Author Topic: michael moore: oscars, truths, and fictitions  (Read 22898 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Cecil

  • Guest
michael moore: oscars, truths, and fictitions
« Reply #120 on: October 09, 2003, 09:24:10 AM »
0
exactly. you dont trust what he says, but you trust what people say against him. have you checked those sources out?

snaporaz

  • The Meeting with the Goddess
  • ***
  • Posts: 313
  • Respect: +1
michael moore: oscars, truths, and fictitions
« Reply #121 on: October 09, 2003, 09:57:30 AM »
0
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
Have you read his books? He backs up every single thing he says with a news source that you can personally check if you want to.


i've already brought up that point. a fucking news article isn't solid proof of anything.

Quote from: Cecil
exactly. you dont trust what he says, but you trust what people say against him. have you checked those sources out?


christ, man. how many times do i have to fucking tell you?! i just mentioned something i read, not something i'm saying to be true. i "trust" his sources just as much as donald fucking rumsfeld's or colin powell's. are you deaf? for fuck sake, man. try listening to me: i refuse to automcatically believe these "facts" just because someone says they're true, be it michael moore or my government. even if moore has a "source", i'm still skeptical. i don't even fucking believe the media when it comes to bizarre world happenings like 9/11 and whatnot. fucking colin powell presented satellite images of wmd sites in iraq to the U.N., and apparently that isn't true. if i can't believe satellite images from the united states government intelligence, i sure as hell ain't going to swallow just anything a news article will say.

this whole thing everyone has against me and my thoughts on michael moore...you people still think i'm saying he's full of shit. i never said that. i was simply commenting on his entire persona, and that i'm not very impressed by his so-called journalism; he just takes whatever articles and statistics that serve him well and declares them fact.

bottom line, he's as good - and just as bad - as what he reads.

you guys should watch this movie.



...someone who can own a debate intellectually, instead of being a self-righteous, sarcastic wise-ass.

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10936
  • Respect: +1342
michael moore: oscars, truths, and fictitions
« Reply #122 on: October 09, 2003, 02:09:58 PM »
0
Quote from: snaporaz
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
Have you read his books? He backs up every single thing he says with a news source that you can personally check if you want to.


i've already brought up that point. a fucking news article isn't solid proof of anything.


So now you're criticising him for backing up his assertions with news sources? What else would you like him to use? The word of God?

Quote from: snaporaz
christ, man. how many times do i have to fucking tell you?! i just mentioned something i read, not something i'm saying to be true. i "trust" his sources just as much as donald fucking rumsfeld's or colin powell's.


There's a huge difference between the two, and it's pretty easy to check the validity of sources. Rumsfeld and Powell used outdated intelligence that was disproven by the latest news, not to mention that doctoral thesis, pre-Gulf War I, which Tony Blair used (and which was later regretted by its author). Any person with reasonable effort can actually distinguish between government propaganda and legitimate news sources (especially when it's that clear). You can't just give up on learning the truth. It may take some effort to find, but it's out there.

Quote from: Gamblor
The section of the film in which he compares the amount of murders (I'm unsure if they were only gun murders or not) to other nations is complete bullshit, simply because he uses the actual statistic, not the gun murder rate per however many people in the country.


I think any reasonable person knows that the United States has a larger population than Canada. And some of the countries he lists have populations greater than or equal to ours.

Quote from: Gamblor
Secondly, he blames the media for manipulating the public by using fear, which is almost exactly what he's doing to persuade the audience that we have a gun problem.


Is it really fear, though? That's the way we think. If someone is warning us about something, it's fear, because we're used to being afraid. You can't really say that he's telling you to fear fear, because he would be solving his own problem. There's a difference between manipulating people into being afraid and warning them about manipulation. Fear is more of an oppressive force, manipulating people into surrendering to the status quo, and what Moore is doing, warning us, is more of an inspiring call to action. For example, I don't think people would say that a fire alarm is an oppressive force. Convincing someone that they're going to burn alive in their sleep is an oppressive force.

Quote from: Gamblor
One more thing, what kind of psycho/sociological reasoning did he use to come up with the shitty argument that the production of nukes at Lockheed could somehow make a kid think that it's ok to massacre other kids because of it?


Simple. The culture of violence is everywhere. We have a proud history of violence and we bring it home to our neighborhoods every day. People begin to accept it. Of course there's not a direct connection... it's a deeper psychological thing embedded in society.
"Hunger is the purest sin"

Gamblour.

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3465
  • Respect: +12
michael moore: oscars, truths, and fictitions
« Reply #123 on: October 09, 2003, 03:09:11 PM »
0
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: Gamblor
The section of the film in which he compares the amount of murders (I'm unsure if they were only gun murders or not) to other nations is complete bullshit, simply because he uses the actual statistic, not the gun murder rate per however many people in the country.


I think any reasonable person knows that the United States has a larger population than Canada. And some of the countries he lists have populations greater than or equal to ours.


You're right that people should know our population is bigger than Canada, but what's your point? Moore emphasizes those numbers and presents no rates or actual population size so that the audience may determine anything on their own. It was obvious to me that he's attempting to pass those numbers off as comparable figures.

The only countries I really remember were Germany, England, and Canada. Those all have significantly smaller populations than the US, which did he mention that have a larger pop.?

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: Gamblor
Secondly, he blames the media for manipulating the public by using fear, which is almost exactly what he's doing to persuade the audience that we have a gun problem.


Is it really fear, though? That's the way we think. If someone is warning us about something, it's fear, because we're used to being afraid. You can't really say that he's telling you to fear fear, because he would be solving his own problem. There's a difference between manipulating people into being afraid and warning them about manipulation. Fear is more of an oppressive force, manipulating people into surrendering to the status quo, and what Moore is doing, warning us, is more of an inspiring call to action. For example, I don't think people would say that a fire alarm is an oppressive force. Convincing someone that they're going to burn alive in their sleep is an oppressive force.

That's not what I was saying. I meant that Moore uses fear to manipulate people into being of afraid of guns and gun owners, which is very clear in the case of Heston, who becomes a sort of icon of what to fear. Like I said, Moore has a point that the media uses fear, and all statistics show that we have a high murder rate and gun ownership, but Moore is obviously trying to imbue a sense of fear about gun ownership, which isn't the issue at all. Look at England, guns are illegal, but rates of murder have stayed the same. Like my criminal justice teacher said, give people a toothpick and they'll find a way to kill someone.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: Gamblor
One more thing, what kind of psycho/sociological reasoning did he use to come up with the shitty argument that the production of nukes at Lockheed could somehow make a kid think that it's ok to massacre other kids because of it?


Simple. The culture of violence is everywhere. We have a proud history of violence and we bring it home to our neighborhoods every day. People begin to accept it. Of course there's not a direct connection... it's a deeper psychological thing embedded in society.


Right. Let's look at civilization for the past, say, 2000 years. Historical trends have shown that the murder rates have decreased significantly as we become more organized and civilized. Look cross-nationally. Japan has some of the most violent movies and video games out there (not to say that this causes violence, bear with me), but these are things I would say are a large part of their culture, and they have the lowest murder rates of most countries. If we're talking about an embedding and proud history of violence in our society, it's unfair to say that America is the only country like this. Germany is (mostly) responsible for the largest genocide in history, yet their murder rate isn't astronomical. So, that argument is completely moot.
WWPTAD?

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10936
  • Respect: +1342
michael moore: oscars, truths, and fictitions
« Reply #124 on: October 09, 2003, 05:51:55 PM »
0
Quote from: Gamblor
The only countries I really remember were Germany, England, and Canada. Those all have significantly smaller populations than the US, which did he mention that have a larger pop.?


Sorry. I thought he mentioned China or something (which has a population of 1.2 billion). He mentioned Germany, France, Canada, UK, Australia, and Japan. Still the comparison is pretty significant, and it's a valid point, and not manipulative to anyone who knows that the United States is bigger than these countries.

For example:

Japan: 39 with a population of 127 million.
United States: 11,127 with a population of 281 million.

Quote from: Gamblor
Heston, who becomes a sort of icon of what to fear.


Not really. To me, he became an icon of someone who fears. I had hoped I resolved the paradox of fear earlier. But if someone wants to fear a person who fears (because they fear), I guess they're free to do that.

Quote from: Gamblor
Like my criminal justice teacher said, give people a toothpick and they'll find a way to kill someone.


Like Michael Moore said, guns don't kill people... Americans do.

Quote from: Gamblor
Right. Let's look at civilization for the past, say, 2000 years. Historical trends have shown that the murder rates have decreased significantly as we become more organized and civilized. Look cross-nationally. Japan has some of the most violent movies and video games out there (not to say that this causes violence, bear with me), but these are things I would say are a large part of their culture, and they have the lowest murder rates of most countries. If we're talking about an embedding and proud history of violence in our society, it's unfair to say that America is the only country like this. Germany is (mostly) responsible for the largest genocide in history, yet their murder rate isn't astronomical. So, that argument is completely moot.


That's exactly what Michael Moore says in the movie. That's the question he asks. The point is that there must be something unique to our culture because of our disporportionate murder rate, and we have to find out what it is. Something unique has developed in the undercurrent of our society that hasn't developed in Germany or Japan.
"Hunger is the purest sin"

Cecil

  • Guest
michael moore: oscars, truths, and fictitions
« Reply #125 on: October 09, 2003, 10:19:10 PM »
0
Quote from: snaporaz
christ, man. how many times do i have to fucking tell you?! are you deaf? for fuck sake, man. try listening to me


well... soooorry. its just that you shit on moore calling him every name in the book, while the government gets a calm "i cant really trust my government on serious issues" statement. with moore, you can check his sources. you can do the research yourself and make your own mind up. these anti-moore websites dont say shit except for "moore is lying, what hes saying isnt true. aaaaa, nice try fat ass" without any proof whatsoever or sources of their own. moore is stating his opinions and views, hes only introducing you to these issues. you can read all about it for yourself. bowling for columbine isnt the only thing out there about school shootings and guns in america. its only ONE film.

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
michael moore: oscars, truths, and fictitions
« Reply #126 on: October 09, 2003, 10:25:36 PM »
0
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
That's exactly what Michael Moore says in the movie. That's the question he asks. The point is that there must be something unique to our culture because of our disporportionate murder rate, and we have to find out what it is. Something unique has developed in the undercurrent of our society that hasn't developed in Germany or Japan.


Yes, they're called Michael Moore films...
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

snaporaz

  • The Meeting with the Goddess
  • ***
  • Posts: 313
  • Respect: +1
michael moore: oscars, truths, and fictitions
« Reply #127 on: October 10, 2003, 02:58:47 AM »
0
Quote from: Cecil
Quote from: snaporaz
christ, man. how many times do i have to fucking tell you?! are you deaf? for fuck sake, man. try listening to me
you can do the research yourself and make your own mind up. these anti-moore websites dont say shit except for "moore is lying, what hes saying isnt true. aaaaa, nice try fat ass" without any proof whatsoever or sources of their own.


that's exactly my point, butt-nugget.

these so-called "anti-michael moore" websites, to me, hold just as much legitimacy as the sources moore brings up. and yes, they do have supposedly reliable facts and sources. but still, i don't really want to believe anybody, on either side. i would rather see things for myself.

granted, like i am saying, the real truth should be the shit you find on your own, sans news articles. and yes, i have not looked for the truth. but does that make me stupid just because i don't absolutely believe what moore says? yeah, i agree with him on the general things, like how bush is using 9/11 as a justification on the war on iraq. i think it's pretty obvious. i even heard some jackass soldier stationed in the middle east saying "if we're not here doing our job, then we can just wait for another 9/11". 9/11 doesn't have anything to do with the war in iraq. but this is what the majority of american voters want to believe; that our soldiers are fighting and dying for our country in iraq, which is complete bullshit, and michael moore will agree with me on that. i just think that his sources are only as credible as, say, anything you can read on the internet. he doesn't seem to do any real journalism on his own - he just repeats it.

this reminds me when i was about fourteen. i was completely obsessed with the assassination of john kennedy. i bought a book that focused on photographic evidence.

real evidence like that, be it photographic or otherwise incriminating, can be believable. reading the news just doesn't do it for me.

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10936
  • Respect: +1342
michael moore: oscars, truths, and fictitions
« Reply #128 on: October 10, 2003, 09:25:42 AM »
0
Quote from: snaporaz
real evidence like that, be it photographic or otherwise incriminating, can be believable. reading the news just doesn't do it for me.


I said it before, and I'll say it again:

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
So now you're criticising him for backing up his assertions with news sources? What else would you like him to use? The word of God?


You want Michael Moore to sneak into the White House and photograph Bush and a Saudi official having a secret meeting? You want him to go to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Iran? He would undoubtedly have less credibility if he was his own source. No one would believe him. Doesn't that make sense?

And, I mean... calling someone a "butt-nugget"? Seriously.
"Hunger is the purest sin"

godardian

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3733
  • Respect: +6
    • Trappings
michael moore: oscars, truths, and fictitions
« Reply #129 on: October 10, 2003, 10:10:13 AM »
0
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman


And, I mean... calling someone a "butt-nugget"? Seriously.


Yes... it's much more difficult to take someone seriously in a political or cultural argument when their main discursive frame of reference seems to be Beavis and Butt-Head.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

snaporaz

  • The Meeting with the Goddess
  • ***
  • Posts: 313
  • Respect: +1
michael moore: oscars, truths, and fictitions
« Reply #130 on: October 11, 2003, 02:57:03 AM »
0
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
Quote from: snaporaz
real evidence like that, be it photographic or otherwise incriminating, can be believable. reading the news just doesn't do it for me.


I said it before, and I'll say it again:

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
So now you're criticising him for backing up his assertions with news sources? What else would you like him to use? The word of God?


You want Michael Moore to sneak into the White House and photograph Bush and a Saudi official having a secret meeting? You want him to go to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Iran? He would undoubtedly have less credibility if he was his own source. No one would believe him. Doesn't that make sense?

And, I mean... calling someone a "butt-nugget"? Seriously.


yeah. i think i would like moore to get information that way. apparently, that's the way he's basing his sources on.

my point is: i want to know how the sources get their scoops.

and yeah...go ahead and invalidate my argument with my use of slang, even though the tone of my argument is straight-foward.

i'm trying to make this a light-hearted conversation. fucking hell.

go watch the thin blue line.

godardian

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3733
  • Respect: +6
    • Trappings
michael moore: oscars, truths, and fictitions
« Reply #131 on: October 15, 2003, 12:59:25 PM »
0
Barely related trivia: My partner is a Butler alumni.

Oct. 15, 2003 | INDIANAPOLIS (AP) --

Filmmaker Michael Moore told students at Butler University that last week's California recall election offered hope for democracy -- and for defeating President Bush next year.

"Anytime you have an angry mob of voters, that can't be a bad thing," the Oscar-winning maker of "Bowling for Columbine" told about 2,100 people during a speech Monday.

The rotund, scruffy-bearded activist from Flint, Mich., who has repeatedly criticized the war in Iraq, said he hoped voters would be angry enough to deny Bush a second term.

Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected governor in California last week as Gov. Gray Davis became the second in the nation ever to be recalled.

Moore was visiting the Indianapolis college one week after his latest book, "Dude, Where's My Country?" went on sale.

His speech was sponsored by Butler's Visiting Writers Series, Hoosiers Concerned About Gun Violence and Plowshares Collaborative, a peace studies program at three Indiana colleges.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

samuelclemens

  • The Call to Adventure
  • *
  • Posts: 44
  • Respect: 0
michael moore: oscars, truths, and fictitions
« Reply #132 on: October 16, 2003, 06:11:24 AM »
0
i really like michael moore.  so what if his documentary is partly fiction and partly propoganda?  if the government can get away with such things, why not a person like mr. moore?  and who cares if he seems to be anti-american?  why so much pride in you guys?  it's a country....no more no less.  mark twain was a bit on the anti-american side and he is beloved by the masses now.  i don't really care.  i'm all anti everything really.  i don't dislike or like any country more than any other.  it's all the same.  politics is such a boring topic, it bears no weight on any of us really.  and no system of government will really solve anything.....ugh....
Stupid babies need the most attention!

Squawks

  • The Call to Adventure
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Respect: 0
michael moore: oscars, truths, and fictitions
« Reply #133 on: October 19, 2003, 05:11:44 PM »
0
I'd say the fundamental difference between Canada and the United States is that we have a hell of a lot more (percentage wise) of our population living in urban areas. And I'd venture to guess that Japan, Germany and England do as well. Perhaps we're more used to living among strangers? But you do have to second guess everything you hear, especially on the topics dealt with in Bowling for Columbine. Living in Canada, I can tell you that everyone I know locks their doors when they go out, unlike the bizarre examples of Canadians in Bowling for Columbine. And there was a school shooting in Taber, Alberta 8 days after Columbine. Of course, only one student was killed (another injured). I guess the main thing to think about is what's not being said.

Cecil

  • Guest
michael moore: oscars, truths, and fictitions
« Reply #134 on: October 19, 2003, 06:25:42 PM »
0
they dont lock their doors when theyre still in the house, im sure they lock them when they go out

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy