quote: But if you are concerned at all about personal freedoms that extend beyond the economic, and don't want the religious right to cram their nauseatingly parochial beliefs down everyone's throat and control every aspect of people's lives, your loyalties should lie elsewhere.
WHAT??? Are you saying that conservatives are the only ones who are religious fanatics?
That's ridiculous. No matter what party you vote for, there will always be religious fanatics of that party.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was hoping this would be Alan Moore, instead of Michael. I'd choose Alan any day of the week.
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:TomDavidson said: The problem with that approach is that part of being a liberal is, in effect, being reasonable -- being able to see the other side, and being willing and even eager to understand it. (Note: there are people who call themselves liberals who are just as audacious in their orthodoxy as people who call themselves conservatives; IMO, these people are just conservatives who've chosen to bat for the other team, for whatever reason.)
You cannot make this statement and pretend to be reasonable and see the other side, since you are saying that the other side is not reasonable. Which means you are not seeing the other side.
So are you audacious in your liberal orthodoxy or are you a conservative?
posted
"You cannot make this statement and pretend to be reasonable and see the other side, since you are saying that the other side is not reasonable."
Ah. Is it unreasonable to say that the other side isn't reasonable? I can certainly understand WHY the other side isn't reasonable, but being reasonable does NOT necessarily mean believing that the other side is RIGHT. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe being conservative means you are no longer as open. I know many conservatives that were very open, very liberal once, and then used life experiences to make decisions that make sense to them. You can't accuse them of not being reasonable. Being reasonable does not mean ignoring your experience and making every decision anew every time action is called for.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"and don't want the religious right to cram their nauseatingly parochial beliefs down everyone's throat and control every aspect of people's lives, your loyalties should lie elsewhere."
I assume that calling others' beliefs "nauseatingly parochial" is an example of the reasonableness mentioned all too often on this thread.
Posts: 285 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure, I could join the Democrats. I wouldn't get Christianity shoved down my throat, just the religion of tolerance and environment-worship.
Both sides have their own religious agendas. The main difference is that the conservatives' religion is more obviously a religion and less popular with the general American public than the liberals' religion. (I use "liberal" and "conservative" in the modern sense, not the classical sense.)
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Going back to Michael Moore for a minute....
I liked Bowling for Columbine. I know it wasn't an impartial documentary, but then I don't think it ever claimed to be. I think it illustrated a lot of foreign and domestic US Policy that has been at best dangerously irresponsible and at worst just plain dangerous.
quote: We are a strong and powerful country and some people see this as a fault.
I think the point is not so much that the fact the US is strong and powerful is at issue. Rather this is what makes its actions so open to scrutiny. My country does lots of idiotic things. However, we don't have the economic, political or military might to make much of an effect on other countries. It is because the US is 'a world leader' and so strong that criticism is both desirable and necessary.
I read Stupid White Men - while I know Michael Moore likes a good rant, he also had some good points.
One more thing: in his latest book he states that most Americans aren't like the people he complains about. Most Americans are educated, and smart. Most Americans are 'liberal' in their veiws towards welfare, healthcare and education, though not politically 'liberal'. (You can still be a republican and think public education is a good thing... )
I think the point is America is currently under a regime that, whether you agree with or not, has bombed two countries (and hasn't found what it was looking for in either) and managed to get a lot of the rest of the world offside. Further, gun violence rates are much much higher in the US than anywhere else.
I think what Michael Moore is doing is questioning these aspects of American society and politics. If you can answer him with reason and logic, then well and good.
If all his critics do is laugh at his weight and call him un-American, then I think they're kinda illustrating his point.
posted
"Being reasonable does not mean ignoring your experience and making every decision anew every time action is called for."
Ah. You must be assuming that I said all conservatives are unreasonable; I did not. I said, however, that being reasonable is a tenet of genuine liberalism.
A conservative who is reasonable is more liberal than a conservative who is unreasonable.
A liberal who is reasonable, however, is MORE liberal than a liberal who is unreasonable.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: If all his critics do is laugh at his weight and call him un-American, then I think they're kinda illustrating his point.
That's not all they do. They point out all the major mistakes in his film. All the captioned portions for example, those were all wrong.
His critics pointed out that he is overweight when he calls America a gluttonous country to point out his hypocrisy.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Ah. You must be assuming that I said all conservatives are unreasonable; I did not. I said, however, that being reasonable is a tenet of genuine liberalism.
A conservative who is reasonable is more liberal than a conservative who is unreasonable.
A liberal who is reasonable, however, is MORE liberal than a liberal who is unreasonable.
But Tom, isn't that unreasonable? Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nick, I'm curious - do you mean the bits about CIA involvement in other countries?
I had previously done a lot of work on US Foreign Policy, and there have been clear instances of where the CIA has deposed a (sometimes democratically elected) leader with disasterous results for the civilian population. The cases of Iran and Nicaragua are well documented and were both brought before the International Court of Justice.
I got the whole why-it's-funny-Moore-is-fat-because-he-says-we-should-consume-less-and-look-how-much-he-must-eat.
I think it's petty. I could keep on going but i really don't think its worth it.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think it's petty. I could keep on going but i really don't think its worth it.
Petty but valid.
About the CIA bit. Some of the events as described in the film did happen, but much of it can be directly blamed by the United States.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it's valid. By that reasoning Bush has no right to speak on anything to do with drink-driving, as he was arrested for DUI.
Nor can he be qualified to talk on poverty, as he has a personal fortune of over $20million.
(I think the above two points are spurious. But I think they make as much sense as saying Michael Moore is a hypocrite because he's fat).
quote: much of it can be directly blamed by the United States.
I presume you meant to add a 'not' in there. in situations like in Iran and Nicaragua, the USA directly trained, supplied and armed contra groups. They directed their movements, and gave them intelligence. If it had not been for the CIA's involvements, these groups (which did not have majority support) would never have been in a position of power or influence.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I presume you meant to add a 'not' in there. in situations like in Iran and Nicaragua, the USA directly trained, supplied and armed contra groups. They directed their movements, and gave them intelligence. If it had not been for the CIA's involvements, these groups (which did not have majority support) would never have been in a position of power or influence.
Prove it. Am I supposed to take your word on it?
I don't like President Bush very much, so if you are trying to hit me where you think my loyalties lie, you failed.
Let me understand something here. Michael Moore criticizes America for being gluttonous, yet he would have to be gluttonous to be as obese as he is. That's hypocritical by definition. You're saying that that DOESN'T make sense?
Actually, I want to talk about the Bush thing real quick:
quote: I don't think it's valid. By that reasoning Bush has no right to speak on anything to do with drink-driving, as he was arrested for DUI.
Actually, people who have driven drunk and have since changed their ways can be influential. I'm not saying Bush has, but saying that kind of makes what you said pointless.
quote:Nor can he be qualified to talk on poverty, as he has a personal fortune of over $20million.
So because he has money, his opinion no longer matters? Name one politician that DOESN'T have at least $1,000,000.00. Since you can't, and we have a representative democracy, who IS qualified to speak about poverty? Nobody if you're the judge.
[ November 18, 2003, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
The Republican party is the home of the religious right. This much isn't really debateable. It wasn't always this way, and it doesn't have to be, but it is now. If the thought of this group having power scares the bejesus out of you, like it does me, then I guess that means that the Republican party isn't an option come voting day. The religious right's agenda is just too dangerous for people who believe in freedom and equality for all.
And for the record, tolerance and respect for the environment are values, not a religion. People who hold these values also attempt to justify them by rational and empirical means rather than an appeal to faith not shared by all.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't trying to hit you anywhere. I was trying to point out that someone's personal history or attributes do not necessarily impact on their ability (or right) to speak on a subject.
Just because Michael Moore is obese does not mean America is not a gluttenous country.
(In response to your edit - yes, I agree. That was my point. My arguments are ridiculous. But they are based on the same reasoning as the MM is fat so a hypocrite argument)
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: [The ICJ] decides that the United States of America, by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the contra forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another State;
quote: the United States of America, by certain attacks on Nicaraguan territory in 1983-1984, namely attacks on Puerto Sandino on 13 September and 14 October 1983, an attack on Corinto on 10 October 1983; an attack on Potosi Naval Base on 4/5 January 1984, an attack on San Juan del Sur on 7 March 1984; attacks on patrol boats at Puerto Sandino on 28 and 30 March 1984; and an attack on San Juan del Norte on 9 April 1984; and further by those acts of intervention referred to in subparagraph (3) hereof which involve the use of force, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another State
Go here for the full judgment. The pleadings of USA aren't online, but as you'll see from the full judgment, America didn't deny they committed these acts. They just denied that it was illegal to do so.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nick, I said the religious right. They are a powerful force in the Republican party. This is not the case with the Democrats.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Just because Michael Moore is obese does not mean America is not a gluttenous country.
That's not what I said. Michael Moore stands up and says, "Don't be a glutton!" to the United States, and he himself is one, that IS hypocrisy. If President Bush said don't make speeches with really long pauses that don't convince anybody, then that IS hypocrisy.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [The ICJ] decides that the United States of America, by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the contra forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another State; --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- the United States of America, by certain attacks on Nicaraguan territory in 1983-1984, namely attacks on Puerto Sandino on 13 September and 14 October 1983, an attack on Corinto on 10 October 1983; an attack on Potosi Naval Base on 4/5 January 1984, an attack on San Juan del Sur on 7 March 1984; attacks on patrol boats at Puerto Sandino on 28 and 30 March 1984; and an attack on San Juan del Norte on 9 April 1984; and further by those acts of intervention referred to in subparagraph (3) hereof which involve the use of force, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another State --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go here for the full judgment. The pleadings of USA aren't online, but as you'll see from the full judgment, America didn't deny they committed these acts. They just denied that it was illegal to do so.
Where in there does it prove what Michael Moore's film claimed to be true?
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know the funny thing? The CIA even admit it all.
quote: CIA personnel became involved in building and maintaining the Contra forces. The Agency established a primary base of operations in Honduras. This base supported the FDN, led by Enrique Bermudez and Adolfo Calero. Airfields throughout the region were used to support Contra forces, and CIA personnel also trained Contra fighters and served as advisors to the leadership.
These are the contras that used violence (including sea mines) to overthrow a legitimate government. Pretty clear case of interference by the CIA - and I thought that's what MM was arguing. (or at least, it's what I was arguing )
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I can offer you proof for what I know to be true (how's that for tautological) about CIA interference, especially in Iran and Nicaragua. I had thought that was the point for a lot of the sub-titled section on the CIA.
There is also proof available for the stuff on US supplying weapons to Iraq and Afgahnistan.
As for the rest of MM's arguments - tempted though I am to go on a trawl for all the proof I can find, I really don't have the time.
Overall though I would believe most of what MM claims. He does his homework - in his latest book (Dude, Where's my Country) every fact he states is footnoted.
I would be quite interested to see the proof of those groups who claim his statistics and information of American foreign policy is erroneous.
(I should add: I'm not arguing that MM didn't set out with an objective when making Bowling for Columbine. I can concede that he may well have edited interveiws so they came accross as he wanted. However this is very different than arguing that he was wrong in the facts he portrayed)
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
First off, I'm not here to defend Moore. I don't like him, I don't like his style, and I think he is a self-promoting ignoramus.
But...I am really offended by the "fat" comments. Being fat does not make one stupid; it does not make one ugly; and, this is important now, it does not mean that one necessarily overconsumes. Different people have different metabolisms. So, you know, don't make assumptions that you don't know to be true. It's like saying that someone "obviously" reads a lot, just because he or she wears glasses, or that they "must" play basketball, just because they are tall.
posted
Thanks littlemissattitude, I completely agree.
I was going to say earlier that being obese may be in some cases be as a result of overconsumption but not gluttony. People eat for many reasons, mostly emotional or pyschology. It is very rare that people over eat because they are greedy.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem is: my cousin is a pedagogy major. She's studying the science of teaching. She told me yesterday that 4 of her teachers told her to watch "Bowling for Columbine", as "the movie depicts accurately the flaws in American society".
Hey...I'm not a suck-up or anything. I'm proud of my country and I'd like to live here my whole life. It's just that I would feel the same if people were kicking me or my country around as they're doing with U.S. right now (do you believe an U.S. flag were burnt four blocks from my house, in front of an old lady's home - she happends to be American, but she lives in Brazil for 16 years!)
Eduardo, I only wish that everyone had your attitude.
It’s chilling that someone would do that to an elderly lady. Wouldn’t those same people be outraged if someone in the US burned a Brazilian flag in front of an elderly Brazilian lady’s house?
I can understand that people are affected by movies, but to judge the entire society by one documentary is just foolish. I am surprised that educated people would do so. Would these people, who are so quick to judge American society, want me to judge Brazilian society based on the way the Vargas government protected the Nazis after WWII? Would they want me to say that Brazilian society is anti-Semitic because many art dealers are refusing to cooperate with investigations into the suspect origins of their masterpieces? I would never do that. It would be ignorant of me, especially in light of former President Cardoso’s commission for the search of Nazi monies in Brazil.
quote: But...I am really offended by the "fat" comments. Being fat does not make one stupid; it does not make one ugly; and, this is important now, it does not mean that one necessarily overconsumes. Different people have different metabolisms. So, you know, don't make assumptions that you don't know to be true. It's like saying that someone "obviously" reads a lot, just because he or she wears glasses, or that they "must" play basketball, just because they are tall.
True, but I was just being cynical for the sake of showing how biased that film was. That's all. I never said anything about his weight making him stupid or ugly. I'm not a stereotypical person.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I can concede that he may well have edited interveiws so they came accross as he wanted. However this is very different than arguing that he was wrong in the facts he portrayed
yeah, cause his creative editing didn't change any meanings...
MM quotes imogen:
quote: he may well have edited interveiws so they came accross very different
he was wrong in the facts he portrayed
Look, I took two things you said, edited them together and voila, you now agree with Nick.,,
quote: . I know it wasn't an impartial documentary, but then I don't think it ever claimed to be.
A documentary, by definition, is supposed to be a work of non-fiction. Moores 'creative editing' made it a work of fiction. It's not that it wasn't impartial, it wasn't a documentary.
posted
Imogen, don't forget the US/CIA support for the 1973 Allende coup in Argentine. It is well-documented, as is US involvement with Nicaraguan contras, Iran, and arming the mujahadeen in Afghanistan (including our old buddy Osama Bin Laden.) . psuedo-random Allende link Tough noogies if the above is not covered in the film, all of these examples support Moore's theme of fear driving American policy, or at least being a factor.
quote:Michael Moore stands up and says, "Don't be a glutton!" to the United States, and he himself is one, that IS hypocrisy
Nick. The original Tough Crowd one-liner is funny (speaking as an overweight person.) But that's all it is--a funny one-liner.
glutton.(from M-W online) 1 a : one given habitually to greedy and voracious eating and drinking b : one that has a great capacity for accepting or enduring something
obesity= morbidly overweight.
As littlemisscool rightly pointed out, obesity and gluttony are 2 different things, though sometimes related. Lack of exercise is at least as big a cause of America's obesity (and possibly Moore's) weight problems as gluttony. I feel Moore was speaking to a larger point: America has less than 5% of world population yet consumes (gluttonously) more than 20% of world resources.
I am overweight, and I claim as a fact that America is the fattest country on Earth. Am I a hypocrite?
Robespierre, allow me to say that my opinion of you has risen. While I disagree with the philosophies of Objectivism (I believe you said a few weeks ago you support some ideals of Objectivism but don't consider yourself an Objectivist) and strict laissez-faire capitalism, your arguments support them well. Bravo. You appear to be a political independant, which the US needs more of.
posted
It is a well-known fact that Christian fundamentalists have had increasing power in the Republican party over the last 25 years.
Since 1990, many commentators have seen outright domination of the party by religious fundamentalists, in both the national party and the state parties. Many state parties have essentially been taken over by fundamentalists.
"The religion of tolerance and environment-worship" (Shigosei) is a far cry from a real religion, although the PC crowd does have laughable excesses.
I suppose you have to pick your poison. Better tolerance and respect for the environment than intolerance and contempt for the environment, IMHO.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
I can understand that people are affected by movies, but to judge the entire society by one documentary is just foolish. I am surprised that educated people would do so. Would these people, who are so quick to judge American society, want me to judge Brazilian society based on the way the Vargas government protected the Nazis after WWII? Would they want me to say that Brazilian society is anti-Semitic because many art dealers are refusing to cooperate with investigations into the suspect origins of their masterpieces? I would never do that. It would be ignorant of me, especially in light of former President Cardoso’s commission for the search of Nazi monies in Brazil.
_______________________________________________
Mr. M. First of all, I'd like to praise you for being so knowlegeable about Brazil. Most brazilians did not pay such attention to local history. To tell you the truth, many people over here still praise Getulio Vargas, who was a bloody dictator who ruled for 15 years (being the man who held power for the longes time in brazilian history), flirted with the Nazis, showed support for the Allies only when war was preety much won, retired as a life-long Senator and came back as President (voted on democratic elections!) some years later and commited suicide during his mandate. We hear a lot "President Cardoso was a liberal lackey! We should have people like Vargas, or the military back in power (we also had a bloody military dictatorship from 1964 to 1984. Vargas was tame, compared to them)". I mean...you are lucky. Here, we fear right wing because it means blood on the streets. American money supported the military dictatorship, but I guess there were different times and America already reaped the grim harvest for things like that (as Nicaragua, etc.) My whole point creating this thread is: your country is great! Mine too! Everybody who lovestheir country could say the same, I guess. They don't, not anymore. I'm not suggesting to "sweep bad things under the carpet". I think such things must be exposed and discussed. The problem is: there are people making whole careers, these days, as post-moderns doomsayers. They are voted, elected, write books, make movies, win prizes...always telling "the truth"; "The country (Brazil, U.S., England...name it) has gone downhill!" "We were great in the past, but not anymore!" These people do not want things to improve. If things do improve, they would loose everything (elections, career, budget, etc.). That's what I'm talking about. Sorry if my reasoning seems a little simplistic. Unfortunatelly my english is not good enough to make my point.
Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The problem is: there are people making whole careers, these days, as post-moderns doomsayers. They are voted, elected, write books, make movies, win prizes...always telling "the truth"; "The country (Brazil, U.S., England...name it) has gone downhill!" "We were great in the past, but not anymore!"
Ah, Eduardo, if that was your point, you could have chosen a better example than Michael Moore! What you described is the running theme of every single religious fundamentalist and conservative commentator that I can think of. Of course, it is also the theme of every liberal commentator I can think of, except for the part of “we were great in the past.” (Liberals tend to think we stunk in the past, too, not just now. )
I fear it is just part of human nature. We all tend to pay attention to the bad news that threaten us in the immediate future. So that’s where the money is.
Posts: 2473 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Here, we fear right wing because it means blood on the streets. American money supported the military dictatorship. . .
Eduardo. Sorry to hear that, both your people's fear and American support for military dictatorship--it was unfortunately common practice during the Cold War for us to support right-wing governments because they fought the left, and communists. Hopefully, American foreign policy in the 21st century will be more nuanced and respectful of human rights. Not under Bush though--he has a lamentable and regrettable tendancy to see things in black-and-white, us-or-them, "You're either with us or against us!" (direct Bush quote) terms. I doubt if Bush knows what "nuanced" means.
quote: My whole point creating this thread is: your country is great! Mine too! Everybody who lovestheir country could say the same, I guess. They don't, not anymore. I'm not suggesting to "sweep bad things under the carpet". I think such things must be exposed and discussed.
Eduardo. I agree with this, especially the statement in bold. I love America, it is a great country. Yet I fear my government. The federal government grew exponentially in the 20th century, and stuff like the Patriot Acts I and II will deny future Americans their civil rights.
The US has already lost enormous credibility world-wide in the fight to champion human rights thanks to our unconstitutional detention without bail, charges, or proper legal representation of "enemy combatants", both citizen and non-citizen, in Guantanomo, Cuba. According to Amnesty Int'l and other human rights activists, dictators elsewhere are already using US tactics like these as rationalizations and justifications in their own own repressive schemes. The Supreme Court has just agreed to hear appeals concerning this, but no decision is likely for months.
Discussion of events and government actions is the essence of democracy. Unfortunately, too many Americans associate love of country with blind loyalty--"Love or leave it!!" is an all-too-common mantra.
The doomsayers are wrong-- things were not better in the past. The future can be better if everybody strives for it.
On a more positive note, I met a nice Brazilian girl yesterday. Any tips on macking in Portugese, Eduado?
"Macking" means to talk up, or cruise, or chat with a girl with the intention of getting a date or phone number or ...oh my God, there's actually a Macking Manual ?!?? Good Lord, this country is going to Hell in a handbasket.
posted
In America we fear the right because of their lame music and lack of fashion sense. I guess we should count our blessings. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ah. You must be assuming that I said all conservatives are unreasonable; I did not. I said, however, that being reasonable is a tenet of genuine liberalism.
A conservative who is reasonable is more liberal than a conservative who is unreasonable.
A liberal who is reasonable, however, is MORE liberal than a liberal who is unreasonable.
According to this:
Reasonable = Liberal Conservative = Not Liberal Not Liberal = Not Reasonable
So, when a liberal aquires a mini-van and becomes a conservative, is it because they have become less reasonable or because they have done their reasoning and come to a conclusion?
I don't think we are well-served by the linking reasonableness to the terms of liberal and conservative.
Conservatives prefer to stick to one MO, and liberals are open to considering and possibly implementing multiple MOs. In cases where one MO is the most useful solution, capable of producing the most happiness for the greatest amount of people and is able to withstand the stresses that will come, sticking to that MO is the most reasonable solution.
posted
Kat, I'm afraid you're trying to apply LINEAR logic, when really it's a matter of subsets -- you know, the old "all foozles are cranks, and some cranks are whatzits" bit.
Being reasonable is, in my opinion, an essential part of being liberal. It is possible to be conservative while still being reasonable, but it is NOT possible to be liberal -- as distinct from being leftist -- without being reasonable.
In other words, any given liberal -- again, as distinct from a leftist -- will be reasonable. Some people will call themselves liberals, but will in fact be conservatives. Some conservatives may in fact be reasonable, but are not REQUIRED to be.
I hold liberals to a much higher standard, since conservatism is really the "default" philosophy of the hindbrain.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you need to create new terms here, Tom, since (if I read you right) you could have a pro-abortion, environmentalist, pro-big government, pro-tax hike, anti-business, staunch Conservative.
This, I believe, would cause the immediate total destruction of the known universe. Posts: 2473 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The simple truth is that few people properly examine their own ideologies, and application of these labels is therefore pretty inconsistent.
That the term "liberal" has become synonymous with "panty-waisted, granola-eating, Ivory Tower pagan" is unfortunate, and no more accurate than the association of "conservative" with "warmongering, racist, big-business fuddy-duddy."
I'm fighting what I recognize is a losing battle to reclaim these terms in some sensible way, since they've become meaningless -- and even damagingly stereotyped -- in common usage. I blame the uncomfortable alliances that were used to forge the modern incarnations of the Republican and Democratic Parties.
posted
*takes a deep breath and breaks own rule about not getting involved in political threads*
quote: A documentary, by definition, is supposed to be a work of non-fiction. Moores 'creative editing' made it a work of fiction. It's not that it wasn't impartial, it wasn't a documentary.
J_M, A documentrary, by definition, is a film which documents a real event, or journey, or set of ideas. Objectivity or impartiality have nothing to do with it.
The very nature of film as a medium for revealing information is that you need to point a camera at something, and in doing so, you are immediately selecting some pieces of information for presenation to your audience - those which will support your position towards your subject -and excluding others, thus, right from the outset, even before any editing of the stock footage has taken place, there can be no such thing as objectivity in any documentary. Even the makers of a wildlife documentary, for example, must take a position towards their subjects, and this position will colour every aspect of the film; selection of shots, composition, soundtrack etc... All of this works against the notion of objectivity.
A documentary film, then, does not have to be objective per se, as this is impossible, but rather, is a 'document' which people may read and interpret in the light of their own experience.
If a film maker claims to be objective in their approach to the subject, then you are right to expect a more balanced (though still subjective) presentation of all arguments involved, however this is not necessarily intrinsic to defining a film as documentary. Moore, however, makes no pretence of being objective in his film; He is simply documenting his own opinions and objections to a number of issues in contemporary American Society. The amount of time he spends on camera himself or in voice over, suggests to me that this film is very clearly a document of his own positions on these issues, and as such, it is up to me as a viewer to 'read' the film, and make my own decisions on the information presented to me. I watched this film with no expectation of objectivity, because I did not feel that Moore was claiming to be objective.
I guess that what I'm saying is that I don't believe that it is possible to criticise the film on the basis that it was edited to remove impartiality, because I don't believe this is a valid basis for doco film criticism.
I'm not trying to be critical here, but think that a better basis for debating this topic would be to assess the validity of Moore's arguments based on fact, rather than based on the medium through which he presented them. Anyway, That's enough from me.
Posts: 466 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My beef with Bowling for Columbine is not that its editing was BIASED, but that its editing was at times deliberately misleading and/or obfuscating.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't disagree with you at all, Tom, my point is simply that it's the nature of the beast, and a film of that type should be read with its bias in mind; I don't know that it was edited to deliberately mislead, but it was certainly edited to lead the viewers down Moore's path; from there we make our own judgements.
All I really took issue with was the notion that its lack of objectivity disqualifies it from being regarded as a documentary of any value at all. It seems that much of the rebuttal in this thread has dealt with the ad hominum argument regarding Moore's weight, what precisely constitutes the notion of liberalism / conservatism in US politics, and general assertions that the facts of the film are wrong, but with very little actual detail on where and how.
That said, It's also ages since I saw the film, so I'm happy to stand corrected if I'm in error.
Posts: 466 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for political labels: Whig and Tory. Need I say moore?
Anyway, about Moore's film, what really got me was when he used deceptive editing to imply that the NRA went to Flint a few days after the shooting. It was really a 8 months later, and had nothing to do with the shooting. That isn't just "subjectivity," that's lying. Furthermore, Moore doesn't do a good job of fact checking, and many of his statements are just plain old wrong. That isn't mendacity so much as ignorance, on the other hand. What really got me was his constant use of inuendo and insinuation to argue for points he knew would never stand up to scrutiny if said outright. The whole method of that movie was flawed. All it shows is that a few anecdotes and a few people willing to make strong statements, but doesn't establish a general trends. By his methods, you could convincingly establish that America is beseiged by neo-Nazis, and that is what causes our violence. The only problem being, it simply isn't true.
In short, if you want information on violence in America, don't watch that film. If you do watch the film, check every fact before you reference it.
Posts: 285 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I doubt if Bush knows what "nuanced" means.![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
The federal government grew exponentially in the 20th century, and stuff like the Patriot Acts I and II will deny future Americans their civil rights.![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
