Michael Moore is back at it

[JohnnyLingo]

My point is that Moore presents an argument for seeing history in a particular way. He presents a type of reality through highly stylized arguments which are designed to persuade. The question at hand is whether or not Moore is persuasive in his opinions.

Wow, that is sophistry at its best.

You're fine with Moore's methods. I'm not.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Are you a fan of Christopher Hitchens?

BTW, my answer to this was "no." Do you enjoy his thoughts on Mormonism?

http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/

[JohnnyLingo]

BTW, my answer to this was "no." Do you enjoy his thoughts on Mormonism?

http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/

That was directed at Robin, by the way.

And yeah, I'm familiar with Hitchens' views on religion and Mormonism in particular.

[RobinFinderson]

Wow, that is sophistry at its best.

You're fine with Moore's methods. I'm not.

Actually, I'm not fine with his methods. I've made that point already in this thread, but you seem to have missed it (reading comprehension?). I find his 'style' to be very problematic much of the time. Just because he and I happen to agree about the big picture items does not mean I like his style (though I often do). Moore is a mixed bag, but like a Tarantino film, even his most flawed work is entertaining.

Unlike PAC, I do like Hitchens, even though he was totally wrong about the war and how to deal with the threat represented by Islamic fundamentalism. Hitchens doesn't accuse Moore of lies and untruths. He essentially argues that, to the extent Moore is persuasive, he is undermining America's ability to address the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism. In the long run, Hitchens might be right, but in the short run Moore's characterization of how we got into Iraq seems to look more truthful than ever.

[woot]

Wow, that is sophistry at its best.

You're fine with Moore's methods. I'm not.

If your problem with MM is indeed his methods and not, as I suspect, your disagreement with his message, then why aren't you similarly attacking every right wing pundit that does the same or worse?

Why not attack Expelled (the only recent conservative documentary I can think of that had even a tiny bit of success) for accusing Darwin of causing the Holocaust and lying about science in order to promote a conservative, religious agenda?

Why not attack O'Reilly for accusing Democratic protesters of being evil and unamerican before lauding Republican ones as being heroes?

Why not attack Glen Beck for accusing Obama of racism, for doing special segments about how much American healthcare sucks but then turning around just over a year later and trying to convince his bootlickers that our system is perfect in every way as soon as it becomes politically expedient to do so, and for lying more often than not?

Are we really supposed to buy that MM's methods are the issue here? I realize this is ad hominem, but I think criticism of MM has a little bit more credibility when it comes from someone that doesn't despise everything he says so stridently.

Edit: And before you continue to reference Hitchens regarding the war, you should know that the reason he supports the war is because he thinks Muslims are a danger to the earth and should therefore be exterminated. Yet another example where you're willing to overlook someone's methods just because you agree with them.

[TripletDaddy]

Bowling for columbine was crap. There was one part where he equated the NRA and the Klu Klux Klan with this little cartoon. Uh yeah sure Michael Moore

this is a pretty lousy summary of that cartoon.

[TripletDaddy]

Please see my post above.

agreed. your post above is an example of a mistruth!

[TripletDaddy]

Now YOU are the liar. He didn't say that. The point of the cartoon (shown below) is to draw parallels between American's fears and our culture of violence. It starts with the pilgrims and the slaughter of American Indians as the first parallel. The coincidental organization of of the NRA the same year as the formation of the KKK is just another historic parallel between a culture of violence and a culture of fear. This connection, that Americans' fears make us prone to do stupid things, is one of the primary points of the film.

As you will see in the cartoon, yes, NRA members are shown pouring gasoline on a cross which KKK members then light. You might disagree with that as a rhetorical device, but that is all it is. The film does NOT say that the KKK turned into the NRA.

[youtube]FgwRWzk5WeU[/youtube]

Thank you.

That entire segment was congruent with one of the overarching messages in BFC.....fear is one of the root problems.

[JohnnyLingo]

My point is that Moore presents an argument for seeing history in a particular way. He presents a type of reality through highly stylized arguments which are designed to persuade. The question at hand is whether or not Moore is persuasive in his opinions.

Actually, I'm not fine with his methods. I've made that point already in this thread, but you seem to have missed it (reading comprehension?). I find his 'style' to be very problematic much of the time. Just because he and I happen to agree about the big picture items does not mean I like his style (though I often do). Moore is a mixed bag, but like a Tarantino film, even his most flawed work is entertaining.

You're changing the argument. This is not about whether Moore is persuasive or if he's entertaining. Trying to keep this discussion on target is getting old.

If your problem with MM is indeed his methods and not, as I suspect, your disagreement with his message, then why aren't you similarly attacking every right wing pundit that does the same or worse?

Because no one is defending the actions of those you referenced. People are actively defending Moore here.

And before you continue to reference Hitchens regarding the war, you should know that the reason he supports the war is because he thinks Muslims are a danger to the earth and should therefore be exterminated.

Why does everyone think I quoted Hitchens in order to support the belief that the Iraq war was justified? I don't recall saying that. Hitchens is denouncing Moore's film as full of lies and misleading as hell.

[Mormon Red Death]

Thank you.

That entire segment was congruent with one of the overarching messages in BFC.....fear is one of the root problems.

Please... one of his main intentions in that clip was to show that NRA was equivalent to the KKK.

the Klansmen grab their guns take off their hoods spin the sign from KKK to NRA. They then burn a cross and walk away hand in hand.

I guess the person who watches that part is not supposed to think that the NRA=KKK?

That is a plain lie and he is perpetuating that lie.

[TripletDaddy]

Please... one of his main intentions in that clip was to show that NRA was equivalent to the KKK.

the Klansmen grab their guns take off their hoods spin the sign from KKK to NRA. They then burn a cross and walk away hand in hand.

I guess the person who watches that part is not supposed to think that the NRA=KKK?

That is a plain lie and he is perpetuating that lie.

The KKK promotes ideas such as racial sterotyping, ethnic cleansing, segregation, and white supremacy.

In what way does MM suggest that the NRA participates in these activities?

The NRA is dedicated to the 2nd Amendment.

I don't see any overlap there. I think you are confused by the meanings of "associate" and "equate." He definitely associated the two, esp by time period. Perhaps you can provide specific examples of how he equated the two....as in, they are both basically the same organization...same purpose, same goals, same methods.

That the KKK used guns to perpetuate violence cannot be denied. Of course they did. And that is his premise. Guns have been used to perpetuate violence borne out of fear. I can see you are a student of nuance in film.

[Mormon Red Death]

The KKK promotes ideas such as racial sterotyping, ethnic cleansing, segregation, and white supremacy.

In what way does MM suggest that the NRA participates in these activities?

The NRA is dedicated to the 2nd Amendment.

I don't see any overlap there. I think you are confused by the meanings of "associate" and "equate." He definitely associated the two, esp by time period. Perhaps you can provide specific examples of how he equated the two....as in, they are both basically the same organization...same purpose, same goals, same methods.

That the KKK used guns to perpetuate violence cannot be denied. Of course they did. And that is his premise. Guns have been used to perpetuate violence borne out of fear. I can see you are a student of nuance in film.

I've already explained that. Perhaps you should read my post before you respond.

Why does the cartoon make it a point to say?
"In 1871 when KKK is declared a terrorist organization the NRA is formed?" At that same moment the KKK people take off their hats pull out their guns and walk down and burn a cross.

Seems like a huge leap to pick up the intention. But hey I'll leave you to be the professor of nuance

[BlueHair]

Lingo,

Who is the bigger liar - George Bush or Michael Moore?

[TripletDaddy]

I've already explained that. Perhaps you should read my post before you respond.

Why does the cartoon make it a point to say?
"In 1871 when KKK is declared a terrorist organization the NRA is formed?" At that same moment the KKK people take off their hats pull out their guns and walk down and burn a cross.

Seems like a huge leap to pick up the intention. But hey I'll leave you to be the professor of nuance

Because there was crossover in NRA and KKK membership. I don't see what the problem is with that. This is well known and certainly not revealed by MM.....in Southern states, the NRA did not fight ardently for gun rights for blacks because racism clearly had a grip on the South...and the rest of the country. This doesn't mean that the NRA and KKK were the same organization. Again, nuance.

Early Mormons are associated with Masons. They are not equated with Masons. Same thing. Like I said, I think you are simply struggling to use the word properly. Hence your earlier eloquence..."whatever." I think "whatever" is probably the best response you will muster in this, so I accept it as your final answer.

[JohnnyLingo]

Lingo,

Who is the bigger liar - George Bush or Michael Moore?

I'm going to go with Moore. Ball's in your court to find stuff that Bush obviously lied about.

I'll be giving these examples the full Finderson treatment, by the way. Word parsing and all.