I did nothing of the sort. I was describing how Michael Moore applies techniques that cause people to think something that isn’t true. You ascribed motives to me that didn’t exist, and you continue to.
I’ve already given you examples of how people can be fooled with half-truths and mischaracterizations. You know, it’s not like Republicans are immune to this. In a world where Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck make their reputations on it, it would be disingenuous for me to claim otherwise. Yet this, this little point, is what you choose to brace me over? Had you not said anything at all other than you disagree it would all have blown over, but instead you took to the insult. And for what? Is it so impossible to believe that Democrats/liberals can be fooled by people pushing an agenda? There’s a reason why we have gun-related arguments over and over again with endless repetition of incorrect assertions, mischaracterizations and outright insults. I trust I need not cite those.
My apologies for the error with regard to your sex. As for the rest, I think I’ve addressed those points fully and I see no further need to continue to beat them into the ground. It was my observation and my opinion, and you are welcome to disagree.
So… *What *is it causing them to think, exactly, if not that there was no paperwork involved? You have a whole bunch of people telling you that it *was not *eliminated to suggest that there wasn’t any, and that they *didn’t think *that there was no paperwork, and yet you cling to this idea that it was Moore’s intent to deceive (in this particular instance), rather than that the paperwork *could be assumed *and was irrelevant to the point he was trying to make.
Again, I ask you for *any citations at all *that *anyone *but you is getting the same impression about that scene.
Moore *does *pull stupid, manipulative bullshit, but I’m just saying this is a terrible example of it, and your biases are showing.
No worries–it happens all the time. I’m an abrasive person with a gender-neutral username.
I kind of think Doors’ objection to the particular scene is the same one experts often make when watching movies, though admittedly usually fictional ones rather than documentaries. That is, they omit or gloss over some things that wouldn’t be in reality, doing so in the name of making a more entertaining film. For instance, I know the seemingly-random promotions and officer assignments in the newest Star Trek don’t sit well with folks, and the number one complaint of police officers about cop shows is they never show the paperwork that goes with the job. Plus of course all the endless science facts that get ignored in the name of good drama.
Doors is a strong gun advocate, and so Moore walking in and seemingly right back out with a gun stands out to him strongly because that just does not happen in reality, whereas those of us who don’t involve ourselves with firearms don’t notice and/or don’t care very much, just like those of us who watch cop shows can see a suspect in handcuffs one minute and walking free out of the station the next without demanding to know if the proper procedures were followed. We just assume they were, otherwise the suspect would not now be walking free, right?
Of course, the fact that Moore’s film is ostensibly not fiction muddies the water, but he’s still trying to tell a story. He judged the paperwork to be irrelevant to the point he was trying to make and so edited it out.
I’m engaging in a bit of armchair psychology here and possibly putting words in mouths, but does that sound reasonable to anyone else?
Do you actually understand how a CD works, and what is meant by “giving up all interest”? It isn’t the same as maintaining a minimum deposit. Not even close.
Hey, if you’re such a fan of Moore you should at least agree that comparing him to O’Keefe is just too silly. It’s like those people who say “Jesus was my favorite philosopher” as though that was supposed to pad out his credentials. I mean, I like philosophers, but that’s a serious downgrade from God Made Flesh.
You got me there. Your boldly qualified support has been duly noted.
If your dog behaved that way, you’d consider it a virtue, and you probably wouldn’t even let him shit on the carpet. Limbaugh encourages his cohort to shit wherever they please. Now don’t you feel like an asshole?
I can remember a time when conservatives used to boast about how unlike the liberals, they didn’t have any litmus tests. Everyone was entitled to his own conscience (back then, they did in fact mean ‘his’). You didn’t have to believe the whole program to be welcome, whereas among liberals you couldn’t be pro-labor unless you also gave a shit about the Mississippi Stump Toad and saw it as all tied into the plight of women of color. I was there back then, I witnessed the howls of the pod people when they discovered there was an unconverted among them. Now look what you’ve got. Diversity in your ranks. Questioning your own demagogues.
Meanwhile, the conservatives have united. What they hated about the liberals in the 90’s they have become in the new millennium – exclusionary, cynical of meritocracy, constantly decrying their victim status even in victory, always pushing their social engineering agenda in the public schools, relying on judicial activism to achieve what they couldn’t through the democratic process. They learned from you, pinko. Why haven’t you learned from them?
You might have a point. Since he’s not always lying his ass off to the very people who look to him to bring the truth down from the mountain, he should be exonerated in full. It’s my fault for having so little mercy in me.
Absolutely not! I’d be an inveterate attention slut myself except that so many things kept turning out, on examination, to be more important than me.
I will ask you two questions:
(1) What do you think the “consensus” view among SDMB liberals of Moore is?
(2) Do you think that O’Keefe and Moore are truly in any way meaningfully comparable?
In any case, a few points about Moore:
-As others have said, I wish he would cut out the deceptive editing, because it’s not needed and it weakens his point. That said, given the extent to which his movies are examined microscopically for errors by the right wing blogosphere, it’s definitely telling that what comes out is just deceptive editing whose level of dishonesty is debatable, as opposed to outright lies or fabrications.
-I saw F911. And it is not a movie which makes an argument for gun control. A lot of the responses to it make that assumption, and argue against it in that context. That is, they say something like “F911 is making an argument for gun control. And F911 says X. And X doesn’t really support an argument for gun control. Therefore, F911 is arguing dishonestly”. But it’s not arguing dishonestly, because it’s not really arguing for a particular point at all. It’s raising some points about the culture of fear in the US, and it’s certainly not a big fan of the NRA, but it is not saying “pistols should be outlawed”.
-The most lasting point any Moore film has left on me was the health care movie (Sicko?). And the point it made was not “we need socialized medicine” or “the US is a bunch of morons”. It was simply “hey, you know how health care works? The way it’s always worked? The way you get your insurance through your job, and if you lose your job you have to go on COBRA, etc etc? Well, it doesn’t have to be that way”. Granted, that may seem like a fairly obvious point, but I had just never really thought about it, and the movie did a very good job of bringing that point home to me.
-All that said, I’ve heard enough anecdotes like the one involving the book signing mentioned earlier to conclude that Moore himself is at least a bit of a douchebag.
If I must maintain a minimum amount in my chequing account, I am therefore foregoing any interest that I may earn on that minimum amount if I had, for example, been able to put it into a term deposit. My “free” checking account therefore has cost me money. I have given up interest payments.
Opportunity cost is not the same thing as actual cost. When you open a free checking account, you get services in return for putting money in that account. They are the same services that you would receive had the bank charged you for the account (which is not uncommon). The word “free” in that scenario has meaning.
In the gun-for-interest scenario, someone is foregoing approximately $550-650 (probably more, actually) of cash (that is above and beyond the original amount deposited in the CD) in exchange for a gun. That is not a free gun, in any sense of the word. I’ve never even heard of such an exchange, for a gun or anything else. That is why the gun was not advertised as “free” by the bank. It was advertised as “instant interest”.
The two scenarios aren’t in the same ballpark, at all.
When we bring up a conservative lying hack like Okeefe, a certain board member defends him by saying Moore does the same thing. It is stupid. This guy is supposed to be a lawyer. I guess if he were defending a murderer he would bring OJ into the case as proof.
But Moore is a very successful documentarian. Okeefe can not be compared to him at all. It is another diversionary tactic by a guy who should know better. It is basic Showdanizing and unacceptable as a mature and logical argument.
When MM made a name for himself in the mid-to-late 90s with Roger and Me and TV Nation he was one of a tiny handful of progressive voices out there. The right, of course, had Rush Limbaugh and talk radio to stir up the rank and file. Clinton’s scandals had everyone running away from him, which oddly translated into running away from the left, even though Clinton was no such thing. So all we had left to push the progressive viewpoint were highbrow sources like The Nation and Michael Moore.
That was still true when he made Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11. It really is hard to imagine in retrospect how rare it was to see anything in the mainstream that was critical of Bush or the right between 2002 and 2005. The blogosphere was starting to take shape, but the mainstream was barely aware of it. To hear that progressive, anti-Bush, emperor-has-no-clothes view we had to line up and buy tickets for a bloated, scattered documentary like F9/11.
So even though Moore’s flaws were more than apparent at the time, he was really all we had.
Since then it has become a new ball game. Everyone has access to thousands of people writing informed and thoughtful pieces from every political perspective imaginable. Political documentaries every bit as good as BfC or F911 (IMO) are uploaded to YouTube every single day.
And what did that do to Michael Moore? His stock has dropped like BP’s. Sicko made a bit of a splash since the topic of health care was simmering under the surface at the time, but it had nothing like the impact of his previous films. And quick, off the top of your head, can you name the last movie he made? I can’t. Moore has lost his cache because there are more rigorous, more informative, and more honest progressive sources these days.
Meanwhile, the influence of Rush Limbaugh has only increased as (presumably) better options have emerged, and hacks like O’Keefe can still find plenty of love among the right.
To be clear - I don’t find any fault with the scene in Bowling for Columbine being discussed. It includes all the necessary elements to make the point that Moore is trying to make there - namely that at one point, a bank was giving guns to its customers. The details of the bureaucracy about how they get it is extraneous to that point.
The fact that you find nothing unusual about that fact strengthens Moore’s point.
If you choose to see things that way, that’s on you. In truth most people are not looking for him to ‘bring the truth down from the mountain’. He’s looking to entertain people and maybe make them think about a couple of things from a different viewpoint. That’s it. My understanding is that he hasn’t claimed otherwise.
It’s entertainment. To Kill A Mockingbird was an entertaining movie, which made people think about things, lots of movies do the same.
It’s a movie, not a thesis. He’s an entertainer not a researcher.
I have to assume you’re new to this debate, because you don’t seem to realize that is exactly the rationalization Rush Limbaugh uses when he gets caught being full of shit. Or do you think that’s different somehow?
How many times we got to say it? Those of us lefties who get pissed at MM get pissed because he exaggerates a truth that does not need exaggeration. Is that functionally and morally superior to a guy who lies his ass off damn near every day? Hugh Betcha!
Michael Moore movies have evolved from" Roger and Me “onward. In Roger ,he was in a town that was gutted by the company store moving. (GM). His hometown became a mess. So he took it a bit personally.
But “Sicko” and Capitalism” have shown to many the alternatives ,that get no press in America. It also demonstrates the failures and flaws of the American systems . He has done a service. You will also note, the movies do not get on mainline TV.
Okeefe brings nothing.
