Turn on thread page Beta

Only stupid white men would believe Michael Moore!! watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hattori)
    i wouldn't say it was 'good' tv and he definetly isn't a good journalist. The thing is he is thought of as a good journalist by those who want to believe him. His views are based on very little truth. Although I understand that he uses his artistic license and people could say he is being comical etc many others say he is unveiling the truth.

    The other problem I have with him is just the irrelevant comments he makes, like how he tries to make out GWBush and some idiot who got into Yale(?) and then became president. I think some of the smartest people I have met would have trouble getting through Yale's History and MBA programmes, Bush is hardly thick. I wouldn't even mind the badly thought out comments, if it weren't for the people who read MMoore and start to say the same rubbish over and over and over until they actually become stupid enough to believe it.
    'Good' tv is obviously a matter of opinion, but I disagree with you- he makes interesting and popular stuff, thats why he's been so successful. It is inaccurate to suggest that his views are based on little truth- there is a lot of artistic licence in there, but much of what he says is about right. Of course, a lot of it is opinion rather than anything else, with which you either agree or disagree.
    For the record, when Bush applied to Yale being the child of an alumnus made one much more likely to be accepted (it might do still actually, anyone?). You might not like Moore drawing attention to that fact, but that doesnt mean it isnt true.
    Those people who criticise him for using artistic licence are mising the point. Whilst there is a good deal of truth in what he says, he's in the tradition of fiery polemicists. If you want cold hard balanced stuff, dont read him. If you want to be entertained (and possibly choke on your breakfast, if your views are to the right) then do. But dont complain when he does exactly what it says on the tin!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    'Good' tv is obviously a matter of opinion, but I disagree with you- he makes interesting and popular stuff, thats why he's been so successful. It is inaccurate to suggest that his views are based on little truth- there is a lot of artistic licence in there, but much of what he says is about right. Of course, a lot of it is opinion rather than anything else, with which you either agree or disagree.
    For the record, when Bush applied to Yale being the child of an alumnus made one much more likely to be accepted (it might do still actually, anyone?). You might not like Moore drawing attention to that fact, but that doesnt mean it isnt true.
    Those people who criticise him for using artistic licence are mising the point. Whilst there is a good deal of truth in what he says, he's in the tradition of fiery polemicists. If you want cold hard balanced stuff, dont read him. If you want to be entertained (and possibly choke on your breakfast, if your views are to the right) then do. But dont complain when he does exactly what it says on the tin!
    I agree that Moore is a good polemiscist. However I dislike him for two reasons.

    Firstly, he is hypocritical about how he presents himself. His webpage claimed that Bowling For Columbine was 'The best documentary ever'. He sold it as a documentary. And the movie won an Oscar, as a documentary. The thing is, that BFC was everything but a documentary. A documentary is meant to present an issue objectively an ask questions. BFC bend the facts and answered questions. It was a good piece of cinematographic satire, but it was hardly a documentary. Moore likes to present himself as someone giving cold hard balanced stuff. The fact that people are missing the point about him, is his own fault.

    Secondly, he is being irresponsible towards his audience. He enjoys huge popularitiy both in the US and in Europe. Many people, especially from our generation, listen to him and hardly question him. Instead of acting responsibly and according to the image he is trying to project, he acts as a demagogue. He uses his popularity to deliver cheap propaganda.

    The problem with Moore is one of general misunderstanding about him. Moore encourages that misunderstanding and happily feeds anti-American feelings in Europe, that are covered behind the mask of a documentary filmmaker and political whistleblower.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    I agree that Moore is a good polemiscist. However I dislike him for two reasons.
    Firstly, he is hypocritical about how he presents himself. His webpage claimed that Bowling For Columbine was 'The best documentary ever'. He sold it as a documentary. And the movie won an Oscar, as a documentary. The thing is, that BFC was everything but a documentary. A documentary is meant to present an issue objectively an ask questions. BFC bend the facts and answered questions. It was a good piece of cinematographic satire, but it was hardly a documentary. Moore likes to present himself as someone giving cold hard balanced stuff. The fact that people are missing the point about him, is his own fault.
    Secondly, he is being irresponsible towards his audience. He enjoys huge popularitiy both in the US and in Europe. Many people, especially from our generation, listen to him and hardly question him. Instead of acting responsibly and according to the image he is trying to project, he acts as a demagogue. He uses his popularity to deliver cheap propaganda.
    The problem with Moore is one of general misunderstanding about him. Moore encourages that misunderstanding and happily feeds anti-American feelings in Europe, that are covered behind the mask of a documentary filmmaker and political whistleblower.
    Seems like you dont like him because you disagree with what he says, yes?
    The anti-Americanism encouragement point is highly controversial- one could just as easily argue that he is doing more for his country than just about anyone by attempting to show it the error of its ways (note, I dont necessarily suggest this, merely to point out that theres more than one way of looking at it and that it could well be that thats a better way then yours). Its categorically not his fault that some people dont question him, so it seems a bit harsh to blame him for that! I disagree entirely with your placing the blame on him because some people are gullible, it isnt an argument which stands up. The stupidity of people for whom he is in no way responsible is not his fault.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    Seems like you dont like him because you disagree with what he says, yes?
    The anti-Americanism encouragement point is highly controversial- one could just as easily argue that he is doing more for his country than just about anyone by attempting to show it the error of its ways (note, I dont necessarily suggest this, merely to point out that theres more than one way of looking at it and that it could well be that thats a better way then yours). Its categorically not his fault that some people dont question him, so it seems a bit harsh to blame him for that! I disagree entirely with your placing the blame on him because some people are gullible, it isnt an argument which stands up. The stupidity of people for whom he is in no way responsible is not his fault.
    lala, did you get my pm?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    Seems like you dont like him because you disagree with what he says, yes?
    The anti-Americanism encouragement point is highly controversial- one could just as easily argue that he is doing more for his country than just about anyone by attempting to show it the error of its ways (note, I dont necessarily suggest this, merely to point out that theres more than one way of looking at it and that it could well be that thats a better way then yours). Its categorically not his fault that some people dont question him, so it seems a bit harsh to blame him for that! I disagree entirely with your placing the blame on him because some people are gullible, it isnt an argument which stands up. The stupidity of people for whom he is in no way responsible is not his fault.
    I don't like him, because of his methodology. As a matter of fact, I thought BFC raised some interesting issues, and I think he sometimes has got a point. So, no, I am not the stereotypical American Republican.

    There are a lot of people I don't like, but I don't always bother explaining on a forum why don't like them. The reason MM infuriates me so much, is that he has HUGE influence on the people around me.

    I am not blaming him for the stupidity and gullibility of people. I am blaming him for USING that gullibility instead of trying to encourage critical thinking. He displays an image of himself that makes people believe his claims are well-researched and his criticism is based on facts. Instead of being honest and admitting he is merely a polemiscist who should not be taken too seriously, he wants to be a political thinker!

    The stupidity of people for whom he is in no way responsible is not his fault. If that's applicable to MM, it's also applicable to Goebbels. However, both act/acted immorally, because they used people's gullibility. Such a methodology does not deserve my sympathy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    Seems like you dont like him because you disagree with what he says, yes?
    The anti-Americanism encouragement point is highly controversial- one could just as easily argue that he is doing more for his country than just about anyone by attempting to show it the error of its ways (note, I dont necessarily suggest this, merely to point out that theres more than one way of looking at it and that it could well be that thats a better way then yours). Its categorically not his fault that some people dont question him, so it seems a bit harsh to blame him for that! I disagree entirely with your placing the blame on him because some people are gullible, it isnt an argument which stands up. The stupidity of people for whom he is in no way responsible is not his fault.
    yeah I can't blame him for having gullible readers and in my post i don't, but I do wish he wouldn't inspire them by giving them the impression of strong journalism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    I don't like him, because of his methodology. As a matter of fact, I thought BFC raised some interesting issues, and I think he sometimes has got a point. So, no, I am not the stereotypical American Republican.
    There are a lot of people I don't like, but I don't always bother explaining on a forum why don't like them. The reason MM infuriates me so much, is that he has HUGE influence on the people around me.
    I am not blaming him for the stupidity and gullibility of people. I am blaming him for USING that gullibility instead of trying to encourage critical thinking. He displays an image of himself that makes people believe his claims are well-researched and his criticism is based on facts. Instead of being honest and admitting he is merely a polemiscist who should not be taken too seriously, he wants to be a political thinker!
    The stupidity of people for whom he is in no way responsible is not his fault. If that's applicable to MM, it's also applicable to Goebbels. However, both act/acted immorally, because they used people's gullibility. Such a methodology does not deserve my sympathy.
    I wondered how long it would be before the Nazi analogy was trotted out. Its become such a ridiculous cliche of our times, witness both Bush and Saddam being branded as Hitler by the various factions during the war on Iraq. Hitler and co are constantly invoked by anyone who wants to use a potent image to back up an argument, but its become cheap and I myself feel it ought to be avoided not only because of the tiredness of the cliche but also because of the inheret danger of the image becoming almost normalised in the popular perception. Anyway, I digress, but I would hope you have noticed that Michael Moore has yet to murder six million Jews, invade the Soviet Union or inded shoot himself. One hopes of course that you arent suggesting blanket censorship on anyone who presents biased arguments in order to appear like a serious political thinker (I'm thinking not only a lot of politicians here but also journalists etc). One also hopes that you apply this same criticism to figures such as Coulter, whose arguments you may or may not find more palatable but who is, as a polemicist, from the same stable as Michael Moore.
    I didnt think you were a stereotypical American Republican. Certainly I have never met one who lives in Luxembourg, for a start! And then theres the Oxford offer...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    I wondered how long it would be before the Nazi analogy was trotted out. Its become such a ridiculous cliche of our times, witness both Bush and Saddam being branded as Hitler by the various factions during the war on Iraq. Hitler and co are constantly invoked by anyone who wants to use a potent image to back up an argument, but its become cheap and I myself feel it ought to be avoided not only because of the tiredness of the cliche but also because of the inheret danger of the image becoming almost normalised in the popular perception. Anyway, I digress, but I would hope you have noticed that Michael Moore has yet to murder six million Jews, invade the Soviet Union or inded shoot himself. One hopes of course that you arent suggesting blanket censorship on anyone who presents biased arguments in order to appear like a serious political thinker (I'm thinking not only a lot of politicians here but also journalists etc). One also hopes that you apply this same criticism to figures such as Coulter, whose arguments you may or may not find more palatable but who is, as a polemicist, from the same stable as Michael Moore.
    I didnt think you were a stereotypical American Republican. Certainly I have never met one who lives in Luxembourg, for a start! And then theres the Oxford offer...
    1) I am not a great friend of Nazi-comparisons myself. But, they are a very potent debating weapon, as the Nazi-régime has the particularity that virtually everyone agrees it was evil.
    I did not compare MM to Hitler, so saying 'Michael Moore has yet to murder six million Jews, invade the Soviet Union or inded shoot himself' is a bit redundant.
    I did not even compare him to Goebbels. I was just trying to refute your argument that people's stupidity and gullibility justified populism and propaganda. I did not say MM is LIKE Goebbels. I was just trying to demonstrate that the principle you were applying to MM could not be true, since if applied to Goebbels the result is unacceptable (ie that Goebbel's propaganda could be excused by the fact that people were gullible).
    I don't think what I wrote falls into the category of the Nazi analogies you described. I did not make a personal comparison: I did not compare MM to the Nazis. I was just trying to prove an IDEA wrong by showing that if applied in the case of the Nazis, the result would be rather obviously unacceptable.

    2) I am certainly not supporting censorship of people like Moore. It is not because I don't like him, that I have the right to prevent other people from reading his books or watching his movies.
    I was not arguing in that direction.
    I was just explaining why I don't like him and trying to challenge the points made in his favour. I was trying to persuade people he's a hypocritical polemiscist, I was not trying to persuade them he should be censored.

    3) As a matter of fact, I did not even know who Ann Coulter is until I read one of your posts a few days ago. I went to her website, and what I saw was not exactly impressing. However, I can't really express an opinion on her, since I haven't really read anything she wrote. So, I will just suppose she is the right-wing pendant to MM.

    If she is, she does not deserve more of my respect than MM.

    The reason I criticise MM and not her, is not that MM is further from my opinions than her (which you seemed to suggest at one point), but that MM is a bigger influence on the people around me than her.

    It is fair to say, that in Europe, virtually no-one knows Ann Coulter. The reason is probably that the American right-wing is to most Europeans absolutely ludicrous, as European politics corresond more to the American left-wing.

    People like MM, who are extreme left-wing in the US, fall right into the mainstream left in Europe and generally enjoy a certain success across the political spectrum.

    MM makes me angry, Coulter does not, because MM has such influence on the society around me. Most of my friends (at least those who have a minimum political interest) agree with MM on nearly everything. He is their guru. MM's words are becoming part of the moral majority's opinion in Europe. That's why he is so dangerous.

    In the US context, MM is not that dangerous, because not everyone listens to him. His opinions are at least being challenged. But in Europe, they are accepted, with very little questioning.

    That is why I question them. Like most people I am mainly interested in issues that are actually relevant. Although I would be equally right to right at length about the wrongdoings of the Third Reich (there we go again ), it would be rather pointless, as virtually everyone would agree with me. It would be a waste of time. Equally, to argue against Coulter would be pointless, as everyone in Europe would agree with me.

    MM is more than relevant to my world, and that is why I question him.

    4) Although I appreciate your last post, you have not actually challenged any points I made in my previous post. Do you agree that MM is a hypocrit, and that he actively encourages gullibility and uses it to his own benefit? Do you agree that he voluntarily creates a misunderstanding about his intellectual rigour and he uses that misunderstanding? Do you agree, that while it's not his fault people are gullible, it is wrong that he uses that gullibility?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    1) I am not a great friend of Nazi-comparisons myself. But, they are a very potent debating weapon, as the Nazi-régime has the particularity that virtually everyone agrees it was evil.
    I did not compare MM to Hitler, so saying 'Michael Moore has yet to murder six million Jews, invade the Soviet Union or inded shoot himself' is a bit redundant.
    I did not even compare him to Goebbels. I was just trying to refute your argument that people's stupidity and gullibility justified populism and propaganda. I did not say MM is LIKE Goebbels. I was just trying to demonstrate that the principle you were applying to MM could not be true, since if applied to Goebbels the result is unacceptable (ie that Goebbel's propaganda could be excused by the fact that people were gullible).
    I don't think what I wrote falls into the category of the Nazi analogies you described. I did not make a personal comparison: I did not compare MM to the Nazis. I was just trying to prove an IDEA wrong by showing that if applied in the case of the Nazis, the result would be rather obviously unacceptable.
    2) I am certainly not supporting censorship of people like Moore. It is not because I don't like him, that I have the right to prevent other people from reading his books or watching his movies.
    I was not arguing in that direction.
    I was just explaining why I don't like him and trying to challenge the points made in his favour. I was trying to persuade people he's a hypocritical polemiscist, I was not trying to persuade them he should be censored.
    3) As a matter of fact, I did not even know who Ann Coulter is until I read one of your posts a few days ago. I went to her website, and what I saw was not exactly impressing. However, I can't really express an opinion on her, since I haven't really read anything she wrote. So, I will just suppose she is the right-wing pendant to MM.
    If she is, she does not deserve more of my respect than MM.
    The reason I criticise MM and not her, is not that MM is further from my opinions than her (which you seemed to suggest at one point), but that MM is a bigger influence on the people around me than her.
    It is fair to say, that in Europe, virtually no-one knows Ann Coulter. The reason is probably that the American right-wing is to most Europeans absolutely ludicrous, as European politics corresond more to the American left-wing.
    People like MM, who are extreme left-wing in the US, fall right into the mainstream left in Europe and generally enjoy a certain success across the political spectrum.
    MM makes me angry, Coulter does not, because MM has such influence on the society around me. Most of my friends (at least those who have a minimum political interest) agree with MM on nearly everything. He is their guru. MM's words are becoming part of the moral majority's opinion in Europe. That's why he is so dangerous.
    In the US context, MM is not that dangerous, because not everyone listens to him. His opinions are at least being challenged. But in Europe, they are accepted, with very little questioning.
    That is why I question them. Like most people I am mainly interested in issues that are actually relevant. Although I would be equally right to right at length about the wrongdoings of the Third Reich (there we go again ), it would be rather pointless, as virtually everyone would agree with me. It would be a waste of time. Equally, to argue against Coulter would be pointless, as everyone in Europe would agree with me.
    MM is more than relevant to my world, and that is why I question him.
    4) Although I appreciate your last post, you have not actually challenged any points I made in my previous post. Do you agree that MM is a hypocrit, and that he actively encourages gullibility and uses it to his own benefit? Do you agree that he voluntarily creates a misunderstanding about his intellectual rigour and he uses that misunderstanding? Do you agree, that while it's not his fault people are gullible, it is wrong that he uses that gullibility?
    I didnt say you compared Moore to Hitler, and I disagree that your invoking of the Nazis does not fit into the category I described. While I appreciate that you probably arent going to be influenced by what I say, I think the best thing for you to do would be not to make that comparison again or defend having made it, because as I say, I feel its inappropriate for the Nazis to be invoked in little arguments like this one. Apart from all that, its a rather cheap and unsophisticated arguing device (I know, I used to use it when I was younger til I figured out it was wrong of me).
    Do you genuinely feel that authors, filmmakers and so on are responsble for the way people react to their work? If so, would you advocate blanket censorship of anything which you feel might encourage people to hold opinions which you might find suspect? And how would you account for the occasional mental cases who flip at something innocuous they read about or watch? Would you have the creators of the work be seen as responsible for this too? How would you account for the problem of the utter unpredictablity of the human reaction to creative work? After all, you read Michael Moore but do you think everyone else who did so shared your reaction?
    Well its certainly not true to suggest that nobody in Europe is aware of Ann Coulter. Vienna for one is something of a fan. Basically though, theres a lot thats different between Coulter and Moore but they do bear comparison. Dont know if you have Julie Burchill in Luxembourg but she's not too dissimilar, though I suppose not as distinguished as Moore.
    I find your suggestion that nobdy in Europe would take Coulter seriously whilst happily agreeing with Moore something of a generalisation. There are millions of people in Europe, including some very right wing parties and supporters, and obviously they dont all think the same. Its also ridiculous to claim his views are not criticised by Europeans- did you not read this thread? I think the greater publicity Moore enjoys is more to do with his status as an Oscar-winning film director- you remember his speech got a lot of publicity? I should imagine if another polemicist of opposing views to Moore were to win an Oscar they too would be well known in Europe, but of course thats all in the realm of the hypothetical I'm afraid.
    No, I dont agree with the picture you paint of Moore. I find his pleas to Americans to become more involved in political issues and educate themselves as to their rights and the democratic process quite the opposite of what you have described- an attempt to do all he can to hack away at the mountain of political gullibility and apathy among so many of the electorate. I wold also disagree with the claims that he paints a false picture of his intelligence- I havent read everything I have written but I dnot recall any claim by him to be an intellectual.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    I didnt say you compared Moore to Hitler, and I disagree that your invoking of the Nazis does not fit into the category I described.
    Why?? Again, you just contradict me, without backing up what you say. You just say, 'I disagree', but you don't refute my points.
    While I appreciate that you probably arent going to be influenced by what I say, I think the best thing for you to do would be not to make that comparison again or defend having made it, because as I say, I feel its inappropriate for the Nazis to be invoked in little arguments like this one. Apart from all that, its a rather cheap and unsophisticated arguing device (I know, I used to use it when I was younger til I figured out it was wrong of me).
    As I said, I am not a friend of such comparisons myself. I generally try to avoid them. Unless, you back up what you said, I cannot accept that I was making the kind of analogy you described.
    Do you genuinely feel that authors, filmmakers and so on are responsble for the way people react to their work?
    No, but that's not the point. The over-estimation of MM's words is no coincidence: It is provoked by MM's hypocritical presentation of himself. MM is deliberately manipulating the crowds, he is a demagogue.
    If so, would you advocate blanket censorship of anything which you feel might encourage people to hold opinions which you might find suspect?
    No. Did I not make that clear in my previous post? Why do you assume that I want to censor anyone whom I don't agree with or whom I don't like? I never said anything in that direction.
    And how would you account for the occasional mental cases who flip at something innocuous they read about or watch? Would you have the creators of the work be seen as responsible for this too? How would you account for the problem of the utter unpredictablity of the human reaction to creative work? After all, you read Michael Moore but do you think everyone else who did so shared your reaction?
    It IS possible to predict how the masses are going to react to propaganda. You mention individual cases, which I am not discussing here. The general reaction to a work can be predicted rather well: When you write something funny, it's because you expect people to laugh; when you write something manipulative, it's because you expect people to buy what you say. Of course, that does not always work. However, MM is good at what he does: Manipulation.
    Well its certainly not true to suggest that nobody in Europe is aware of Ann Coulter. Vienna for one is something of a fan.
    I did not suggest that 'nobody in Europe is aware of Ann Coulter'. Of course there will always be some people who know about her. What I mean is that the vast majority of people don't know about her. I draw that conclusion from the fact, that I've never heard about her in the media, and from the fact that none of my friends know who she is. I explained why I was so much interested in MM: because he is such a prominent figure in the world around me. Coulter is not. So, even if I am wrong about Europeans' awareness of Coulter (which would surprise me), it is still justified for me to be speaking out against MM and not against Coulter, because Coulter has no impact on the world as I perceive it. What do I care about some American right-winger if no-one I know even knows her?
    Basically though, theres a lot thats different between Coulter and Moore but they do bear comparison. Dont know if you have Julie Burchill in Luxembourg but she's not too dissimilar, though I suppose not as distinguished as Moore.
    Don't know her either...
    I find your suggestion that nobdy in Europe would take Coulter seriously whilst happily agreeing with Moore something of a generalisation. There are millions of people in Europe, including some very right wing parties and supporters, and obviously they dont all think the same.
    Actually, very few people in Europe share the views of right-wing American republicans. If you have a look at the European right-wing, you'll find the following categories:
    a) Christian Democrats: Those are the big "People's Parties". They are strongly into the idea of the welfare state and their conception of foreign policy certainly differs with Washington's. So, those people are not likely to be fans of Coulter.
    b) The French Gaullists: The French right-wing detests the Americans (I know, it's yet another generalisation; but there are very few exceptions). Gaullists will never support American Republicans.
    c) The far-right such as the "Front National" in France, Jörg Hayder's party in Austria, the "Vlaamse Block" in Belgium or Pim Fortuyn's
    party in the Netherlands: The far-right parties in Europe are mostly nationalistic and therefore are deeply suspicious of the US (Le Pen repeatedly visited Saddam,... a bit like Galloway). Those parties often have anti-globalisation and anti-free-market elements in them. Their ideology certainly does not correspond to what Coulter says.

    So, Coulter's views are hardly shared by a relevant group in (continental) Europe.

    The closest thing to the American Right in Europe I can think of, would be the British Conservatives...
    Its also ridiculous to claim his views are not criticised by Europeans- did you not read this thread? I think the greater publicity Moore enjoys is more to do with his status as an Oscar-winning film director- you remember his speech got a lot of publicity? I should imagine if another polemicist of opposing views to Moore were to win an Oscar they too would be well known in Europe, but of course thats all in the realm of the hypothetical I'm afraid.
    People arguing against MM in this thread are mostly British. I was speaking of my continental environment.
    The fact of the matter, is that MM has a considerable impact on the European moral majority and he is not questioned too much by most people. Bowling for Columbine did much better in Europe than in the US BTW.
    No, I dont agree with the picture you paint of Moore. I find his pleas to Americans to become more involved in political issues and educate themselves as to their rights and the democratic process quite the opposite of what you have described- an attempt to do all he can to hack away at the mountain of political gullibility and apathy among so many of the electorate. I wold also disagree with the claims that he paints a false picture of his intelligence- I havent read everything I have written but I dnot recall any claim by him to be an intellectual.
    I was not talking about his intelligence. I was talking about his 'intellectual rigour', ie the way he approaches a certain issues, the extent to which he researches his claims etc. His methodology is what it should be considering what he claims to be. In Bowling For Columbine, he claimed that the US government had given $245 million to the Taliban regime in 2000. That's how he tried to show that the US create their own wars. The evidence he gave was flawed: The US spent those $245 million on food aid which reached Afghanistan through the UN! Now, MM surely can't object with that!
    That's an example of his pathetic research. He spreads lies. After people had pointed out to him that his claim was false, he still repeated it in his speeches and I think he even wrote it in one of his books.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    Why?? Again, you just contradict me, without backing up what you say. You just say, 'I disagree', but you don't refute my points.
    As I said, I am not a friend of such comparisons myself. I generally try to avoid them. Unless, you back up what you said, I cannot accept that I was making the kind of analogy you described.
    No, but that's not the point. The over-estimation of MM's words is no coincidence: It is provoked by MM's hypocritical presentation of himself. MM is deliberately manipulating the crowds, he is a demagogue.
    No. Did I not make that clear in my previous post? Why do you assume that I want to censor anyone whom I don't agree with or whom I don't like? I never said anything in that direction.
    It IS possible to predict how the masses are going to react to propaganda. You mention individual cases, which I am not discussing here. The general reaction to a work can be predicted rather well: When you write something funny, it's because you expect people to laugh; when you write something manipulative, it's because you expect people to buy what you say. Of course, that does not always work. However, MM is good at what he does: Manipulation.
    I did not suggest that 'nobody in Europe is aware of Ann Coulter'. Of course there will always be some people who know about her. What I mean is that the vast majority of people don't know about her. I draw that conclusion from the fact, that I've never heard about her in the media, and from the fact that none of my friends know who she is. I explained why I was so much interested in MM: because he is such a prominent figure in the world around me. Coulter is not. So, even if I am wrong about Europeans' awareness of Coulter (which would surprise me), it is still justified for me to be speaking out against MM and not against Coulter, because Coulter has no impact on the world as I perceive it. What do I care about some American right-winger if no-one I know even knows her?
    Don't know her either...
    Actually, very few people in Europe share the views of right-wing American republicans. If you have a look at the European right-wing, you'll find the following categories:
    a) Christian Democrats: Those are the big "People's Parties". They are strongly into the idea of the welfare state and their conception of foreign policy certainly differs with Washington's. So, those people are not likely to be fans of Coulter.
    b) The French Gaullists: The French right-wing detests the Americans (I know, it's yet another generalisation; but there are very few exceptions). Gaullists will never support American Republicans.
    c) The far-right such as the "Front National" in France, Jörg Hayder's party in Austria, the "Vlaamse Block" in Belgium or Pim Fortuyn's
    party in the Netherlands: The far-right parties in Europe are mostly nationalistic and therefore are deeply suspicious of the US (Le Pen repeatedly visited Saddam,... a bit like Galloway). Those parties often have anti-globalisation and anti-free-market elements in them. Their ideology certainly does not correspond to what Coulter says.
    So, Coulter's views are hardly shared by a relevant group in (continental) Europe.
    The closest thing to the American Right in Europe I can think of, would be the British Conservatives...
    People arguing against MM in this thread are mostly British. I was speaking of my continental environment.
    The fact of the matter, is that MM has a considerable impact on the European moral majority and he is not questioned too much by most people. Bowling for Columbine did much better in Europe than in the US BTW.
    I was not talking about his intelligence. I was talking about his 'intellectual rigour', ie the way he approaches a certain issues, the extent to which he researches his claims etc. His methodology is what it should be considering what he claims to be. In Bowling For Columbine, he claimed that the US government had given $245 million to the Taliban regime in 2000. That's how he tried to show that the US create their own wars. The evidence he gave was flawed: The US spent those $245 million on food aid which reached Afghanistan through the UN! Now, MM surely can't object with that!
    That's an example of his pathetic research. He spreads lies. After people had pointed out to him that his claim was false, he still repeated it in his speeches and I think he even wrote it in one of his books.
    You didnt make much of a case yourself for why you thought you didnt fit the analogies I made, I cant see how highlighting the fact that you didnt compare to any individual refutes what I said originally, and if as you claim you arent a friend of such comparisons then why make one? My point was that I object to constant invokation of Nazis when people are making points because I see it as cheapening and dont feel something so serious ought to be appropriated lightly. You did appropriate it though, and while I dont think you meant any harm by it I dont agree with you having done it.
    I never said you did wish to implement censorship, and neither can I see how asking you if you do implies that I assumed answer in the affirmative. It is an issue which is relevant to the discussion and so I raised it. If you dont want to talk about it, don't. I wont take it personally if you choose not to answer my questions.
    I should say now that I find it quite arrogant that you assume peoples reactions can be accurately predicted, and the example you used proves nothing because humour is so subjective. You seem to assume that people who are exposed to Moore's work are likely to agree with and believe it. Well you didnt, so what makes you think it would be possible to know what the reactions of others would be when the evidence you present yourself is of Europeans with divided opinions. Others agreed with me that they enjoy Moore for his style rather than looking to him for anything more concrete. It would seem then that in only two pages we have covered much of the spectrum! Even were a reliable method of predicting how the public would react to exist, not everyone reacts in the same way, there is always deviant behaviour, which of course relates to any argument about whether the creator of any material which the public sees (such as Moore) is responsible for their actions.
    As for Coulter- best to be wary of generalisations such as 'the vast majority dont know about her' especially if your major frame of reference for such a comment is only those people who you know. More evidence would really be needed to substantiate so broad a claim. I would also argue that, since the US is the major superpower, anyone who is influential there will also be so in much of the rest of the world, which I feel undermines your point about her not being important. Of course, that doesnt mean you shouldnt post about what you like, that in this case being Moore rather than her.
    I'm aware of the major political factions in Europe, but the fact that there are no major party groupings into which she would neatly fit in no way means that there could be no common ground, and if, as you suggest, continental Europeans are mostly unaware of her, then perhaps if her existence does become known to them we might even see a link up lol! Especially to those parties of the right which are not anti globalisation.
    I'd like to see you expand more on what you mean by 'intellectual rigour'. Of course he defends the conclusions he has drawn from his research, be they flawed or not its obvious that if he believes them he'll stick up for them. Bad research and playing on gullibility are two very different things, so it would be well to separate them. You used one to reply to a point about the other.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    C'mon. Michael Moore is quite simply brilliant. He tells the truth from a new perspective. Sadly people just aren't willing to believe that they are really that bad and dismiss his antics as uhmm... the actions of 'an angry lefty' or something like that. A bit of maturity please people. The earth is no longer flat ok.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    C'mon. Michael Moore is quite simply brilliant. He tells the truth from a new perspective. Sadly people just aren't willing to believe that they are really that bad and dismiss his antics as uhmm... the actions of 'an angry lefty' or something like that. A bit of maturity please people. The earth is no longer flat ok.
    For a good angry lefty, see tony benn, once upon a time.

    For a brainless american, trying to be cool, by regurgitating anti-establishment views, see michael moore.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fayzd)
    For a good angry lefty, see tony benn, once upon a time.

    For a brainless american, trying to be cool, by regurgitating anti-establishment views, see michael moore.
    Precisely, well not quite. Moore is certainly worth a look on his merits alone. He is almost satyrical which sadly, a lot of people can't comprehend. Hence the comments about him from narrow minded and ignorant individuals.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Precisely, well not quite. Moore is certainly worth a look on his merits alone. He is almost satyrical which sadly, a lot of people can't comprehend. Hence the comments about him from narrow minded and ignorant individuals.
    Americans just can't do satire in the same way though. The best satire comes from the uk- Private eye, have i got news for you, that was the week that was, Pope, Swift.... (ok, i'm going back a few hundred years on the last two. And yeah, ok swift was irish... i'll shut up now....)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fayzd)
    Americans just can't do satire in the same way though. The best satire comes from the uk- Private eye, have i got news for you, that was the week that was, Pope, Swift.... (ok, i'm going back a few hundred years on the last two. And yeah, ok swift was irish... i'll shut up now....)
    *nods* America can't do it because they don't understand it. I can't believe I'm going to use this analogy, but look at McDonald's. Most successful of the fast food chains. 30 years of unprecedented market growth. Yet look at the product. It is purely American. Bland, with very little in the way of diversity. They just can't understand it any different.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I havent read most of this thread, but from that last post i think u are very narrow minded in generalising americans, so is everybody, as they are just believing what they read and see on the TV. Its just like saying the british are all bitter. You cant get rid of generalisations and in essence everyones opinion on any matter is based on some simplifications or generalisations. In general i can't be arsed with conspiracy talk, although intresting in some aspects, i selfishly think along the lines if it doesnt affect me directly, and i mean totally directly i dont give a ****(to put it nicely).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    michael moore is nothing but a publicity hound and will say or do anything to get his mug on tv or on the news. If you think moore has a big following in the US you are mistaken. He gets boo`d everywhere he goes but our liberal media never show what really happens when hes around. Its a wonder the guy hasnt been assaulted considering how the general public greets him everywhere.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I just have to get this off my chest, as the issues i have with our good friend Michael Moore also tend to apply to his supporters. I feel that people have the right to express themselves, have their opinions and so forth. This is what makes freedom so great. My problem with the Moore crowd is that while they are quick to say don't censur me, i can say what i want.... when challanged Moore and his followers tend to be the first to resort to bully-tactics. Any criticle thought on the matter is simply met with a your a big dummy head mantality and Moore is a god.... And I find it a bit annoying. Personally I think Moore is an idiot. That is my opinion and thanks to free speech i can say that. And i am sure some clever persons will say something along the same lines about me, moore power to you.
    Now having said this, the guy knows his audience. I cannot speak for Europe, but here in the States there are allot of idiots who have never left their home state, in many cases home town. And therefore and completely unprepared for the notion that you cannot take things at face value, you have to think. Just because a guy dresses like a slob and is completely uneducated <in appearance> does not mean he is just like you and the people you hang out with at the local bar.... Anyways i will stop there and see where i stand.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.