A bad Grandpa Simpson parody? That’s all you’ve got? No wonder you’re Lucas’ bitch. Even HE can write better.
Enjoy,
Steven
Hey, let’s not go saying things we can’t take back. Low blow, man.
You know, this is something i often wonder about. Despite the fact that i disagreed with just about everything he said, and thought that he was an idiot, i opposed december’s banning all those many moons ago. I’ve never, in my memory at least, made any call for any poster on these boards to be banned.
I’m not saying that there are any easy answers here. I’m not arguing that my position has no possibility of being found inherently contradictory. I just think that, as a general rule, more communication is better than less, and that actually addressing someone’s argument is a better course of action than trying to stifle their ability to make that argument.
I guess there are a few reasons that i don’t take a more principled stand over the issue of bannings. First, some of those bannings result from breaking very basic rules of these message boards, such as posting spam or consistently posting in the wrong forum. Second, many of the people who are banned for trolling and similar activities actually have the effect of reducing communication and dialog on these boards, simply because they do nothing but post intentionally inflammatory statements or abuse people. They are the message board equivalents of the people trying to get Moore’s film banned–they are concerned more with disrupting genuine communication than with actually making an argument.
Look, i realize that some people will draw a different line over what constitutes disrupting communication versus advancing it. As i suggested before, in situations like this, which involve imperfect human beings, it’s going to be impossible to be completely consistent or to find a position that suits everyone.
As i said in my earlier posts, i completely recognize the legal right of private entities–whether individuals or corporations–to restrict freedom of expression in areas over which they have control. Those same entities often also appeal to their own free speech rights in other areas of discourse. While there is no legal contradiction in doing this, it seems to me that a belief in freedom of expression as a worthy principle underlying a democratic society is only really laudable if it extends beyond the area of government control.
Now, i’m going to be completely honest here and say that i would find it impossible to be completely consistent on this point. For example, if someone came into my house and started making derogatory comments about “niggers” and “fags” and “towel-heads,” or whatever, that person would be shown the door in very short order. I would support that person’s right to spew such crap (i oppose hate speech and hate crime legislation, in general), but would not be willing to provide a platform for it in my house. But here’s where the analogy with Moore’s movie might become apparent: I would not try to stop someone else from allowing that person into his or her house to say the same thing. While i’m happy to exercise my own right not to listen to sutff that i don’t like, i’m not especially interested in restricting other people’s access to the same stuff.
On a slightly more mundane level: I subscribe to The Nation, which is, as you might be aware, a left/liberal weekly magazine. Some time ago there was a furore within the letters pages of the magazine, because it had accepted back page advertisements from “Fair and Balanced” Fox News. Many Nation readers were horrified that a liberal journal would sell space to the rabid conservatives of Fox. I agreed with the editors’ position, however, which was essentially that they would accept ads as long as the person was willing to pay, and as long as the ads themselves broke no laws. The editors argued that the ads would not stop The Nation from publishing stories critical of Fox News, and that the magazine’s subscribers were intelligent enough to make up their own minds over whether Fox News is “fair and balanced.” If companies like CBS had adopted a similarly open-minded attitude, we might have seen the MoveOn.org ads on network TV during the Super Bowl.
Wuss you are. Need schooling, you do. Feed you lines straight up I did. Learned nothing, you have.
Enjoy,
Steven
C’mon, telling someone they write worse than Lucas? That’s pretty harsh.
Dear Sen. Clinton,
“I don’t like sand. It’s coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere. Not like here. Here everything is soft and smooth.”
I rest my case. Please use all your senatorial powers to prevent this monster from writing again.
Still not a crackpot,
Dewey
If I were marketing this movie, I would have this on all the advertisements:
“A really brilliant piece of work” - Fox News
or
“A tribute to patriotism” - Fox News
Then I would run those ads on FNC.
Yeah, isn’t that fucking hysterical?
And in related news, Roger Friedman has been abruptly fired from Fox News for failing to comply with corporate directives to smear monkey feces on Michael Moore and his works at every opportunity. “He never really fit in,” Fox spokeswoman Tiffy Airhead told reporters. “We just knew he was a closet subversive from day 1, and this proves it.”
You know, that wouldn’t really surprise me at all. Though I imagine it’d go more like, "Friedman has decided to leave FoxNews to explore other avenues in that demonic world of hollyweird
Remember all the fracas with The Passion? While FoxNews was rah-rah-rahing the film, er, I mean, covering the story, Friedman bashed the hell out of it. Oddly, few of the entertainment journalists at his network called him on this, even though they did take numerous other critics to task for doing the exact same thing.
Anyway, at the very least, they should hire someone really loud and right-wing to “balance” out the obvious liberal bias. Right?
You claimed to care whether this monster is allowed to write or not. You said stopping him overrides your own personal views of free speech and you would stop him if you could. The most eloquent support for your position you have managed to come up with so far is a bad parody of Grandpa Simpson. Color me unmoved. Shall we poll the audience and see if they are swayed to your point of view by your eloquence? Or do you recant your original position and admit you really don’t care if he writes and makes movies any more as long as you aren’t forced to watch them?
Enjoy,
Steven
I’ve often wondered if smilies are really necessary. SInce this board is generally pretty intelligent and saavy and capable of recognizing sarcasm and parody, it could be argued that its members ought not need little cartoon figures as crutches to determine meaning.
Well, now I have my answer.
Fair enough. I’ll use smilies in the future to avoid confusing you.
Enjoy,
Steven
I emailed that idea to Moore and his website. I hope they use it - if they didn’t already have plans to do so.
/tips hat
Brutus said:
Are these the good guys who lied to get us into an ill considered war in Iraq?
Are these the good guys who are blocking stem-cell research in the USA?
Are these the good guys who systematically alienated almost ever ally we had?
Are these the good guys who cut off funding to any medical clinic outside the USA if they so much as talked about abortion, thereby depriving large numbers of people of the only medical care they had?
Are these the good guys who want to ammend the constitution of the USA in order to officially decree a set of citizens be forever second class?
Are these the good guys who want to implement a multi-billion dollar anti-missile system that isn’t needed, doesn’t work and probably never will?
Are these the good guys who (apparently) authorized the use of torture in direct contravention of all the rules?
Are these the good guys who have the country in such a deficit condition that we might never recover?
Or did you mean another set of good guys?
Here’s how I foresee it falling into place:
Moore loves my idea and implements it on a grand scale. Fox News, having not learned their lesson from the Franken-O’Reilly lawsuit, immediately files an injunction. A District Court judge throws out the suit, but the story is picked up by every major media company. Conservatives throw more gasoline on the fire, blasting Moore and the movie at every chance they get. The controversy erupts, causing F911 to gross more than $80 million its first weekend. Over the next two months, F911 does $250 million at the box office. The movie, and the accompanying coverage of the content therein, immediately sways the election to Kerry who wins by a landslide with 85% of the popular vote (but still loses Texas).
Kerry brings Moore to a dinner to privately congratulate him on the movie’s success and notes that it really helped him during the election. Moore accepts his gratitude, but notes that the movie would not have been as successful without the suit and that the real thanks belongs to cmason32. Kerry asks to meet me and, during the meeting, realizes how brilliant I am and immediately nominates me for the Supreme Court vacancy. Republicans, still embarassed about the recent revelations about the Jeb Bush, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas homosexual love-triangle, offer no resistance to my nomination.
I therefore serve for 12 years until President Hillary Clinton sees fit to nominate me for Chief Justice. After a few years, I finally get the case wherein I hold that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is now the Supreme Overlord of the United Nations (the US having been dissolved during Hillary’s term). As Supreme Overlord of the United Nations, I institute a law requring daily prayer in my name and a tax upon all Christians & pagans. Medical breakthroughs allow me to live for 400 years, and thus began Pax cmason32.
Who knows man, stranger things have happened. 
You mean like the left-wingers who did everything possible to keep Mel Gibson’s "Passion of the Christ " from being distributed? Who called it anti-semitic without ever seeing it?
Yes, exactly like them.
What’s your point?