posted
Yes, Bristol Palin is now a public figure, but she became one only when she launched her own round of interviews, not when her mother did.
Her younger siblings definitely are not.
I know Letterman said he didn't realize it was Willow. I do doubt that - even I know it was Willow on the tour with her mom in New York City, before the joke. I have a hard time believing that the writers didn't. It is dimly possible that Dave didn't and just repeated the joke from his writers, but then, that was pretty lazy of him. If he says it, he's responsible for it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that we lost a lot when network news departments started to have to generate income rather than being a service that a network provided in exchange for using the airwaves.
I think that is one reason that non-profit news (NPR, PBS, BBC, even al Jazeera) is often more reliable than for profit "news" whatever the medium.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I cannot find any evidence of Bristol Palin having referred to herself as promiscuous or her behavior as promiscuity, either. It appears she is urging teenagers not to have sex at all, and saying she regrets doing it herself. (But loves and values her baby, which some have uncharitably made fun of, claiming it is a contradiction.)
It bears repeating, though, that Bristol is now seeking publicity on her own; she's making herself a public figure. That is a significant difference between the Limbaugh joke about Chelsea and the Letterman joke about Bristol.*
(I still think the Letterman joke was in poor taste.)
*It was about Bristol. The writers and Letterman are not stupid enough to broadcast the idea that Palin's younger daughter would have sex with an MLB player. The idea that they would think this is a good idea is far more implausible to me than the idea that they heard Palin was in town with a daughter and assumed it was Bristol. The joke only works for Bristol anyway; she's the one who got pregnant before.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's it exactly, k. Once the measurement is ratings of the news itself, rather than the quality of the news since that part is supported financially by other things, that's the tipping point into becoming entertainment.
The other one is personality. If a person is hired for their personality and their ability to get people hyped up - like Limbaugh, Oprah, and Stewart are - they are definitely entertainers.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say that print media is less dominated by personality, but they still have to sell ad space and garner an "audience" so they are not free from the rating problem. Hence tabloid newspapers.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When the primary product delivered is audience (to the advertisers) rather than the information (to the audience), there is an inherent problem.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Entertainment of the "providing information and serious commentary on issues," is different from entertainment of the "trying to make you laugh"variety.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems that in regular newspapers, it was a given that the entire paper was paid for by the ads in the Style section. Since the front page wasn't the money generator anyway, editors could focus on the quality of the story and then make sure there was a big spread on Your Spring Garden and Movies We Love in the Style section to pay for it all. A tiny change in the Funnies section would bring more mail than any front page story.
I've read that the downfall of the papers is happening not because people are getting better serious news online (they aren't), but that they are getting better fluff online (they are).
quote:Entertainment of the "providing information and serious commentary on issues," is different from entertainment of the "trying to make you laugh"variety.
Unless you're Jon Stewart.
Both are still entertainment, though.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: When the primary product delivered is audience (to the advertisers) rather than the information (to the audience), there is an inherent problem.
posted
It would be interesting if news were handled the same way that the National Weather Service handles information about the weather.
Of course then we would have the government involved with new which pretty much goes against the freedom of the press thing. On the other hand, the BBC doesn't strike me as having a lot of government interference in what it broadcasts. Nor does RTE. In fact, they are frequently more hard hitting and critical than the news here. Could they stay that way if the government decided otherwise?
Interesting to contemplate the differences between news that is dependent on government support and news that is dependent on ratings and corporate support.
Another interesting thing to contemplate is why being nasty seems to be an effective way of gaining an audience. Clearly that is what we (a general rather than a specific "we") are looking for. Which goes back to the whole civility of discourse question.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The joke only works for Bristol anyway; she's the one who got pregnant before.
Allow me to point out that this is the relevant part. The joke is absolutely dependent on the assumption that a given individual is "likely" to get pregnant. Bristol got famously pregnant thanks to a random dude, and there's cognitive dissonance there thanks to her family's stated moral codes. That's the only reason it's funny.
To test this, try making the exact same joke about, say, Angelina Jolie's children. It doesn't work, because they don't have the attribute "gets pregnant easily."
From the media's famously reductive POV, Bristol has four attributes: 1) Youthfully attractive and of legal age 2) Had a baby before getting married 3) Had a socially-conservative upbringing 4) Willing to be in the public eye
Taken together, these are what make jokes about her pregnancy not only fair game but pretty much irresistible.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Pop, I would prefer that Squick never, ever speak to me. [Removed remainder of quote. --PJ]
Kat, what has happened to you? I really hate to say this, but I think you've contributed a lot to the general nastiness of the place in the last few years.
I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to post this—I'm pretty sure you're just going to ignore or rudely dismiss this post just like you've done all the other times.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Taken together, these are what make jokes about her pregnancy not only fair game but pretty much irresistible.
There's also (or "it is catalyzed by") her official marketing of the event and the way in which it changed.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think any board changes as the years go by. It has been years since I was really a regular poster...but I still lurk quite frequently.
When I first started posting, I do think things were a bit more civil. I never felt like an outsider because I was not LDS. Certainly I noticed that there were many LDS posters...there was frequently talks about beliefs, missions, and such...but those of us who had other religions were not left out (at least in my opinion).
I think over time things did become a little more confrontational. It was people on BOTH sides of issues that let to the problems I think. But of course, life also gets in the way of posting. It was easier to post more when I was in college...even in grad school. Once I had a full time job, it got a little bit more difficult.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I did say this is my personal opinion.
Television: all entertainers, including the people on 60 minutes. Some better than others, but entertainers at the core.
Radio: Mostly entertainers, with the possible exception of NPR.
Newspapers and magazines: Depends on the section and the quality of the writing and reporting.
I absolutely disagree. It's not even close to being that cut and dry. I agree that people on the air, regardless of whether it's television or radio, do have an added element of entertainment value. But material should be treated for what it is, and with respect for the credentials or value of the person saying it.
According to your theory, if a person says something on the air, it should be treated differently than if the same person said the same thing in print. That's ridiculous. It means what it means.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Kat, what has happened to you? I really hate to say this, but I think you've contributed a lot to the general nastiness of the place in the last few years.
I'm not sure if I agree with the latter part of this statement, but definitely the former. I always saw katharina a gentle member of the forum. Granted, I've been in and out of the last 6+ years and missed a lot, but I always remembered her being rational and kind. Something has changed her, whether it was Hatrack or other outside influences.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Can we all agree that being right isn't important?
First, Tatiana, I want to say that what you wrote was clearly from the heart, probably wasn't easy to let loose into a volatile discussion, and doesn't deserve to be minimized to this one statement that everyone's quoting, so, no irony or sarcasm implied, thanks for sharing.
That said, what comes to mind for me with regard to this particular sentence is an aunt of mine who casually insisted that the college I was attending at the time wasn't geographically in the part of Portland I said it was. (Um, I do send mail there, not to mention take buses there, give people directions for how to get there... Is it possible I have a better grasp of the geography of Portland than you do, living in northern Washington...)
In other words, yes, it is important to be right. But I think what you may actually be trying to say (not to put words in your mouth) is a) we shouldn't cling to our desire to believe ourselves right in our own minds to the exclusion of new ideas, information, and opinions, and b) we should resist the temptation to "correct" people, especially on minor points, when there is little to be gained in doing so and much animosity and hurt to be incurred in the doing.
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Limbaugh is nowhere near as rude as Michael Moore.
In a sense, I agree, but not in a positive one. Limbaugh prefers to cast disdain on his targets in absentia- calling Chelsea a dog, his "interview" with Hillary with an edited recording, and so on. He rarely, if ever, appears in any forum where someone he'd like to insult would get equal airtime; little wonder, most reasonably intelligent and well-researched politicians, reporters, and the like would take him apart like a roast chicken.
Moore, by contrast, tends to either confront his targets directly or trick them into admissions that support his point (or, admittedly, edit footage to make it appear that they have done so.) In the sense that he is more directly confrontational, he is certainly more "rude". But it would be equally accurate to say that Limbaugh is a coward.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That said, what comes to mind for me with regard to this particular sentence is an aunt of mine who casually insisted that the college I was attending at the time wasn't geographically in the part of Portland I said it was. (Um, I do send mail there, not to mention take buses there, give people directions for how to get there... Is it possible I have a better grasp of the geography of Portland than you do, living in northern Washington...)
In other words, yes, it is important to be right.
But more importantly, WHY is it important to be right? Is it important to be right for the sake of being right? Is that what ultimately matters, or is it something else?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Once you get into the lowest tier of political "entertainment" that Moore and Limbaugh inhabit, does it really matter to talk about degrees of rudeness?
They're both awful, but neither is an excuse for the other.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, listen, I like Michael Moore, and I haven't heard anything substantive about him using trickery or deceit in his editing. I've definitely heard it -- but not in a substantive way. I've never heard it presented with facts or evidence.
I'm not saying there aren't facts and evidence, it's just that I haven't fallen across them on my travels. Would anyone care to link me?
[I feel like I should clarify: I'm not under any delusion that he has no agenda. I know he has a point of view and his films are strongly editorial. I often disagree with his conclusions. But I admire his passion and courage and, in general, his point of view.]
[I don't think the man is a saint or anything, and I'm still unhappy with how he threw Nader under the bus....]
Edited to add:
It always makes me cringe when I see him compared to Limbaugh, who I think is truly despicable in a really rare, special kind of way.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: But more importantly, WHY is it important to be right? Is it important to be right for the sake of being right? Is that what ultimately matters, or is it something else?
I used to have a boss that I referred to as speaking for emphasis instead of factual accuracy. I never believed she was deliberatly lying so much as unconciously making up facts to support her view of reality.
However, her personal view of reality frequently matched no one else's. She once spoke to me about my slacking and how she shouldn't be doing more transactions than me every day. (I liked to write story ideas down in a notebook when it was quiet and it drove her batty. Apparently, I was supposed to make up work to look busy.) When I checked the log, I saw I'd forgotten to write down my numbers for the last three days.
So I flipped through a couple pieces of paper and wrote them down. I'd had more than twice her numbers all three days. Needless to say, I felt free to dismiss her from then on as being reactionary and full of it. She ruined her credibility with me because she was flat out wrong and didn't even care enough to know it.
My problem wasn't so much with her being wrong as with the lack of interest it showed on her part. She had made up her mind how things worked, and she was sticking to it come hell or high water. I didn't matter at all in that scenario.
Sometimes being right really comes down to respect for other people. If I can't consider your point of view if you tell me where in Portland you live, how can trust me to consider your point of view on anything meaningful? Sometimes being wrong is just a symptom of a deeper problem.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what I was saying, and may not have phrased that well, is that many people who become vituperative while posting are motivated primarily by the desire to prove they're the one who is right. They want to win. They're not as concerned with correcting someone's error on a subject for some substantive reason. They just want to be the one who won the argument. I think perhaps almost all of us have felt this way at some point. And what I'm saying is that it's pointless because it doesn't matter who wins.
That's what arguing on ten-thousand hatrack threads about creationism, gay marriage, reproductive rights, religious worldviews, etc. has taught me in the 12 years or so that I've been here. Being the one who wins the argument isn't important.
In the example of someone's grandmother who is mistaken about the location of their college. Does it mean her yummy packages full of cookies and other baked goods will go awry in the mails? If so, convince her for the sake of her cookies. Does it mean that her desire to visit will be thwarted because she's looking in the wrong place for the dorm? If so, correct her so that you won't miss the visit of your dear abuelita. However, if there's no such reason she needs to know, if nothing bad will happen because she's got the wrong idea of where your college is, then why correct her?
What's important about the fact that you're sure she's wrong? There are thousands of things about which we each are wrong all the time. The human mind works like that. Why make her all angry and upset and disinclined to send you baked goods unless there are important consequences to her not knowing the truth?
If indeed it's the joy of her company, or her baked goods, that you don't want to miss out on, then you'll definitely want to correct her in a kind and diplomatic way so as not to upset your dear grandmother and subtract from that joy, right?
That's what I meant by my post.
I don't mean to pick on whoever gave the example of the grandmother. In no way should they feel singled out. I'm deliberately forgetting who it was, so they will know it's not personal. I just picked up one example given and used it to illustrate what I meant about being right not being important. I hope the poster of the example doesn't take offense at my using it. For all I know, it could have been of life-or-death importance in the actual fact.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understood you the first time Tatiana, it was clear from the context that you didn't really mean that the truth doesn't matter but something more like winning the argument doesn't matter.
I think many of the problems here arise because people take others words too exactly and don't carefully read for context that buffers meaning.
In a polished essay, we should expect that words and phrases are very carefully chosen and that each word has meaning. But most of us don't post polished essays at hatrack. This is a conversation and in conversation people generally don't carefully pick and revise every word and phrase before they speak. We expect that in polite conversation people will consider context and personalities and ask for clarification if a particular wording doesn't fit with context or can be understood in different ways.
I think too many of us read hatrack as though each post was a carefully polished essay and yet post ourselves as though this were a casual conversation.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TL: Well, listen, I like Michael Moore, and I haven't heard anything substantive about him using trickery or deceit in his editing. I've definitely heard it -- but not in a substantive way. I've never heard it presented with facts or evidence.
I'm not saying there aren't facts and evidence, it's just that I haven't fallen across them on my travels. Would anyone care to link me?
[I feel like I should clarify: I'm not under any delusion that he has no agenda. I know he has a point of view and his films are strongly editorial. I often disagree with his conclusions. But I admire his passion and courage and, in general, his point of view.]
[I don't think the man is a saint or anything, and I'm still unhappy with how he threw Nader under the bus....]
Edited to add:
It always makes me cringe when I see him compared to Limbaugh, who I think is truly despicable in a really rare, special kind of way.
Love or hate either of them, it's hard for me to ignore the very substantive difference in the quality of thought, organization and research they each respectively bring to their projects.
Now, I don't care what your political views are, I think you will probably agree that Moore does significantly more careful organization of his agenda and material, and is more highly skilled in the direction of its presentation. He does at times (often in fact) slant the delivery of the research he has done, but his research is also undeniably thorough and often thoughtful. I constantly find myself wishing he had as much taste as he does passion and compassion for others. It's obvious to me that he respects the power of information.
Limbaugh (again, love or hate him), and I have listened to his show many times, simply doesn't do the kind of research that could make anyone a respectable authority on much of anything. I hate Bill O'Reilly for being an arrogant ass, but the guy knows how to read and do his homework. It becomes incredibly clear upon listening to Limbaugh that he is really ludicrously under-informed, and often misinformed on his key topics and the people he often talks about. Just listen to his program, and notice that time and again, consistently from day to day, he cites and quotes from newspapers and political blogs, and does so in a way that suggests, at least to me, that he has not actually read many of them. His basic knowledge of economics and economic theory is worse even than mine- and that's saying something. His grasp of scientific topics is embarrassing. And on top of all that, I get the distinct impression from his overall attitude toward the use of information on his show, that he is just simply lazy- that he believes himself so superior, that the actual muckraking and gritty personal fact finding and perspective gleaning that gets done in so many other places in the media is beneath him.
And I mean, that's weird isn't it? For years he called the mainstream media (of which is IS a part), the "drive-by" media... but listen to his show! He drives by topics with a surface spin so quick and dirty, most commentators would be embarrassed by its flimsiness. His actual harping on specific topics doesn't constitute in-depth anything, it just forms a surface level mantra that he seems to believe is a substitute for an actual argument.
Say what you will about Moore, but he at least does some justice to his topics by choosing the production-side delivery over the on-air live delivery. I think it says something about conservative radio that it has become so ubiquitous, while more liberal media sources, like NPR for instance, are more heavily produced and often more thoroughly researched, and less centered on individual personalities. Moore has the personality thing as bad as Limbaugh does, but at least it's only for a concentrated 30 minutes to 2 hours at a time, once every couple of years.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I think Moore is "ruder" only in the sense that he's assaulting (in a figurative sense) people's beliefs and actions face-to-face. To say malicious things about someone when they aren't there can be catty, slanderous, mean-spirited, ugly, deceitful... But to be rude, they really need to be there. Or at least, someone who will take offense at their being slighted has to be there.
To my mind, anyway. I realize that's a shade of meaning, and not one everyone may agree with.
And regarding my aunt: I didn't correct her at the time, but I fumed about it a bit; I was in the right on the matter, but trying to stand in the way of her need to think she was right was likely to cause more unease to us both than satisfaction to me or edification to her. It was one of those small things that makes you recognize uncomfortable truths about people you've been around your whole life, things that make you realize perhaps you won't spend as much time in their company in adulthood as you did in childhood.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: adjective 1 offensively impolite or ill-mannered : she had been rude to her boss | [with infinitive ] it's rude to ask a lady her age. • referring to a taboo subject such as sex in a way considered improper and offensive : he made a rude gesture. • [ attrib. ] having a startling abruptness : the war came as a very rude awakening. 2 roughly made or done; lacking subtlety or sophistication : a rude coffin. • archaic ignorant and uneducated : the new religion was first promulgated by rude men. 3 [ attrib. ] chiefly Brit. vigorous or hearty : Isabel had always been in rude health.
While as you can see from the example in definition 1, rude is most often collocated with "to," which would indicate that it is often used to describe direct interaction, that usage is not the only one available. While the second definition is familiar from its more literary uses: "oh rude fate," "rude awakening," it is also clearly permissible under the archaic usage, which is also the current usage in Spanish, iirc.
That doesn't precisely describe the behavior as much as the character, however it's not a large stretch to make, and few words that come to mind fit the usage better when talking about the behavior in question, ie: speaking about (or to) another person with disregard for the expectation of civility and common courtesy that one would reasonably expect.
If you can think of a better word to describe the class of behavior we're talking about, I'd stick with "rude" - there's no evidence that the limitation you have placed on it (that of it being limited to personal interaction), is common or accepted.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You don't hate it to say it, Jon Boy. You love it.
I really don't know why I even try with you anymore. Why on earth do you think I love it? What do you think I get out of this?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Oxford American Sayeth:
quote: adjective 1 offensively impolite or ill-mannered : she had been rude to her boss | [with infinitive ] it's rude to ask a lady her age. • referring to a taboo subject such as sex in a way considered improper and offensive : he made a rude gesture. • [ attrib. ] having a startling abruptness : the war came as a very rude awakening. 2 roughly made or done; lacking subtlety or sophistication : a rude coffin. • archaic ignorant and uneducated : the new religion was first promulgated by rude men. 3 [ attrib. ] chiefly Brit. vigorous or hearty : Isabel had always been in rude health.
While as you can see from the example in definition 1, rude is most often collocated with "to," which would indicate that it is often used to describe direct interaction, that usage is not the only one available. While the second definition is familiar from its more literary uses: "oh rude fate," "rude awakening," it is also clearly permissible under the archaic usage, which is also the current usage in Spanish, iirc.
That doesn't precisely describe the behavior as much as the character, however it's not a large stretch to make, and few words that come to mind fit the usage better when talking about the behavior in question, ie: speaking about (or to) another person with disregard for the expectation of civility and common courtesy that one would reasonably expect.
If you can think of a better word to describe the class of behavior we're talking about, I'd stick with "rude" - there's no evidence that the limitation you have placed on it (that of it being limited to personal interaction), is common or accepted.
Bit of a problem with archaic uses vs. modern media and means of communication; previously, most definitions of "rude" would require direct observation by those who would make such a judgement to be considered so. Can, for example, a political ad be considered "rude" in the same sense as slamming a door in someone's face? Rude in the sense of "crude", perhaps. Most things that would be considered rude in person would receive a different adjective when used in the media.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Bit of a problem with archaic uses vs. modern media and means of communication; previously, most definitions of "rude" would require direct observation by those who would make such a judgement to be considered so. Can, for example, a political ad be considered "rude" in the same sense as slamming a door in someone's face? Rude in the sense of "crude", perhaps. Most things that would be considered rude in person would receive a different adjective when used in the media.
Well, print media has existed for millenia- I think the word when applied to behavior or types of speech can still apply in mostly the same way. But yes, point taken of course, rudeness is most often associated with interpersonal interaction. Nevertheless, it's clear to me that the word can easily extend to one's behavior towards others (present or not) in the public eye. Again, I challenge you to find a better word- "crude" doesn't really cut it for me, it implies a different class of behavior entirely, don't you think?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You don't hate it to say it, Jon Boy. You love it.
I really don't know why I even try with you anymore. Why on earth do you think I love it? What do you think I get out of this?
I'm with Jon on this one katharina. He joined about the same time I did, and we always seemed to get along well, even when I acted like a jerk. I can't say I know him really well, but I tend to believe him when he doesn't say that for enjoyment.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TL: Well, listen, I like Michael Moore, and I haven't heard anything substantive about him using trickery or deceit in his editing. I've definitely heard it -- but not in a substantive way. I've never heard it presented with facts or evidence.
I'm not saying there aren't facts and evidence, it's just that I haven't fallen across them on my travels. Would anyone care to link me?
[I feel like I should clarify: I'm not under any delusion that he has no agenda. I know he has a point of view and his films are strongly editorial. I often disagree with his conclusions. But I admire his passion and courage and, in general, his point of view.]
[I don't think the man is a saint or anything, and I'm still unhappy with how he threw Nader under the bus....]
Edited to add:
It always makes me cringe when I see him compared to Limbaugh, who I think is truly despicable in a really rare, special kind of way.
His 9/11 movies was FILLED with inaccuracies, false statements, and lying by implication.
Bowling For Columbine wasn't much better, and got a lot of the facts completely wrong.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A simple Google search could give you probably dozens of them.
My problem with Moore is that he takes perfectly good points, drenches them in populist rage, wraps them up in really, really poorly researched or poorly placed "facts" and then runs amok. And then at the end of the day, you have a movie with a great core, but so surrounded by crap that the initial good point is tainted and easily dismissed because the supporting evidence is often so bad.
If you can't win your argument on the merits, at least step aside and let someone else try rather than provide a straw man for the opposition to very easily beat down.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only thing I've seen by Moore that did not very swiftly make me want to beat up Moore was "sicko," and that's more or less because he sat back, got out of the way of the controversy, and let it grow on you.
Of course later he pulled a Moore Stunt and caused sighs and groans all around, but still. Sicko. His 'best' movie.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
What search terms would you suggest? Why is everyone so convinced of this Michael Moore lying and trickery I keep hearing about if no one will provide a source or any evidence for it?*
*I'm not saying he hasn't been deceitful. I don't know.
Googling "Michael Moore deceit" doesn't seem to result in anything very helpful.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Well, print media has existed for millenia- I think the word when applied to behavior or types of speech can still apply in mostly the same way. But yes, point taken of course, rudeness is most often associated with interpersonal interaction. Nevertheless, it's clear to me that the word can easily extend to one's behavior towards others (present or not) in the public eye. Again, I challenge you to find a better word- "crude" doesn't really cut it for me, it implies a different class of behavior entirely, don't you think?
If I come up with one, I'll let you know. I did and do concede my use and interpretation of the word contains certain personal shadings that others may not share.
Language is inexact, and English, with all its cribbing from other languages and its rapid evolution, is an odder duck than many. I was considering recently that "lewd", "lusty" and "lascivious" are all essentially synonyms, but most would get very different images in their head depending on whether one said "a lusty youth", "a lewd youth" or "a lascivious youth."
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Not all of these are great, and I don't have time to put the information together or I would, but browse around here. There are probably different ways to frame the Google search that would yield different results, like directly looking for "inaccuracies" or "misrepresentations" or something along those lines only directly tied to his film titles in your search.
I'd stay away from Googling "deceits" and "lies" and things of that nature, as they're more likely to take you to politically motivated sites that are out to discredit Moore for reasons beside his factual errors. I'm not against Moore's purpose, just his methodology.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I think too many of us read hatrack as though each post was a carefully polished essay and yet post ourselves as though this were a casual conversation.
This drives me up the wall!
A long time ago, when I was newer, I noticed this tendency and complained about it. In response, I was told to choose my words more carefully.
The thing is that it doesn't even matter if you do post a carefully polished essay, because when writing anything at all the words are a separate entity from what is in the author's head. They take on a life of their own and are mixed with the biases of those who would read them. Check out any literary review of, well, anything...there are people who love it and people who hate it and lots of people in between. But even the people in between have different impressions of it.
For a while after that conversation I would spend thirty minutes pouring over my posts before I submitted them and you know what? It made absolutely no difference.
We each see the world through our own filters and very, very few of us are able to even recognize that other people have different filters, let alone see through them.
It's been a long time since I read it, but "To Kill a Mockingbird" made a point about seeing the world through other people's perspectives -- you have to "Walk a mile in their shoes."
There's no walking anywhere on a message board. We don't even know one another real names. All we have are flawed expectations, stereotypes, and prejudices to fuel us and some members of this board are worse about letting those things rule them than others. Some people on this message board are also younger than others.
We have no control over what others will do and say, and they are likely to say some offensive, uninformed, and downright stupid things. Sometimes, it's ok to correct them or inform them, but when the things they say are offensive...
Offensive to whom? Is it possible that we could give the person the benefit of the doubt and assume nobler motives than "troll?" Even if we can't see through their eyes, even if we can't understand what would make them say some really uncouth thing, could we at least entertain the possibility that there's a reason we are incapable of seeing and that maybe on the other end of that post is a human being?
And the bottom line is we don't have to respond to every dumb*** comment that gets put up on this board.
It takes two people to have an argument.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I always preview before making any post, unless I am just correcting a spelling error in an edit. And I reword anything the censor has rendered as ******, as sometimes half a forum reads the wrong meaning and gets angry.
This has been a great thread, with a really outstanding post by Samprimary on the first page.
Posts: 50 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
Man... this thread is so... sad. The hatred is just oozing out the members around here.
I haven't been a regular poster around here for years, although not for a lack of trying. Every time I pop my head in to see what new with this place -- I find that a place I used to see as a sanctuary for level-headed conversation has diminished into just another lame conservative vs. democrat forum.
This place was fun. We had our disagreements, but we still liked each other at the end of the day. We forgave each other. If necessary, we would change our Points of View when warranted.
I seriously wonder why Scott even bothers with this forum anymore. So vitriolic. So hateful. So completely intolerant.
Posts: 1800 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think many of the problems here arise because people take others words too exactly and don't carefully read for context that buffers meaning.
I REALLY don't post much even though I check in quite frequently.
I just had to quote Rabbit to say this is exactly why I don't post.
I came to this site as an OSC fan about 3(?) years ago and when I lurked on the forums before signing up I was so impressed with all the information that could be garnered from the various posters. It was fun to read and I wanted to be a part of it.
Of course at that time I was unfamiliar with attitudes and temperments of specific posters and had no idea that some were to be avoided and that others just loved being sarcastic.
I jumped into a few hot topic conversations at first and learned that almost no matter what I said the point of my post was over-looked while someone got nit-picky on my choice of words, which I then felt I had to defend or re-explain.
Still, most people were fair enough. Then.
I've definitely noticed a shift.
Within the last year I've posted just a few times just to test the waters and sure enough, every single thing I said was POUNCED upon.
I have no problem with differences of opinion. It's one of the things that attracted me to the site. But the complete divisiveness that has pervaded the site and just plain rudeness has definitely pushed me away.
I originally came here to share myself and to learn. The response I get is "We don't want you and if you don't already know everything about this topic you have no right posting."
I've found myself thinking several times, "For a bunch of smart people, they sure are dumb." (This thought, of course, is not all-inclusive toward all posters.)
Yet I still come back and lurk cuz some of y'all actually have something to say sometimes.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
