usually like how he says it. Like I said, I can't even stand the sound of his voice when he's doing voice-over narration.

I don't think being in the left obligates me to like anyone.

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.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

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.

Same for me, though I think his Everyman shtick has run it's course. I think my opinion really would improve if he'd just lose the stupid baseball caps.

[Darcy88]

Same for me, though I think his Everyman shtick has run it's course. I think my opinion really would improve if he'd just lose the stupid baseball caps.

I understand that. But for me the substance takes precedence over the style. He could wear a pink polka-dot bikini and a purple cowboy hat and I wouldn't care so long as his message was true and important.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I understand that. But for me the substance takes precedence over the style. He could wear a pink polka-dot bikini and a purple cowboy hat and I wouldn't care so long as his message was true and important.

Really? I'd find that a bit distracting.

[JuniperWoolf]

I don't care if the man has made millions or if he has on occasion stretched the truth.

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.

I could go on and on and on, it makes no sense for me when others on the left attack him for very weak reasons like because he's "self-righteous" or a "manipulator."

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.