I lost track – is it worse to fail at being an Ashton Kucher or to succeed?
I will start by answering your last question first.
If you’re trying to get me to admit that liberals are more likely to support someone who holds liberal viewpoints than conservative viewpoints, well, ya got me. In fact, I’m so willing to admit that that I’ve started at least two pit threads saying precisely that. Is it because all liberals are big dumb hypocrites? Not really. It’s because liberals are people. People like people they agree with. People don’t like people they disagree with. It’s called being human. Everyone does it.
Now, that doesn’t mean that any amount of double standards should be shrugged off. What it does mean is that if your mission in this thread is to absolutely positive demonstrate without a doubt that liberals will, on the whole, be some amount more forgiving of Michael Moore than of O’Keefe or Limbaugh or Anne Coulter; well, we surrender. You got us. And we got you. Because everyone does it to some extent. Now if you want to try to claim that the double standard in this case is far beyond the usual level, and rises to such gross extent that it must be condemned and rooted out; well, feel free to attempt to make that claim. But in that case, (a) it really ought to be a separate thread, and (b) the burden of proof is on you. I guess I feel like this thread has kind of gone like this:
Some liberal: O’Keefe is a scumbag dishonest jerk
Bricker: But O’Keefe and Michael Moore did the same things, and you liberals don’t hate Michael Moore, therefore you’re hypocrites
Some liberal: Buzz off you meaniefaceconservativejerk, we’re discussing O’Keefe being a dishonest jerk
Bricker: See how no one ever actually addresses the point I’m making?
Whereas, if you really want to have this particular discussion (and I reiterate that it’s a fairly useless and irrelevant one which is extraordinarily unlikely to result in any production communication of information… even moreso than most SDMB threads), I think an approach like this would have been far more productive:
Some liberal: O’Keefe is a scumbag dishonest jerk
Bricker: I think there are some parallels between O’Keefe and Michael Moore, I’ve started another thread to discuss that issue
Bricker (in OP of other thread): I claim that O’Keefe and Michael Moore act in ways that are fundamentally similar. Here are some arguments to back that up. But I also note that liberals seem far more forgiving of Moore than of O’Keefe. Here are some cites to back that up.
You are saying this as if it’s some massive shock or evidence of some massive hypocrisy. Of course people are angry because of the result. That’s the only reason anyone’s ever heard of this jackass. People post random political screeds or whatnot on youtube dozens of times a week. There have been multiple feature films taking strongly conservative viewpoints (Ben Stein’s Expelled, for instance). I’m sure a fair number of them (and presumably, similar things with liberal viewpoints) are just as deceptive and dishonest as O’Keefe’s ACORN video. But they’ve all been forgotten by history. And thus, we’re not angry about them. The fact that no one is ranting about them is in no way tacit approval of their tactics.
So yes, we’ve all heard about O’Keefe because of the results. And we’re angry about him because of the results. That causes us to examine what he did, at which point we find massive dishonesty, at which point we rant about it.
If he’d instead used nothing but good old fashioned sleuthing (ie, tracking phone records or what have you) to legitimately uncover an existing prostitution ring run out of an ACORN office (or something), and broken this story, and the same result had happened, there would probably be some fringe of liberals who would view the whole thing as a conspiracy, and some larger group of liberals who would be making the (arguably reasonable) claim that all of ACORN shouldn’t be held responsible for malfeasance in one ACORN office; but there wouldn’t be the same level of rage, from the same number of people, directed at the person who broke the story.
I think I stated the point I was trying to make poorly (and somewhat insultingly, for which I apologize). But I was reacting to Lightnin’s post 425 and your reaction to it. The point he was making seemed so utterly blindingly obvious that I felt sure that someone as smart as you was already aware of it. So it kind of felt like you were almost paternalistically waiting for someone to make an obvious rebuttal to your deliberately overstated case, just so you could approve of them.
But really, this is a pointless tangent which I’m happy to drop.
That’s a very interesting point you’re making, the idea that what ACORN was really guilty of was having too much of a “help the little guy” mentality… something which is itself probably a good thing, but which can be taken so far that it leads to ignoring the actual laws. And what’s really interesting about that interesting point is that it’s the first time it’s been mentioned in this entire thread. Partly because you’ve spent all your time trying to make liberals look like hypocrites, and partly because what ACORN was found guilty of in the court of public opinion, due to O’Keefe’s video, was NOT “trying a little too hard to help the little guy” but was “helping pimps get mortgages for houses where they could keep underage trafficked sex slaves” or whatever. This is another facet of the total dishonesty of O’Keefe’s approach, in which the crimes he (arguably) caught (entrapped?) ACORN people committing were deliberately designed to be as salacious and sensational as possible, which pretty much destroyed any chance of an actual reasonable discussion of the actual issue.
Frankly, I’ve never actually watched the originally released video, nor have I read any of the various reports from the groups who have investigated the issue. Certainly, it would not shock me if things went down basically the way you’re implying. ACORN was a big organization employing lots of people some of whom were probably just dumb or unethical, and some of whom were probably good, ethical people struggling really hard to make a difference under very trying situations where lots of gray areas frequently came up; who would at times end up making poor choices. And of course none of the above might be the case. But we don’t know.
I don’t think I was saying “emotionless and legalistic” was a negative. Rather, I was saying that in a situation like this, where people are already upset and passionate about the issue, and then you jump in and simultaneously (a) hijack the thread, and (b) call everyone a hypocrite, you should not be surprised that the vast majority of responses you get are NOT emotionless and legalistic.
Agreed
Disagree
(1) The most important distinction is that the context is utterly critical. If I’m bringing a camera crew over to interview Bricker on the topic of how his Republican views inform his love of Buffy, and before we sit down for the interview you politely offer me some coffee, and then when I put the film of the interview together I don’t include the part where you’re offering me coffee, that’s arguably deceptive. After all, I’m splicing out parts of the interview. But (and this is obviously a hilariously extreme example) the parts I’m splicing out in no way affect the point I’m trying to make. On the other hand, if the film I’m putting together is actually “Republicans are bad hosts”, and I do precisely the same editing, it might be extraordinarily dishonest and manipulative of me. Context is everything. Pretty much every documentary or interview ever shown has some amount of editing done. And editing is, at some level, in its very nature, dishonest. That’s why I keep coming back to saying that the burden of proof is on you to come up with an example of a liberal-leaning interview/documentary whose editing/dubbing/etc is anywhere near the same league of dishonest as the O’Keefe thing.
(2) And, while I haven’t gone in and counted, “most” liberals certainly don’t seem to be a fan of Michael Moore doing similar things, even in the vastly-less-dishonest and arguably-not-dishonest-at-all scene with the bank and the gun.
Disagree. As I said earlier, that may be the source of attention/rage/anger directed at O’Keefe. But that’s not the same as saying it’s the complaint against him.
Can you be more specific about which speech you’re talking about and the context in which it shows up in the movie?
Answer deferred pending further details of what you’re asking about.
So if Bowling for Columbine had come out exactly as it was, but somehow it had kicked off a massive groundswell of anti-NRA opinion, and the NRA had been driven into destruction, would I be angry about it? Probably not. More like bemused. But I would also not be shocked if NRA members were even more angry about the movie, and spent even more time ripping apart the parts they found to be dishonest, than they actually were/did. In fact, it’s patently obvious that that’s how they would react.
Note that there’s an important distinction, though, in that ACORN is an organization that is out there actually doing things for people, whereas the NRA is (in general) an organization that is out there lobbying for a position. ACORN being destroyed means (at least potentially) real impacts on people who suddenly have fewer resources to help them get home loans or whatever. The NRA being destroyed means that people who hold a reasonable political opinion on one issue suddenly don’t have that one particular group representing them to lawmakers. Apples and Oranges.
Those quotes were not in your original list. Was I just supposed to know about them through the liberal hive mind?
At any rate, I’ll just repeat that this thread is not about Moore. I don’t give a shit if anyone idolizes Moore. Moore and O’Keefe are not equivalent, except in your own mind.
O’Keefe inserting NEW dialog over an existing interview in order to make it look like the participants are answering questions that they did not even hear is not the same as using accurate footage of Heston from different time periods and perhaps letting the viewers ASSUME that it was from the same time period. I don’t agree with either technique, but that does not make them the same.
NOT. THE. SAME.
You are using the comparison with Moore as your last ditch defense of O’Keefe. It is not working. There is a thread about Moore - go there.
This thread is about how O’Keefe is lying, idiotic seeker of personal fame, who dubbed dialog and visual images into a video to emphasize that low-level workers were engaging in poor work practices. He did this in order to destroy an organization that was registering voters who some were afraid would vote for the “wrong” party. He subsequently was caught trying to sneak into a government building under false pretenses, in order to (presumably) dig up some dirt on a politician that was in the “wrong” party.
Defend that.
I don’t.
But what parts of that screed are really bothersome to you?
I don’t think you really mind it when people lie and seek personal fame. I don’t think you really mind when people try to destroy organizations that serve important social goals. I don’t think you mind when people try to dig up dirt on politicians in the “wrong” party.
You only mind when that “wrong” party is yours; when those organizations help your cause. You don’t object to O’Keefe’s tactics; you object to his choice of targets.
Thanks for an excellent post, which I will reply to when I have the time it deserves, hopefully later tonight. I just didn’t want to let it pass with no comment at all.
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of lefties? Da Bricker do! So don’t even bother with your lies about what you think, what you care about, Bricker knows the truth, he peers into your mind and recoils in horror and disgust.
Must be a total bitch on cross-examination!
“And what were you doing at that moment?”
“Well, I was sitting on my sofa, thinking about the basketball game…”
“Liar! You were thinking about what a hunk Kobe Bryant is, and how much you want to sniff his gym shorts!”
(sob) “Yes, its true! Its true!..oh, God, its all true!”…
No, you are incorrect about what I think. I am not a member of the Democratic Party, they are not “my” party, I did not vote for Obama, I have never volunteered for ACORN, nor given them a dime of my money and they do nothing for my “cause”.
I am offended by O’Keefe’s lying, dishonest, overdubbing, criminal, weaseling tactics that were designed to destroy an organization that was arguably doing some good.
Bricker grills Lili von Schtuppe.
How can something like that work? Does Heston wear the same suit each time he’s giving a speech? Does the background look the same on every stage?
Seems like it would be obvious that these were different clips, from different speeches.
Okay, I think I figured this out.
Bricker is trying to point out that liberals aren’t critical enough of Moore.
And that’s fine, except that in the process he’s defending O’Keefe.
Which means he (being a conservative) is not being critical enough of O’Keefe.
Which means he’s as much, if not more, hypocritical as those on the left that he’s attacking. Because he is both pointing out their flaw AND exhibiting the flaw all at the same time.
It’s also complete bullshit. His line of reasoning seems to be that unless people on the left have openly condemned Moore (or gasp, even defended him), they aren’t allowed to criticize O’Keefe. But to me, that’s like saying a public prosecutor can never become a public defender.
Imagine, trying to defend a murdered, when just a year ago you were trying to prosecute someone for the same crime. Well which is it? Is this person innocent, or was the last person guilty?
Or could we accurately say that the two cases have nothing to do with each other and should be judged on their own merits.
Needs more “liberal hypocrisy!”. And cowbell. Defintely more cowbell.
…Bricker, have you seen Bowling for Columbine?
Bump
And do you think that conservatives were as critical of O’Keefe as they were of Moore?
Its all in search of an equivalence, forgiving oneself for the pigs slept with because the other guys are just as bad. Point out what a dickasaurus Sean Hannity is, and its “Well, Michael Moore is the Sean Hannity of the left! So there!”
But he’s also the Rush Limbaugh of the left. The Breitbart of the left, the Bill O’Reilly of the left, the Michael Savage Weiner of the left, and so one and so forth. No wonder he’s so friggin’ huge, he’s fifteen people.
Bricker’s too busy to respond; he’s moved on to pissing off Mexicans with bad Spanish.
Bricker is a lawyer who thinks he can defend a guy ,OKeefe, by attacking Michael Moore. I hope he tries that in court. The judge would ask him what the hell that has to do with the subject, Okeefe. It is not about the comparison between Moore and Okeefe. Someone even started a brand spankin new thread for Bricker to bleat about Moore to his hearts content. But you can not save some people from themselves. Nice try though.
One last bump, hoping you’ll respond.
Post halfway written, not forgotten
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0615/preliminary-report-clears-acorn/ ACORN cleared by congressional investigation. But the right wing nuts were able to kill it anyway.