|
The Trump thing doesn't surprise me as much after the Bush vs Gore election in which america seemed to decide that Gore was too smart to be our president and they'd rather elect Bush because he was a guy they'd rather "have a beer with" despite him being a reformed alcoholic who could not in fact have a beer with them.
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 16:11 |
|
|
IRQ posted:538 is good for all your election ocd needs. The first post-debate poll dropped yesterday and had clinton up by 12. Huh. I thought I made that post in the USPOL thread. Weird. And the think wasn't that I look at 538 to rarely it's that it barely changes if I check it a few times a day.  Well nevermind that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Moore is like the Uwe Boll of political movies
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Lowtax could kick Michael Moore's rear end. Probably. Maybe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Michael Moore has to do political documentaries, even though they are often so skewed to the left that calling them "documentaries" feels a little like a lie. But he has to do them, because if he didn't do them, then he'd have to go back to working in fiction and making feature films. And trust me, nobody wants that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
The idea that a documentary is supposed to be some (purely mythological) nonpartisan, unbiased piece is the fanciful delusion of spineless cowards who worry who will get mad if you call a spade a spade. Moore's work and positions have been repeatedly vindicated and are years and in some cases decades ahead of popular opinion. He took a big PR hit because he came out as vehemently against neoconservatism while the majority of the country was still swept up in hysteria. Moore's qualities as a filmmaker are debatable, but he is vilified precisely because his work is approachable and therefore a threat to political narratives. Errol Morris' work is equally if not more stunning, but it's all just part of the decades-long post-mortem to all these things, reducing its importance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
Alan_Shore posted:Michael Moore has released Trumpland. Has anyone seen it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
A little off topic, but this video has been making rounds on my facebook. How accurate do you people think this is?dont even fink about it posted:The idea that a documentary is supposed to be some (purely mythological) nonpartisan, unbiased piece is the fanciful delusion of spineless cowards who worry who will get mad if you call a spade a spade. Moore's work and positions have been repeatedly vindicated and are years and in some cases decades ahead of popular opinion. He took a big PR hit because he came out as vehemently against neoconservatism while the majority of the country was still swept up in hysteria. I agree with this for the most part. Moore is not perfect by any means. But compared to other "talking heads" he's by far the closest to "the truth". Watching some of his documentaries in the modern age of hindsight are painful in all of the most unfortunate reasons. I watched "Roger and Me" for the first time not long after Flint's water crisis. It was painful and a metaphor of what has been gradually happening the past thirty years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
tarlibone posted:Michael Moore has to do political documentaries, even though they are often so skewed to the left that calling them "documentaries" feels a little like a lie. But he has to do them, because if he didn't do them, then he'd have to go back to working in fiction and making feature films. And trust me, nobody wants that. Canadian Bacon is actually great, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Azhais posted:Moore is like the Uwe Boll of political movies Speaking of Uwe Boll, he is retiring from film Making. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-10-27-infamous-video-game-movie-director-uwe-boll-retires-from-filmmaking
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
The latest episode of This American Life focused on the topic of all the lies and rhetoric in the election if you want to hear more about this stuff. It is terrifying to me that there are so many people in the US that believe complete and utter lies. I won't say 50% because well informed Republicans do exist (probably cancelled out by all the Left Wing kooks) but it's still scary to think that there are maybe 100 million people that can be summed up as nutty conspiracy theorists. People sit back and wonder how countries like North Korea exist or how some of the ridiculous religious practices in modern Muslim and African countries still exist when there is evidence of how this happens in the most powerful, privileged and what should be, well informed country on the planet. I always try and defend the US when friends do the whole "Amurricans are dumb idiots" shtick but sometimes it's really hard.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
The opioid bit was weak sauce. John didn't offer up much except Purdue lied to the public because of corporate greed; what a bunch of jerks. Newsflash: all corporations are greedy by design.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:The opioid bit was weak sauce. John didn't offer up much except Purdue lied to the public because of corporate greed; what a bunch of jerks. Newsflash: all corporations are greedy by design. A corporation manufacturing a nationwide health epidemic is pretty drat important.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
Boywhiz88 posted:A corporation manufacturing a nationwide health epidemic is pretty drat important. Without doubt it's an important topic. I'm just disappointed he didn't hold the right people to the fire, i.e. the government and regulators for not regulating the drug industry well enough to stop such an epidemic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:The idea that a documentary is supposed to be some (purely mythological) nonpartisan, unbiased piece is the fanciful delusion of spineless cowards who worry who will get mad if you call a spade a spade. Moore's work and positions have been repeatedly vindicated and are years and in some cases decades ahead of popular opinion. He took a big PR hit because he came out as vehemently against neoconservatism while the majority of the country was still swept up in hysteria. Moore is the left equivalent of Anne Coulter--a massive blowhard that serves a particular kind of poo poo particular people eat up. Guy isn't gonna turn people's heads that aren't already buying into it, and he's got a penchant for melodrama. And yeah most people expect a documentary to generally not have a slant, they want a spade called a spade in utter neutrality as the intent is to get someone to think a little and make their decision. It wasn't fair for Ben Stein to call his goofy creationist film a documentary either, for what it's worth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
Servaetes posted:Moore is the left equivalent of Anne Coulter--a massive blowhard that serves a particular kind of poo poo particular people eat up. Guy isn't gonna turn people's heads that aren't already buying into it, and he's got a penchant for melodrama. And yeah most people expect a documentary to generally not have a slant, they want a spade called a spade in utter neutrality as the intent is to get someone to think a little and make their decision. It wasn't fair for Ben Stein to call his goofy creationist film a documentary either, for what it's worth. I'm really looking forward to Franken's books if he ever gets out of politics. Let's see Coulter or Hannity or O'Reilly, or Moore or Maher, for that matter, actually do more than bitch.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 12:41
|
|
|
Servaetes posted:Moore is the left equivalent of Anne Coulter--a massive blowhard that serves a particular kind of poo poo particular people eat up. Guy isn't gonna turn people's heads that aren't already buying into it, and he's got a penchant for melodrama. And yeah most people expect a documentary to generally not have a slant, they want a spade called a spade in utter neutrality as the intent is to get someone to think a little and make their decision. It wasn't fair for Ben Stein to call his goofy creationist film a documentary either, for what it's worth. That's unfair, because Moore might be a blowhard but he has at least one foot set in reality. If a "left equivalent of Anne Coulter" really exists, I'd say Bill Maher is the closest to that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Moore makes good documentaries that have facts in them. How does that make him anything close to Ann Coulter?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
Veskit posted:Moore makes good documentaries that have facts in them. How does that make him anything close to Ann Coulter? Because the truth has to be in the middle somewhere so Person A and Person B must be equivalent
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
It's like, people who are too scared/uninformed to pick a side and not just "lean" end up demonising everyone in order to make being a moderate seem like a valid ideological belief and not just a lazy option that supports the status quo. I don't know how this applies to the Coulter/Moore thing as I am not American, but you can see it everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:Without doubt it's an important topic. I'm just disappointed he didn't hold the right people to the fire, i.e. the government and regulators for not regulating the drug industry well enough to stop such an epidemic. The fact that this kind of thing could happen is obvious proof that the regulators failed. Going after the companies that did this poo poo is targeting the right people, and the obvious implication is that they can't be trusted and more regulation is important.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
Veskit posted:Moore makes good documentaries that have facts in them. How does that make him anything close to Ann Coulter? well, I watched "Team America World Police" one time, and
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Eiba posted:"Government regulators are toothless" would have been a really pedestrian story. Would it? Not all countries suffer from the opioid epidemic to the same extent and it's not because their pharmaceutical companies are "less greedy". Why are government regulators toothless? Because of regulatory capture and pharmaceutical companies basically running the regulators. I don't see how addressing this is pedestrian.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Veskit posted:Moore makes good documentaries that have facts in them. How does that make him anything close to Ann Coulter? Because in the process of making these films, he purposefully leaves out very important facts that would present a more complete picture of the issue he's making the film about. For example, in Sicko, he uses life expectancy as pretty much the sole metric of gauging the value of a nation's overall healthcare system, something that pretty much no expert agrees is a valid way to rank them. He also omits any advantages of the American healthcare system, and omits or seriously downplays any disadvantages of a the other national systems he portrays as superior. As an argument piece or an essay, this is OK, because he's arguing a point. As a documentary, these omissions are conspicuous. And no, I don't want to get into an argument about healthcare--I'm using this as an example. As for Moore being the liberal equivalent of Ann Coulter... mmmm, I don't know. Moore may cherry-pick data to make his points, but he's at least using actual data. Ann Coulter simply automatically gainsays anything the Democrats (or Liberals in general) say. If a Republican said the sky was blue, Moore would tentatively agree, but then cut to a scene showing a coal plant spewing smoke into the sky, then another smash cut to a dirty diesel engine blowing massive amounts of black smoke into the air, saying, "gray and black are sort-of blue, right?" If a Democrat said the sky was blue, Coulter would either argue that it was, in fact, red, or that it's only blue because the Islamoliberalcrat agenda has been liberaling the books and crayon industry to change what used to be called red into what we now call blue. I mean, I saw a documentary on Joe McCarthy once that had some current talking heads offering opinions on him. Ms. Coulter's opinions were so pro-McCarthy that I was starting to wonder if she was being sarcastic. Then she just up and said that McCarthy saved America so that Reagan could come and defeat communism 20 years later (or something like that), and... well, wow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Okay I'll bite, what're the advantages of the American Healthcare system? Which metrics ought we be measuring by? Quality of service? End of life care? Affordable care? Access to one's physician for a reasonable amount of time, and an assurance that they're familiar with you and your personal health history? Please tell me all the things that would provide a more complete picture which would have substantially added to the movie or its premise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Where is this absurd belief that documentaries are supposed to be or even capable of being unbiased coming from? Not even actual news is unbiased. Well Moore is exactly right in Sicko that American healthcare sucks, but he's not showing all possible data. Wow, bravo. In order to make the argument that Michael Moore makes bad documentaries, you must first understand what a documentary is. This blubbering that Moore has opinions that he states demonstrates that you have no idea. Somewhere this devolves into the demand that he present you with all possible viewpoints and even largely irrelevant data in order to muddle his message, like he's making a loving book report. Best yet, the basic facts don't actually change if you include all data!
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:Okay I'll bite, what're the advantages of the American Healthcare system? Which metrics ought we be measuring by? Quality of service? End of life care? Affordable care? Access to one's physician for a reasonable amount of time, and an assurance that they're familiar with you and your personal health history? You'll bite? tarlibone posted:And no, I don't want to get into an argument about healthcare--I'm using this as an example. The most I will say about it is this: I don't disagree with all of Moore's positions on the issue. Or most of them, really. But in the process of picking one possible solution and glorifying it while demonizing the other, he ends up preaching to the choir while putting everyone else on the defensive. People either eat it up like it's manna from heaven or they see it as just more liberal bullshit. It doesn't start a conversation. It only starts a fight. Now, if you really want to research this for fun and profit, I encourage you to do so. Just click here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
tarlibone posted:Now, if you really want to research this for fun and profit, I encourage you to do so. Just click here. The first non-wikipedia link for me was in humanevents.com, a self proclaimed conservative site, and the first suggested article on the right panel was written by Ann Coulter. Coincidence, or definite proof for the Moore-Coulter analogy???
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:Where is this absurd belief that documentaries are supposed to be or even capable of being unbiased coming from? Not even actual news is unbiased. Your standards for a documentary are not my standards for a documentary. I actually like my documentaries to be a bit more like a book report. That allows me, the viewer, to make a more informed opinion. Just because certain facts don't support the filmmaker's opinion, that doesn't mean that those facts are irrelevant or that they muddle the message. In this example, if you're comparing the systems of different countries, then it makes sense to compare the pro's and con's of the systems in question. That's generally what I expect of any comparison, really, and if a documentary makes comparing systems its cornerstone (as Sicko does), then I insist on it. That said, you could go overboard. A documentary on climate change, for example, shouldn't give 50% of its time to deniers just because there is one side to the issue that denies there's an issue at all. The scientific consensus is split on climate change, that's for sure. But, the split is something like 97-3. So maybe give the deniers about 10 hilarious minutes to make their case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Not liking Moore's documentaries is perfectly fine. As is liking them. But pretending that he doesn't mix in a healthy helping of bullshit or non-facts to solidify the movie's framework, or that this is perfectly fine just because the core issue is something most people agree with, is bullshit. Duzzy Funlop fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Oct 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
tarlibone posted:Now, if you really want to research this for fun and profit, I encourage you to do so. Just click here. All of the mainstream media is remarkably biased against single payer healthcare, so it's super easy to find poo poo denouncing Moore's position on the issue, but most of that poo poo is exactly that, poo poo. Please present your favourite piece of poo poo that denounces Moore's Sicko documentary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
People on the left hate Moore because he is able to get results quick. Nothing bothers the left in America more than accomplishments that are quick and comparatively easy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
tarlibone posted:Your standards for a documentary are not my standards for a documentary. That's too bad, because your standards for a documentary describe something that is non-existent and absurd. Let's aside that you don't understand the purpose, nature, or history of documentaries, though. To repeat: Please demonstrate the line of statistical evidence that sheds any serious doubt on the thesis of Sicko. As in, please demonstrate that Sicko is actually wrong. quote:But pretending that he doesn't mix in a healthy helping of bullshit or non-facts to solidify the movie's framework, or that this is perfectly fine just because the core issue is something most people agree with, is bullshit. Moment of truth: Identify the "bullshit" in Moore's work, just to set the record straight on what you think bullshit is, instead of this constant vague feeling that Michael Moore is trouble because he has obvious opinions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
I always find it a bit amusing that when one mocks the extremes of either end of the spectrum there's some thinly veiled attempt to associate it with ignorance. Bonus points if a tie in that that someone watches Trey Parker and Matt Stone's work as if it's somehow a good insult. I know it's touchy when opposing sides are told they're more similar than they might wanna believe. They're both blowhards. Moore has some valid points but frames them to be perfect and immune to criticism with lots of clever editing and heartstring evocating garbage. While yeah he's got some valid points I'm unwilling to kiss his rear end or call it gospel. I don't deny Coulter has some absolutely insane opinions, but like I said they both serve garbage that a particular group of folks devour. You might be a bit more on point with Maher, though. Guy so desperately wishes he was Carlin but just comes off as this really pale shade of the guy. I'm absolutely baffled as to how the guy has had Real Time for so long. My old man was a conservative and hatewatched it so maybe that's part of the audience? tarlibone posted:If a Republican said the sky was blue, Moore would tentatively agree, but then cut to a scene showing a coal plant spewing smoke into the sky, then another smash cut to a dirty diesel engine blowing massive amounts of black smoke into the air, saying, "gray and black are sort-of blue, right?" If a Democrat said the sky was blue, Coulter would either argue that it was, in fact, red, or that it's only blue because the Islamoliberalcrat agenda has been liberaling the books and crayon industry to change what used to be called red into what we now call blue. Okay I got a good laugh out of this Servaetes fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Oct 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Servaetes posted:I always find it a bit amusing that when one mocks the extremes of either end of the spectrum there's some thinly veiled attempt to associate it with ignorance. Bonus points if a tie in that that someone watches Trey Parker and Matt Stone's work as if it's somehow a good insult. I know it's touchy when opposing sides are told they're more similar than they might wanna believe. You could just say "I dislike Moore's tone" rather than making tortured equivalency arguments. We're all still waiting on why Coulter is in any way equivalent to Moore other than that your sensibilities are offended. Clever editing! What a fiend.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Maher still has his show because at the end of the day, he's just another liberal establishment blowhard (as opposed to say Carlin who comes out as firmly anti-establishment).
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Duzzy Funlop posted:Not liking Moore's documentaries is perfectly fine. As is liking them. I'm going to need a documentary about this
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
There's a reason that "truth in the middle" opinions are so widely mocked, the least of which being that it demonstrates an astounding lack of understanding nuance mixed with smugness that you're somehow above it all and have all the real answers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
This just demonstrates what has been going on with Moore's detractors since Bowling for Columbine: When you attempt to pin them down, you get mealy-mouthed false equivalence and the sob story of how they suffered to look at nakedly political material. Distraught with the thought that political discourse is in itself evil, truth-in-the-middlers fall back to the ludicrous position that documentaries are supposed to be works of "fact." "Fact" here should be the rote repetition of statistics (or something, this is impossible to articulate without sounding like an idiot), and otherwise avoid the appearance of argument by stating every possible argument. "Ten minutes" must be given to hear out all possible depictions of reality, or it isn't objective, you see. Objectivity not at all being the concern of a documentary somehow does not enter into this delicate equation. Documentaries as persuasive pieces, entertainment, or protest? On politically-charged topics?!?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 16:11 |
|
|
Roger and Me could be shown to anyone and have an impact, the rest of Michael Moore's stuff is basically only going to be viewed by the side it's made for. No reason to get so angry and defensive over what people think a documentary should be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 20:58
|
|