Which is worse: sleazes, or hypocritical sleazes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rmcrobertson
  • Start date Start date
1. The demand actually was: "Go watch his old, short lived TV show, Specifically where he Blockaded the Gated Community in Rosemont, Illinois and then get back to me....I had a friend who lived in that community, I visited her regularly, and I can point out each and every point Moore Lied/decieved the public about...But you have to grab it and watch it first." No episode title; no info about where available; no mention of specifics. (By the way--if you're referring to "TV Nation," already seen it. Titles, titles, titles, they help.) Apparently, too, T'punk bases their claim on anecdotal evidence: he spoke to somebody who says it ain't so. Otherwise, the thing to do is to say, "I know this "fact," to be inaccurate, because when the local Chamber of Commerce put out their jobs statistics, the numbers said...." But this is not a scholarly claim: it's a taunt, followed by attempted bullying. Not an uncommon dittohead tactic.

2. Requesting specifics is different from telling people who claim to hate a movie or a book they haven't read that they might want to try reading/watching first. But if we're so interested in the history of thread, perhaps we should--as previously asked--refer to the section in which you previously made this claim about Moore, and based your claim on anecdotal evidence?

2. Who is a liberal, again? what exactly were the signs? who's a "follower," of Moore? It isn't Moore who has a legion of fans who refer to themselves as, "dittoheads," you know. Such claims have become a typical part of rightist ideology; they reinforce, among other things, the fantasies that a) politics are all about being a disciple (apparently they are, for Rush's fans); b) the political spectrum doesn't run any further leftwards than liberalism; c) liberalism is automatically a Bad Thing.

3. Still waiting for intelligent responses to, say, Ollie North's hypocrisy...which somehow one takes more seriously than even a "liberal," filmaker's facts.
 
rmcrobertson said:
Apparently, too, T'punk bases their claim on anecdotal evidence: he spoke to somebody who says it ain't so. Otherwise, the thing to do is to say, "I know this "fact," to be inaccurate, because when the local Chamber of Commerce put out their jobs statistics, the numbers said...." But this is not a scholarly claim: it's a taunt, followed by attempted bullying. Not an uncommon dittohead tactic.
Wrong. By my comment that "I visited her regularly" I meant I have firsthand knowlage of the proceedures to get into the community as well as the behavior of the guards. You claim to have seen it, yet you are unaware of his complaints about the guards behavoir twords anyone who didnt live there. Thats First hand knowlage buddy, not "Spoke to someone who says it isnt so"

But hey whatever. Keep your head in the sand.

And what the **** is a dittohead?
 
1. If you mean, "TV Nation," have already seen it. Please release vital info, together with a web address for the security company where entry procedures may be checked. Incidentally, too, Moore can claim firsthand experience. But using a camera. So, you need some set of solid, tangible, researchable facts.

2. One wrote nothing whatsoever about any detail of the show; couldn't, since no specific were offered in the first place. For you to write, "You claim to have seen it, yet you are unaware of his complaints about the guards behavoir twords anyone who didnt live there," isn't an offer of detail and supporting proof, but a taunt/attempting bullying.

3. "Dittoheads," are Rush Limbaugh's followers, who frequently call themselves that and are encouraged to do so by their guy himself, on air.

4. It is my contention that these claims about, "your hero," and "liberal," and, "follower," are among the central products of conservative/right-wing propaganda. The writing here, which repeatedly makes these claims in ways that are not only groundless but unresponsive to the discussion at hand, would appear to provide rather good supporting evidence for that contention.

5. Still waiting to read a discussion of, say, Rush's Limbaugh's being defended by that pack of extreme liberals, the ACLU--to say nothing of his making a very good living of getting on the air and attacking liberals and minorites for their hypocrisy, their moral laxity, and their encouragement of a drug culture, then getting nailed for being an out-of-control addict.
 
Most of the criticisms that have any validity that I see about Moore is that people don't like the way he conducts himself, or the way in which he presents his arguements.

I can understand and respect that.

My problem is when people tend to use these criticisms to ignore the other important facts (yea, facts) that he presents in his films, like in Far 9-11; facts that have all been discussed and verified by sources other then his films, incidently. Facts that, frankly, should have run this administration out of office, and would have if people weren't told that they would be voting against Jesus if they didn't vote Republican.

But instead of having a dialog about these things, people would rather simply talk about how much they dislike Micheal Moore. Not picking on Techno Punk here, I am just expressing generally what bothers me about most Moore criticizers.

Paul
 
Uh-oh, rationality.

One can only agree: the good complaints about Moore all focus on the way he contextualizes facts, and the way that he clearly aims to make works of leftist agitprop.

One usually LIKES leftist agitprop (though Ken Loach is way, way better at it), but that doesn't mean it isn't leftist agitprop.

The complaint seems to be that right-wingers haven't had their own Leni Riefenstahl since...well, since Leni Riefenstahl.
 
rmcrobertson said:
3. "Dittoheads," are Rush Limbaugh's followers, who frequently call themselves that and are encouraged to do so by their guy himself, on air.

4. It is my contention that these claims about, "your hero," and "liberal," and, "follower," are among the central products of conservative/right-wing propaganda. The writing here, which repeatedly makes these claims in ways that are not only groundless but unresponsive to the discussion at hand, would appear to provide rather good supporting evidence for that contention.

.
Well, you will have to reconsider that, since 1) Rush Limbaugh is IMO a moron, and 2) I am as far from the Right as I am from the Left. Holding on to either side is, at best as far as I am concerned, the same as wearing blinders and seeing only what you want.

If you don't "follow" either side, you wont be "taken in" by someone "towing your line"... but rather you can sit back and look at both sides with equal disdain (or admiration, if that is your bag.)

I'm done here.
 
Back
Top