No. Meaning completely absent. There are plenty of documentaries with philosophies unlike mine that I still respect, and I've already cited one above.
Evidentiary - backup those claims
Hehe...watch his films and ask yourself how well represented the evidence contrary to Moore's contentions are presented. He pretends it simply doesn't exist.
cinematic - all evidence points to otherwise.
"All evidence"??? The films masquerade as documentaries when they're poorly pieced together info-tainment specials. It would be like giving a nightly news Emmy to Bill O'Reilly.
your mind is clouded by hate, which I guess MM's is too. lol
I don't hate Michael Moore. I despise him (at least to the extent that you can despise someone you don't really know personally) and his work. I certainly wish him no ill, nor would I suggest that he has no right to do what he's doing. Furthermore, as I indicated early, I wouldn't even consider him worse than others in his field or those who take similar approaches to topics.
If my mind were "clouded by hate", I'd be illogical in my approach. I'd be suggesting his films be banned. I'd be suggesting that others like him but who are closer to my own opinions are better than he is. I'd be suggesting that the US government should punish him for going to Cuba. I'd be suggesting that someone should harm him, or take his property. I'm suggesting none of those things.
I'm not so arrogant as to presume that Michael Moore has any problem with this world. It is obvious that he has a problem with a number of issues about which he feels strongly. He's been making documentaries highlighting the cause of the little man against big business, and given a voice to people who wouldn't otherwise have had one.
He's brought a lot of issues to light that needed bringing to light. It's then up to people to either act or not act.
I suppose you'd rather his films had never been made?
Not at all. They are his films. What business would I have suggesting that he shouldn't have made them? Whatever he chooses to make is his choice and his right.
I find it interesting that people living in a country whose media system is a complete corporate whitewash, can feel so slighted, and offended when just one person has the balls to stand up and rock the boat.
Funny you should bring up "whitewash" in this context. If you think Michael Moore represents anything other than a reverse whitewash of what you're talking about above, you really don't understand what that term even means.
Seriously farfromglorified, don't panic just yet mate. I'm pretty certain that your comfortable little life is safe from these radical elements for the time being.
Hehe...what's so safe about it? Even you are making poorly-vieled threats.
I'm not saying "the game is not worth playing". I'm simply saying that you can't claim accomplishment before you actually accomplish something. If I were running around this board claiming that Ron Paul had actually accomplished something substantive for the Libertarian movement, I hope someone would ask me the same questions.
Well, I wouldn't because even though I disagree with a lot he says, I can see the good he is bringing into the mainstream now through exposure and spreading awareness. And I view that as an accomplishment. I think it's an accomplishment anytime someone stands up for what they believe in. They broke the mold in a sea of complacency and conformity.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Well, I wouldn't because even though I disagree with a lot he says, I can see the good he is bringing into the mainstream now through exposure and spreading awareness. And I view that as an accomplishment. I think it's an accomplishment anytime someone stands up for what they believe in. They broke the mold in a sea of complacency and conformity.
Sure -- I already indicated this in my original question. I was asking what he's accomplished beyond the films themselves, and I'd ask the same thing if someone claimed that Ron Paul had accomplished some great thing.
Michael Moore should certainly be applauded for speaking his mind and standing up for what he believes in. But so should George Bush or Adolf Hitler. That doesn't mean what they're saying is right. It doesn't mean what they're saying is immune from judgment. And it doesn't mean what they're saying isn't an indication of insidiousness or even evil.
Here's the problem with the arguments I'm hearing. If this were Sean Hannity we were talking about, none of you would be saying what you're saying. But I'd be saying exactly the same things.
Then you're not listening. His statements are vitriolic and completely anti. He's a zero who stands for nothing except floating abstracts.
Hehe...Whitman, Thoreau and Twain wrote about and were people who actually did things about their problems. Comparing Michael Moore to them is like comparing a film critic to Martin Scorsese.
I thought Michael Moore was awesome when he got my attention years back when on the show "The Awful Truth". I view the man as an idealist who is very well-intended. I also believe he's made a very distinct difference, and has called to light many subjects that needed to come to the forefront of mass awareness. He was a strong influence on my daughter and her boyfriend becoming politially aware and active.
At the same time, I'm kind of surprised what people are saying about him in this thread. I personally thought it was pretty obvious he's angry. His style is not objective truth telling, but more along the lines of emotionally riling people in order to get results. His perspective is pretty clearly biased. By using his slanted methods beneath the surface, yes, he influences people. In my opinion, he tells the truth, but the way he tells it is obviously full of unresolved anger/animosity. And I don't like that people are being emotionally led with this type of subject matter, because for the majority, that happens unconsciously, so they believe what he's saying is THE truth, when really it's a distorted version of the Truth. And therefore it's the perpetuation of imbalance. So, again, I wonder why so many are glossing over his fairly evident flaws in this thread. At the same time, I believe he means well, and he's done more good than bad.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Sure -- I already indicated this in my original question. I was asking what he's accomplished beyond the films themselves, and I'd ask the same thing if someone claimed that Ron Paul had accomplished some great thing.
Michael Moore should certainly be applauded for speaking his mind and standing up for what he believes in. But so should George Bush or Adolf Hitler. That doesn't mean what they're saying is right. It doesn't mean what they're saying is immune from judgment. And it doesn't mean what they're saying isn't an indication of insidiousness or even evil.
Here's the problem with the arguments I'm hearing. If this were Sean Hannity we were talking about, none of you would be saying what you're saying. But I'd be saying exactly the same things.
Whether you agree or not, I believe Moore to be sticking up for the little guy, I believe he truly cares for those less forunate than him and he fights for them. He could have choosen any path in life he wanted to (I do believe him to be quite bright...where I do disagree with him is in some of his tactics) but he chose the less self absorbed path, imo. I'm sure you'll disagree but I'm only explaining my perspective on Moore and why I see him differently than Hannity or Bush.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I thought Michael Moore was awesome when he got my attention years back when on the show "The Awful Truth". I view the man as an idealist who is very well-intended. I also believe he's made a very distinct difference, and has called to light many subjects that needed to come to the forefront of mass awareness. He was a strong influence on my daughter and her boyfriend becoming politially aware and active.
At the same time, I'm kind of surprised what people are saying about him in this thread. I personally thought it was pretty obvious he's angry. His style is not objective truth telling, but more along the lines of emotionally riling people in order to get results. His perspective is pretty clearly biased. By using his slanted methods beneath the surface, yes, he influences people. In my opinion, he tells the truth, but the way he tells it is obviously full of unresolved anger/animosity. And I don't like that people are being emotionally led with this type of subject matter, because for the majority, that happens unconsciously, so they believe what he's saying is THE truth, when really it's a distorted version of the Truth. And therefore it's the perpetuation of imbalance. So, again, I wonder why so many are glossing over his fairly evident flaws in this thread. At the same time, I believe he means well, and he's done more good than bad.
I can definitely get on board with the sentiments here. I don't agree that, all things considered, he's done "more good than bad", but that's simply because I believe his views to be harmful and wrong and that he hasn't accomplished much to begin with. I can understand why those who are more inclined to agree with him would think otherwise.
I thought Michael Moore was awesome when he got my attention years back when on the show "The Awful Truth". I view the man as an idealist who is very well-intended. I also believe he's made a very distinct difference, and has called to light many subjects that needed to come to the forefront of mass awareness. He was a strong influence on my daughter and her boyfriend becoming politially aware and active.
At the same time, I'm kind of surprised what people are saying about him in this thread. I personally thought it was pretty obvious he's angry. His style is not objective truth telling, but more along the lines of emotionally riling people in order to get results. His perspective is pretty clearly biased. By using his slanted methods beneath the surface, yes, he influences people. In my opinion, he tells the truth, but the way he tells it is obviously full of unresolved anger/animosity. And I don't like that people are being emotionally led with this type of subject matter, because for the majority, that happens unconsciously, so they believe what he's saying is THE truth, when really it's a distorted version of the Truth. And therefore it's the perpetuation of imbalance. So, again, I wonder why so many are glossing over his fairly evident flaws in this thread. At the same time, I believe he means well, and he's done more good than bad.
Yes, that's what I was refering to when I said his 'tactics'. I think it would serve him well to try a more level headed approach instead of slinging mud because it's been slung at him. Take the high road.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Yes, that's what I was refering to when I said his 'tactics'. I think it would serve him well to try a more level headed approach instead of slinging mud because it's been slung at him. Take the high road.
And I was going to agree with your post, too. I agree with what you're saying exactly. And the guy means well, and his intent is pure, that much is obvious. And that can't be said for many with that type of power.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Whether you agree or not, I believe Moore to be sticking up for the little guy, I believe he truly cares for those less forunate than him and he fights for them. He could have choosen any path in life he wanted to (I do believe him to be quite bright...where I do disagree with him is in some of his tactics) but he chose the less self absorbed path, imo. I'm sure you'll disagree but I'm only explaining my perspective on Moore and why I see him differently than Hannity or Bush.
I'm not sure why Michael Moore isn't "self-absorbed". At this point, Moore could setup his own welfare system for displaced auto-workers in Flint, for instance. But I'm not suggesting he should do that, I just have trouble accepting the argument that he's some altruistic prophet.
Anyone can claim that they "stand up for the little guy". It's not hard to invent a reason. Bush does it. Hannity does it. Al Sharpton does it. They all do it. Everyone seems to proclaim their love for "the little guy" while they're telling him what to do, what to believe, and what to worship.
I'm not sure why Michael Moore isn't "self-absorbed". At this point, Moore could setup his own welfare system for displaced auto-workers in Flint, for instance. But I'm not suggesting he should do that, I just have trouble accepting the argument that he's some altruistic prophet.
Anyone can claim that they "stand up for the little guy". It's not hard to invent a reason. Bush does it. Hannity does it. Al Sharpton does it. They all do it. Everyone seems to proclaim their love for "the little guy" while they're telling him what to do, what to believe, and what to worship.
Of course, But I believe Moore to be genuine.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I can definitely get on board with the sentiments here. I don't agree that, all things considered, he's done "more good than bad", but that's simply because I believe his views to be harmful and wrong and that he hasn't accomplished much to begin with. I can understand why those who are more inclined to agree with him would think otherwise.
I can understand that you don't support his view. I think it's an amazing accomplishment what real and truthful concepts he brought to the mainstream spotlight that before his appearance on the scene were so fringe and only known by a minority. That's a HUGE accomplishment. And, just to be clear, I've only watched him on TV and in his movies. I couldn't stomach even one page of whichever book I once tried to read--it was too angry and obviously biased on the first page. I felt it was a shame because his message was/is needed. I've discussed him in threads on this board before, only in the past, it was opposite to those defending him here--most liked what he said, but didn't appreciate his exaggerated-at-times methods. Again, whatever flaws he has cannot diminish the awareness he has created on a mass scale.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Because I've watched all of his films, own a few including his tv series, and that was what I took from them. We don't actually talk to one another or meet up every now and again.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Because I've watched all of his films, own a few including his tv series, and that was what I took from them. We don't actually talk to one another or meet up every now and again.
I'm not sure why Michael Moore isn't "self-absorbed". At this point, Moore could setup his own welfare system for displaced auto-workers in Flint, for instance. But I'm not suggesting he should do that, I just have trouble accepting the argument that he's some altruistic prophet.
Anyone can claim that they "stand up for the little guy". It's not hard to invent a reason. Bush does it. Hannity does it. Al Sharpton does it. They all do it. Everyone seems to proclaim their love for "the little guy" while they're telling him what to do, what to believe, and what to worship.
Idealists, such as myself, Abook, or those like Byrnzie or Mookie, we have no problem seeing the man is pure in his intent to help and to illuminate truths that are long overdue. It takes one to know one. I can spot that stuff a mile away, as I'm guessing the others here can as well.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I can understand that you don't support his view. I think it's an amazing accomplishment what real and truthful concepts he brought to the mainstream spotlight that before his appearance on the scene were so fringe and only known by a minority. That's a HUGE accomplishment. And, just to be clear, I've only watched him on TV and in his movies. I couldn't stomach even one page of whichever book I once tried to read--it was too angry and obviously biased on the first page. I felt it was a shame because his message was/is needed. I've discussed him in threads on this board before, only in the past, it was opposite to those defending him here--most liked what he said, but didn't appreciate his exaggerated-at-times methods. Again, whatever flaws he has cannot diminish the awareness he has created on a mass scale.
Fair enough. However, I do question the last statement -- the flaws he has are part of the awareness he has created on a mass scale. We can see that here, in part, if we look for it.
Fair enough. However, I do question the last statement -- the flaws he has are part of the awareness he has created on a mass scale. We can see that here, in part, if we look for it.
He's human and he's bringing his own baggage to what he does.
The truth can never be mitigated. What good has been done will always stand.
It's pretty clear that you and I have very different views on many things. One big difference is our objective/subjective approaches. You feel all sides must be represented equally and fairly. And I just don't agree. I know it's relevent to represent what one sees subjectively.
My problem with Michael Moore, though, is that inciting-anger thing. Politically, I'm not fond of getting people riled up emotionally, probably for the same reasons you see him as counter productive, so in terms of MM, I'm not fond of this style, especially because his recent movies have been so widely seen. While there are fringe people who see these movies and can discern the reality from the non-reality, the masses are not able to, particularly when they are being hooked unconsciously to begin with. I know Michael Moore, as an idealist is not a Hitler, but it concerns me when people are being led sheep-like or sleeping in any way by massive numbers.
I'm personally about empowering people, not leading them blindly.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
He's human and he's bringing his own baggage to what he does.
The truth can never be mitigated. What good has been done will always stand.
It's pretty clear that you and I have very different views on many things. One big difference is our objective/subjective approaches. You feel all sides must be represented equally and fairly. And I just don't agree. I know it's relevent to represent what one sees subjectively.
Whoah...I don't believe "all sides must be represented equally and fairly", unless of course one is claiming that all sides have been represented equally and fairly.
I totally respect Moore's right to spew his biased propaganda. He can ignore all alternative evidence or philosophy. I'll simply call him on that.
My problem with Michael Moore, though, is that inciting-anger thing. Politically, I'm not fond of getting people riled up emotionally, probably for the same reasons you see him as counter productive, so in terms of MM, I'm not fond of this style, especially because his recent movies have been so widely seen. While there are fringe people who see these movies and can discern the reality from the non-reality, the masses are not able to, particularly when they are being hooked unconsciously to begin with. I know Michael Moore, as an idealist is not a Hitler, but it concerns me when people are being led sheep-like or sleeping in any way by massive numbers.
I'm personally about empowering people, not leading them blindly.
Definitely on board with this. And, for the record, I certainly don't believe MM is Hitler or anything like that. He's just another in a long line of propaganda artists who exist on all sides of the political spectrum.
are you seriously not getting what i'm saying? with michael moore, it's either you love him or you hate him. the percentage of people that can't make up their mind either way is very small.
let's put the shoe on the other foot for a second: let's say that windbag coulter came out with a documentary. i don't care about a subject, this is all hypothetical, but if it's very controversial...what are the chances you will plop down $10 to see her movie, or even rent it when it's out on dvd? and who do you think would be going to the theaters to see a movie done by her?
again, it's completely hypothetical. i'm not saying anne coulter is talented enough to make a movie, documentary, or half hour sitcom about gun control or fags in america. she's just another fringe fanatical that people either love or hate.
"PC Load Letter?! What the fuck does that mean?"
~Michael Bolton
Whoah...I don't believe "all sides must be represented equally and fairly", unless of course one is claiming that all sides have been represented equally and fairly.
I totally respect Moore's right to spew his biased propaganda. He can ignore all alternative evidence or philosophy. I'll simply call him on that.
Definitely on board with this. And, for the record, I certainly don't believe MM is Hitler or anything like that. He's just another in a long line of propaganda artists who exist on all sides of the political spectrum.
Sorry....I've got a date on the gabbly with Abook in 5 minutes....no time to spare......you are so welcome to join us if you want to.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Idealists, such as myself, Abook, or those like Byrnzie or Mookie, we have no problem seeing the man is pure in his intent to help and to illuminate truths that are long overdue. It takes one to know one. I can spot that stuff a mile away, as I'm guessing the others here can as well.
thanks angelica. perhaps i am a little naive and look for the good in some people, so i just think that he has good intentions.
i've read a book by a friend of his and some other articles by people who he has helped get jobs in journalism and what not and they have good things to say about moore's assistance.
while i don't know all the facts about his personal life, as most of us probably don't, i do think he tries to do what he thinks is right for people. he tries to point out some of the pretentious things in society and double standards. some may say he has an ego or that he is full of himself, but i think that if people say that about him, then why don't they say it about other filmmakers? perhaps it is because he's had more success at geting the messages out there that other people haven't had the good fortune to express on such a wide scale.
are you seriously not getting what i'm saying? with michael moore, it's either you love him or you hate him. the percentage of people that can't make up their mind either way is very small.
let's put the shoe on the other foot for a second: let's say that windbag coulter came out with a documentary. i don't care about a subject, this is all hypothetical, but if it's very controversial...what are the chances you will plop down $10 to see her movie, or even rent it when it's out on dvd? and who do you think would be going to the theaters to see a movie done by her?
again, it's completely hypothetical. i'm not saying anne coulter is talented enough to make a movie, documentary, or half hour sitcom about gun control or fags in america. she's just another fringe fanatical that people either love or hate.
I dislike/hate Ann Coulter...however it entirely depends on what she has to say, how much of an issue it is, and the controversy surrounding it that determines how much, or if I want t see it...dude...you're not right on this 100% at all...
nope...sorry
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
thanks angelica. perhaps i am a little naive and look for the good in some people, so i just think that he has good intentions.
i've read a book by a friend of his and some other articles by people who he has helped get jobs in journalism and what not and they have good things to say about moore's assistance.
while i don't know all the facts about his personal life, as most of us probably don't, i do think he tries to do what he thinks is right for people. he tries to point out some of the pretentious things in society and double standards. some may say he has an ego or that he is full of himself, but i think that if people say that about him, then why don't they say it about other filmmakers? perhaps it is because he's had more success at geting the messages out there that other people haven't had the good fortune to express on such a wide scale.
I don't really think Michael Moore is full of himself at all. And his vision is to help others, it's not about himself. imo.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I thought Michael Moore was awesome when he got my attention years back when on the show "The Awful Truth". I view the man as an idealist who is very well-intended. I also believe he's made a very distinct difference, and has called to light many subjects that needed to come to the forefront of mass awareness. He was a strong influence on my daughter and her boyfriend becoming politially aware and active.
At the same time, I'm kind of surprised what people are saying about him in this thread. I personally thought it was pretty obvious he's angry. His style is not objective truth telling, but more along the lines of emotionally riling people in order to get results. His perspective is pretty clearly biased. By using his slanted methods beneath the surface, yes, he influences people. In my opinion, he tells the truth, but the way he tells it is obviously full of unresolved anger/animosity. And I don't like that people are being emotionally led with this type of subject matter, because for the majority, that happens unconsciously, so they believe what he's saying is THE truth, when really it's a distorted version of the Truth. And therefore it's the perpetuation of imbalance. So, again, I wonder why so many are glossing over his fairly evident flaws in this thread. At the same time, I believe he means well, and he's done more good than bad.
Oh and in the commentary from Roger and Me, Moore states he either paid the mortgage or rent of all the people in the film who were being evicted if I remember correctly.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Whoah...I don't believe "all sides must be represented equally and fairly", unless of course one is claiming that all sides have been represented equally and fairly.
I totally respect Moore's right to spew his biased propaganda. He can ignore all alternative evidence or philosophy. I'll simply call him on that.
Interesting. I've seen you call people out on the board for focusing on a particular view, and not expressing all sides. (for example El Kabong and Byrnzie are two I can remember involving you) I'm referring to when those in question did not purport to speak for the whole overview.
In Michael Moore's case, I don't remember well enough if he's claimed to represent all sides equally and fairly. I didn't think he did do so. However, if you know this for a fact, rather than as an assumption, I would agree with you.
Definitely on board with this. And, for the record, I certainly don't believe MM is Hitler or anything like that. He's just another in a long line of propaganda artists who exist on all sides of the political spectrum.
There are many propaganda artists on all sides of the spectrum, I agree. Although I believe many of these people mean well, they are making the mistake of believing the ends justify the means, and I think that at least you and I know it doesn't work that way. To justify wrongdoing for a goal in the future is one of the most famous illusory-false premises that people give themselves license to indulge in over and over. This ugly, insidious false belief is one that has caused approximately 100 million people to die in the last century.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Moore isn't a hate-spewer like Coulter or those machoistic others. He provides a common-sense truthful fact-based foundation to all the work he does. It's hard for me to believe that someone as smart as FFG gets caught up in the humor as fact sort of crowd and has a decidedly paranoid view of Moore as a propogandist.
I take Coulter, Riley, et al with a grain of salt. I don't think the tactics they use to generate attention are anything more than that.
Oh and in the commentary from Roger and Me, Moore states he either paid the mortgage or rent of all the people in the film who were being evicted if I remember correctly.
Well, if he didnt pay the mortgage or rent for EVERYONE in the world who was having trouble then he is probably considered one-sided to FFG.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Comments
No. Meaning completely absent. There are plenty of documentaries with philosophies unlike mine that I still respect, and I've already cited one above.
Hehe...watch his films and ask yourself how well represented the evidence contrary to Moore's contentions are presented. He pretends it simply doesn't exist.
"All evidence"??? The films masquerade as documentaries when they're poorly pieced together info-tainment specials. It would be like giving a nightly news Emmy to Bill O'Reilly.
I don't hate Michael Moore. I despise him (at least to the extent that you can despise someone you don't really know personally) and his work. I certainly wish him no ill, nor would I suggest that he has no right to do what he's doing. Furthermore, as I indicated early, I wouldn't even consider him worse than others in his field or those who take similar approaches to topics.
If my mind were "clouded by hate", I'd be illogical in my approach. I'd be suggesting his films be banned. I'd be suggesting that others like him but who are closer to my own opinions are better than he is. I'd be suggesting that the US government should punish him for going to Cuba. I'd be suggesting that someone should harm him, or take his property. I'm suggesting none of those things.
Not at all. They are his films. What business would I have suggesting that he shouldn't have made them? Whatever he chooses to make is his choice and his right.
Funny you should bring up "whitewash" in this context. If you think Michael Moore represents anything other than a reverse whitewash of what you're talking about above, you really don't understand what that term even means.
Hehe...what's so safe about it? Even you are making poorly-vieled threats.
Well, I wouldn't because even though I disagree with a lot he says, I can see the good he is bringing into the mainstream now through exposure and spreading awareness. And I view that as an accomplishment. I think it's an accomplishment anytime someone stands up for what they believe in. They broke the mold in a sea of complacency and conformity.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Sure -- I already indicated this in my original question. I was asking what he's accomplished beyond the films themselves, and I'd ask the same thing if someone claimed that Ron Paul had accomplished some great thing.
Michael Moore should certainly be applauded for speaking his mind and standing up for what he believes in. But so should George Bush or Adolf Hitler. That doesn't mean what they're saying is right. It doesn't mean what they're saying is immune from judgment. And it doesn't mean what they're saying isn't an indication of insidiousness or even evil.
Here's the problem with the arguments I'm hearing. If this were Sean Hannity we were talking about, none of you would be saying what you're saying. But I'd be saying exactly the same things.
I thought Michael Moore was awesome when he got my attention years back when on the show "The Awful Truth". I view the man as an idealist who is very well-intended. I also believe he's made a very distinct difference, and has called to light many subjects that needed to come to the forefront of mass awareness. He was a strong influence on my daughter and her boyfriend becoming politially aware and active.
At the same time, I'm kind of surprised what people are saying about him in this thread. I personally thought it was pretty obvious he's angry. His style is not objective truth telling, but more along the lines of emotionally riling people in order to get results. His perspective is pretty clearly biased. By using his slanted methods beneath the surface, yes, he influences people. In my opinion, he tells the truth, but the way he tells it is obviously full of unresolved anger/animosity. And I don't like that people are being emotionally led with this type of subject matter, because for the majority, that happens unconsciously, so they believe what he's saying is THE truth, when really it's a distorted version of the Truth. And therefore it's the perpetuation of imbalance. So, again, I wonder why so many are glossing over his fairly evident flaws in this thread. At the same time, I believe he means well, and he's done more good than bad.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Whether you agree or not, I believe Moore to be sticking up for the little guy, I believe he truly cares for those less forunate than him and he fights for them. He could have choosen any path in life he wanted to (I do believe him to be quite bright...where I do disagree with him is in some of his tactics) but he chose the less self absorbed path, imo. I'm sure you'll disagree but I'm only explaining my perspective on Moore and why I see him differently than Hannity or Bush.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I can definitely get on board with the sentiments here. I don't agree that, all things considered, he's done "more good than bad", but that's simply because I believe his views to be harmful and wrong and that he hasn't accomplished much to begin with. I can understand why those who are more inclined to agree with him would think otherwise.
Yes, that's what I was refering to when I said his 'tactics'. I think it would serve him well to try a more level headed approach instead of slinging mud because it's been slung at him. Take the high road.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I'm not sure why Michael Moore isn't "self-absorbed". At this point, Moore could setup his own welfare system for displaced auto-workers in Flint, for instance. But I'm not suggesting he should do that, I just have trouble accepting the argument that he's some altruistic prophet.
Anyone can claim that they "stand up for the little guy". It's not hard to invent a reason. Bush does it. Hannity does it. Al Sharpton does it. They all do it. Everyone seems to proclaim their love for "the little guy" while they're telling him what to do, what to believe, and what to worship.
Of course, But I believe Moore to be genuine.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Why?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Because I've watched all of his films, own a few including his tv series, and that was what I took from them. We don't actually talk to one another or meet up every now and again.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Ok.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Fair enough. However, I do question the last statement -- the flaws he has are part of the awareness he has created on a mass scale. We can see that here, in part, if we look for it.
The truth can never be mitigated. What good has been done will always stand.
It's pretty clear that you and I have very different views on many things. One big difference is our objective/subjective approaches. You feel all sides must be represented equally and fairly. And I just don't agree. I know it's relevent to represent what one sees subjectively.
My problem with Michael Moore, though, is that inciting-anger thing. Politically, I'm not fond of getting people riled up emotionally, probably for the same reasons you see him as counter productive, so in terms of MM, I'm not fond of this style, especially because his recent movies have been so widely seen. While there are fringe people who see these movies and can discern the reality from the non-reality, the masses are not able to, particularly when they are being hooked unconsciously to begin with. I know Michael Moore, as an idealist is not a Hitler, but it concerns me when people are being led sheep-like or sleeping in any way by massive numbers.
I'm personally about empowering people, not leading them blindly.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Whoah...I don't believe "all sides must be represented equally and fairly", unless of course one is claiming that all sides have been represented equally and fairly.
I totally respect Moore's right to spew his biased propaganda. He can ignore all alternative evidence or philosophy. I'll simply call him on that.
Definitely on board with this. And, for the record, I certainly don't believe MM is Hitler or anything like that. He's just another in a long line of propaganda artists who exist on all sides of the political spectrum.
are you seriously not getting what i'm saying? with michael moore, it's either you love him or you hate him. the percentage of people that can't make up their mind either way is very small.
let's put the shoe on the other foot for a second: let's say that windbag coulter came out with a documentary. i don't care about a subject, this is all hypothetical, but if it's very controversial...what are the chances you will plop down $10 to see her movie, or even rent it when it's out on dvd? and who do you think would be going to the theaters to see a movie done by her?
again, it's completely hypothetical. i'm not saying anne coulter is talented enough to make a movie, documentary, or half hour sitcom about gun control or fags in america. she's just another fringe fanatical that people either love or hate.
~Michael Bolton
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
thanks angelica.
i've read a book by a friend of his and some other articles by people who he has helped get jobs in journalism and what not and they have good things to say about moore's assistance.
while i don't know all the facts about his personal life, as most of us probably don't, i do think he tries to do what he thinks is right for people. he tries to point out some of the pretentious things in society and double standards. some may say he has an ego or that he is full of himself, but i think that if people say that about him, then why don't they say it about other filmmakers? perhaps it is because he's had more success at geting the messages out there that other people haven't had the good fortune to express on such a wide scale.
I dislike/hate Ann Coulter...however it entirely depends on what she has to say, how much of an issue it is, and the controversy surrounding it that determines how much, or if I want t see it...dude...you're not right on this 100% at all...
nope...sorry
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
a very fair post, i would say, angelica.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
In Michael Moore's case, I don't remember well enough if he's claimed to represent all sides equally and fairly. I didn't think he did do so. However, if you know this for a fact, rather than as an assumption, I would agree with you.
There are many propaganda artists on all sides of the spectrum, I agree. Although I believe many of these people mean well, they are making the mistake of believing the ends justify the means, and I think that at least you and I know it doesn't work that way. To justify wrongdoing for a goal in the future is one of the most famous illusory-false premises that people give themselves license to indulge in over and over. This ugly, insidious false belief is one that has caused approximately 100 million people to die in the last century.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I take Coulter, Riley, et al with a grain of salt. I don't think the tactics they use to generate attention are anything more than that.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Well, if he didnt pay the mortgage or rent for EVERYONE in the world who was having trouble then he is probably considered one-sided to FFG.
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength