Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Can't disagree with that, although I think that simpletons tend to expose themselves only to "information" they already agree with.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Capitalism by Michael Moore
- Thread starter Cordoba
- Start date
Can't disagree with that, although I think that simpletons tend to expose themselves only to "information" they already agree with.
Alceste
Vagabond
Hm - I saw that one. I guess I've forgotten any references to the Taliban.
My example is from Bowling for Columbine as well - specifically the claim that Canadians own more guns per capita than Americans. I'm not sure he said exactly that - he may have found some technically "correct" way to imply it. I don't feel like watching the movie again to find out whether his exact wording was factually correct, though. Life is too short.
Alceste
Vagabond
I don't think so. People who are easily influenced and averse to critical thinking are susceptible to pretty much anybody's propaganda. When all the loudmouths are on the same side and all the simpletons are gathering for a single unified cause, that's when things start to get really scary. It's also, incidentally, the entire campaign strategy of the GOP.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Good point. I guess I'm talking about a different type of simpleton. Basically, I think there is probably little overlap in the simpletons who watched Farenheit 9/11 and the simpletons who regularly watch Fox News - the type of people who are adverse to critical thinking, but are so entrenched emotionally in their "side," that they cannot be influenced by the other side, regardless of the merit of the argument(s).
Alceste
Vagabond
Maybe the atmosphere is different in the US than it is up here. We get a lot of American "entertainment" in Canada, but we don't tend to adhere to a "side" (it's not really possible with 5 fairly serious political parties to choose from). Either that or we're all on the same "side".
So Canadian simpletons will believe practically anything, regardless of their political opinions.
Also, Michael Moore is always flattering us, so he's hard for Canadians not to like (as his Canadian box office receipts show).
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
Maybe the atmosphere is different in the US than it is up here. We get a lot of American "entertainment" in Canada, but we don't tend to adhere to a "side" (it's not really possible with 5 fairly serious political parties to choose from). Either that or we're all on the same "side".
So Canadian simpletons will believe practically anything, regardless of their political opinions.
Canadians all like moose though
Canadians=Satanic
Humanistheart
Well-Known Member
While the numbers seem right and I am quite concerned with where america is right now, I just don't trust Micheal Moore anymore. He has an agenda and will present that as best he can, leaving out other important bits as he always does. I would not spend any money that I know will get back to that man.
Alceste
Vagabond
I thought about this a bit more, and I know what's bothering me. Simpletons will be attracted first and foremost to messages communicated at a level they can understand. The left has nabbed the vast majority of academics and philosophers, but these folks do not communicate in a style that is accessible to the general public. So suppose a simpleton whose personal opinions are as yet undefined (i.e. a teenager
) sets out to become informed - the choice before Michael Moore came along was Rush Limbaugh vs. Noam Chomsky. So, the right used to sweep up all the dummies by default simply because liberal ideologies were not communicated in a populist fashion. BUT the dummies still get to vote. See where I'm going with this? The left has been negligent in advancing crowd-pleasing morons to popularize our ideology, substantially weakening our electoral base. Moore goes a long way to rectifying that omission all by himself.
Last edited:
Yerda
Veteran Member
Surely not?
gnomon
Well-Known Member
It's been years since I've seen BFC but these falsehoods stuck with me:
1) His falsehood about the relationship between the NRA and the KKK. Factual history is that the NRA supported arming blacks for the specific reason that could defend themselves. That the NRA also elected Ulysses Grant it's eighth president after Grant left the Presidency. A notable aspect of Grant's Presidency was declaring the KKK a terrorist action and using federal resources to arrest thousands of KKK members. I believe it was the individual who followed Grant as the NRA's president that helped remove Texas Governors who failed to oppose the KKK.
2) His portrayal of Charlton Heston for cheap thrills. One including an obvious edit to make Heston look like he didn't care about a picture of a child Moore was holding up and the other over the speech Heston gave and deliberately confusing the time frames of the speech. That the speech was given at a political rally many months after the shooting and at a location that all the parties; Republican, Democrat and Green, held events.
3) Splicing together two separate ads during the Bush/Dukakis race to make it look like the Bush campaign was afraid of the black man.
4) An NRA meeting that was held very shortly after the Columbine shooting was shown as an arrogant display in Moore's film when in truth it was an annual meeting that had to be held under the bylaws the organization is held. All other meetings which were not mandatory were actually cancelled.
5) A small point here but walking out of that bank where people who open accounts are eligible for a firearm. Moore makes it look like he opened the account and walked out with a new gun. He failed to mention that was a fiction and that the standard practices for obtaining a firearm had to meant. Notably background checks. One just does not open an account and receive a firearm.
More notable is the fact that after watching the film and having researched on my own the nature of the drug war why was it that Moore completely failed to investigate anything involving gun crimes and gang activity for control of the illicit drug trade. In Oakland today their is a high level of murder, involving guns, directly related to an increase in gang activity. This level of activity was prevalent in other cities during the filming of BFC. What word from the movie? Nothing at all.
I can't say anything about the other movies because I gave Fahrenheit 9/11 about ten minutes before turning it off and have basically refused to watch any more of his so called mockumentaries. The thing is I really like most of the clips I've seen from his TV show. Some of them are brilliant. But his films not so much.
Why watch Moore when there is Frontline and other superior documentarians out there providing informative pieces rather than joke documentaries that are supposed to spark debate.
I may watch Capitalism solely on the reason that one of my coworkers, an avid fan of Moore who agrees with me about the dismal state of BFC, tells me that his style is much better. Removing himself from the camera and actually attempting to be a bit more serious.
But I'll wait for it on video.