The difference is that Moore backs up his claims with cites.
Where is the well-reasoned criticism? I have yet to see much. The OP is actually pretty solid, but I was responding to Clothahump’s post. If that’s your version of well-reasoned criticism, then Houston, we got troubles up in here. Your earlier post (which I wasn’t responding to anyway) basically boiled it down to “he’s really popular and it bugs me! Michael Moore fans are just sheep! Sheep, I tells ya!”
Note that I didn’t say that about people who are “opposed” to his work - and like I said, while I enjoy it, I don’t exactly consider it the height of analytical reasoning or incisiveness. But I just pointed out that there’s often a serious lack of justification for opinions on the guy. I didn’t say everyone who hates it was a sheep, I just said that they don’t seem to justify their opinions when we talk about him here on the SDMB. I respect others’ rights to disagree, and if someone wants to hate the guy because of his political views, that’s fine too. In fact, I think the culture of political independence and proclaiming one’s nonconformity to the “party line” is really frickin’ silly. That said, what Cloth posted on him didn’t say anything except, basically, “no he’s not! He’s not satyrical or funny at all!” You can have that conclusion if you like, and I wouldn’t necessarily challenge it if it came with an explanation. But here on the SDMB, it doesn’t usually, and even the liberals seem to be caught up in condemnation of him without providing any evidence or reasoning to support their view.
Use this. Others have done it to death, much more eloquently than I could.
Actually, I said nothing of the sort. I was venting my frustration about people who “parrot what he says without attempting the slightest bit of critical thought, and will not hear of any dissention.” The same point I expanded on in response to your post.
While I agree that this is true among people who don’t like Moore, it’s just as true among people who defend him. Tuning out the other side is a pretty shitty argument, no matter what side or what topic.
I can rail against Michael Moore all I want, but he has money and clout. As said above, I think he has his heart in the right place, but not his mind. What really bothers me about the whole thing is that so many people will blindly parrot everything he says as gospel, just like so many people parrot everything Mr. Bush says as gospel. I’d expect that of people on the other side of the fence as I, but when my own side is stooping to such a remedial level of debate, it really pisses me off.
I agree that Clout’s post is pretty useless as far as fighting ignorance goes, but I’ve seen detailed explantions of where Moore is wrong, why Moore is wrong, and how Moore is wrong in his arguments, and a good portion of the rebuttal is something like, “you just hate Michael Moore, so I’ll ignore your points,” or worse, “but he means well!”
Do you see the difference? If someone clearly has thought about what Moore says and considered and still defends him, fine. But if I ask “why,” and the response is, “I don’t know, but Bush is a poo-head” then I get pissed because these people are the face for the left, and that leaves something to be desired for me, as a member of the left.
Since we’re playing fast and loose with the definition of “cites”, I think Pat Robertson could offer some cites too: http://www.cbnindia.org/200Questions/
Then you should be able to actually point to something more substantial than the Search function. Or quickly summarize which, to you, have been the most salient points upon which Moore has been wrong.
quote]While I agree that this is true among people who don’t like Moore, it’s just as true among people who defend him.
[/quote]
Cite?
What really ought to bother you is that so many people will blindly parrot what someone else says, and refuse to explore their factuality.
As already asked, Cite?
If you want to read decent leftist books with a multitude of cites and decent, valid commentary, put down the Michael “bubblegum for the mind” Moore books and look up guys like John Pilger, William Blum, Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky. You may still disagree with their conclusions but the writing will be fluid, the research impeccable and the cites will be superbly researched to back up all the claims.
Go on, you owe it to yourself……
No, no, no, they wanted to teach the world to sing. Then they wanted to buy the world a Coke. Just one. For all 12 billion people in the whole world. We were supposed to share it.
Cheap bastards.
Michael Moore is one of those people—like Madalyn Murray O’Hair—who make me wish they weren’t on “my side.” Have you seen his latest book, Will They Ever Trust Us Again?, gut-wrenching letters from soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan? The cover, of course, features a GREAT BIG CLOSE-UP OF MICHAEL MOORE, because that’s who this is all about!
My I use this as my sig? Hehehe…
Dear, it’s a dust jacket, you can just take it off. 
(And a cover with a great big close-up of Michael Moore is half as stomach-churning as a cover with a great big close-up of Ann Coulter, She-Wolf of the SS…)