"It only gets better if we participate" - Michael Moore on Larry King

Moore is certainly as deserving of criticism as anyone else on the right or left, but sometimes I get the feeling many liberals love to diss him merely to show how "fair and balanced" they are.

And at least Moore can be funny.

Did it appear Larry had a clue where he was?

Saw some of it and he said some worthwhile things....

Ugh.

"Blacks are victims. Women are Victims. Old white men are victims. We're ALL VICTIMS!"

Sorry, I couldn't get past that part.

No, No it doesn't. It' s just more of the Identity Politics bullshit that weighs the Democrats down every election cycle. I really feel sorry people who, here in the 21st century, act as if they are living in 1950. (and yeah, I'd apply that same statement to people on the Right)

What did Moore say that makes you attribute that way of thinking to him?

Moore's as deserving of criticism as anyone but at least his is a populist platform rather than the Right's constantly disturbing authoritarian cheerleading.

Precisely. Though it must be noted that Moore's fatal flaw is using techniques that make it way too easy for his opponents to take shots at him. Just because you can justify an editorial choice you've made about (insert Republican whining here) doesn't mean anyone's going to actually pay attention to or even understand your justification.

You, loyal CHUD readers, might understand how/why movies are edited. But as a would-be populist Moore has a duty to understand that to most people film editing is arcane sorcery. Ask any soap opera actor how many people think they're actually the character they play on TV. A populist has to understand that people these days are pretty fucking stupid. You can't set yourself up to have to offer an explanation - you've lost at that point, because most people will never hear it, and half of those who do won't get it. Truth doesn't even enter into it when you're dealing with people who brag about creating their own realities.

--unnamed Senior Bush Advisor as quoted in the New York Times. I'm guessing Rove.

Are you one of those "blacks and women have jobs and can vote so there's no more racism or sexism in the world" people?

What I find mildy irritating is that it has become such a commonplace practice to attack the messenger, and read the message only if that messenger somehow survives the attack.
If Adolf Hitler (note: I am german, I may use such drastic comparisons ) said that gravity was a force affecting us all, and that the sun is not a big ball of cheese, he would, despite being Adolf Hitler, still be telling the truth, and that truth shouldnt be affected by who he was.

However, it seems to me, from the outside perspective at least, that its highly fashionable to first look at who said it, then attack the person, trying to discredit him, and then just forget about what it actually was he/she said, cause coming from his/her mouth it obviously must be an extension/result of the reasons for which we attacked him.

Tom Cruise, for example, gets a lot of flak for being, well, Tom Cruise. However, that doesnt make his movies, his abilities as an actor, or stuff he says on TV any more or less true.

Moore seems to be such a case: He is a messenger, using arguably not very objective ways to deliver the message... but he doesnt INVENT the message. Just cause you disagree with his way of saying water is wet doesnt make it dry. The water stays wet, you just dont like Moore for the way he used to tell you about water.

Its really just giving agenda-driven media, or agenda-driven people in general, a big headstart if you start judging statements solely by looking at the person who made them.

The fact that his message is a valid one is all the more reason for him to go away: the more that people associate his position with self-aggrandizing jackassery, the less likely they'll be to listen when the same argument is presented to them in a respectful, reasoned manner.

I'm one of those "the more we identify ourselves by a subgroup the more others will identify us by that subgroup" person. Why can't we all just be people? We didn't care about race when we were little kids, why should we all be expected to care about it now? Sure, there's racism and sexism. The way to get rid of it is to reduce, not enhance, the divides.

The sad thing about Michael Moore (and we're derailing the thread here) is that his points are valid and he talks about important issues. However, these points get lost because he is such a sensationalist that it is easy for an opponent to get the public to dismiss them.

Sicko is a great movie that sheds some light on the disturbing truths about the American health care system. But those points are lost when he paints all countries with socialized systems as idyllic utopias where everyone is prosperous and healthy.

That loses the people you are trying to reach and leaves you preaching to the choir.



Edited for grammar

I don't believe that works, not at all.

That is essentially the ends justifying the means. So what if you agree with his point? If the only way he can validate or back his point is through utter bullshit and manipulation of facts and context... then he is worthless. Sure the water stays wet, but if you've compeletly miscast the reason the water is wet... well then again, you are fucking worthless and simply mucking up real discussion or debate.

Moore's manipulation of context and reliance on James-Bond-logic to prove his points makes him as bad as Bush. The ends don't justify. If the Middle East is beautifully peaceful in 20 years because of our involvement, and it becomes the envy of the entire world, that doesn't mean Bush can say starting a war on false pretenses was okay.

Fuck Michael Moore. If you honestly elevate him as anything more than a manipulative tool, then you are as bad as the people that buy what FOX and CNN shovel every day.

EDIT: My apologies for the flare up, and near-name calling. I don't want to take the discussion anywhere that's less than civil. Ya'll just got the ole fire a-goin'!

^^^^^^^^Exactly^^^^^^^^

Agreed. And it's not that it's bad that Moore uses sensationalist techniques. I think he sometimes uses his skills to great affect and makes his point more effectively rather than if he had just made a dry argument. But I wholeheartedly agree that Moore's attempt to portray European countries as modern-day utopias severely hurt what could have been his best film to date.

You have to admit that Moore is far more truthful than FOX or CNN. And while you may have just intended it as a general insult, I'll ask anyway: If Moore is a tool, what power is he serving? If Fixed News is the tool of the Bush Administration, who is Moore's master?

Admittedly, Moore's puppet strings are not as defined as those of "Fixed News." Perhaps he's the tool of the evil left-wing extremist agenda (sarcasm), general anti-authoritarianism, or just whatever is most controversial. I'll retract the word "tool." You may replace it with an insulting term of your choice.

And no, I absolutely do not have to admit that Moore is "far more truthful than FOX or CNN." If you want to make a case that they are all equally full of shit, then let's dance.

Ok, I kinda stepped into an anthill here
I wasnt aware there were such strong feelings against Moore. To me, being european and all, he was just the face of a few decidedly very american, and decidedly hard to judge as non-american, documentary/satire mixtures.
I ll gladly agree that, to use my lame comparison, if someone tells me water is wet because of all the happy people in the world, he is a liar and I detest such misinformation, even though in the end water IS wet.

What I tried to say is that if the wrong guy say something truthful, and by that I mean not only the result, but also the reasoning behind it, its a pretty dumb move to discard the entire point cause you dont like the guy.
I admit I am not aware of Moore apparently using every trick in the book, much like certain elements of your administration, to get to the result he wants to find.

Either way, my point about the personality of the messenger still stands. If Moore told the truth, and did it in a truthful way (not by making up bullshit that just happens to support the truth, but not being the reason why its true), judging his message on his character makes it extremely easy for people with an agenda to suppress his opposing views, and ultimately hurts the debate.

Debate and discourse are not showbiz. It shouldnt be more important who is talking than what he is talking about. Unfortunately, its not just the USA that seems to happily support the strategy of discrediting the messenger, so the citizen can safely and happily discard him as being an "asshole" and doesnt have to bother thinking through the arguments.

Being right, for the wrong reasons, is being wrong. Reverse engineering a point, or a position, or a political stance is the worst possible way to develop a set of values.

Some really good posts here . I'll add that I think Moore is simply a bomb thrower: an Abbey Hoffmanesque "Merry Prankster" for the 21st century. I don't think he is interested in presenting any objective facts at all, and I think he pollutes the debates that need to be taking place.

Oh, and having lived in Oakland CA for 6 years, I can tell you from first hand experience that the world view exposed by Moore leads to exactly one of two reactions within people who believe in and internalize such crap; hate and despair (actually it usually starts with the former and ends up with the latter: See Abbie Hoffman again).

One of the reasons I'm supporting Obama this fall is I believe he really does transcend Identity Politics as articulated by Mr. Moore. As Obama himself puts it, people are tired of rehashing the conflicts of the 1960's.

This is kinda simplistic, no? It is possible to acknowledge difference without essentializing it. We're not all the same. People come in all shapes, sizes, and colors. That's not a bad thing in and of itself.

She wasn't objecting to the "differences" so much as the "groups," I think. Each individual has certain physical traits, sure, but connecting him or her to other people with similar traits is a step beyond just acknowledging differences.

Moore doesn't have a 24-hour cycle to lie on a daily basis.

Exactly. Children recognize others as individuals, and go to their friends' houses and learn about their family culture and religion. But if you say "what's the difference between [child a] and [child b]?" they don't say "one has darker skin" or "one is 'asian-american'" or whatever. They say "one likes spiderman and one likes superman" or something individual.

I'm not against culture or cultural identity, especially as a personal trait. I'm against having "race" and "gender" boxes on application forms. I'm against everyone assuming that 'blacks vote for Obama' and 'women vote for Clinton' (that may hold true but it's also true that young and privileged vote Obama and older and working class vote Clinton).