Forum
#Topics
+Start a topic
?Search __________________________________

-Log In
-Register
Occupy Wall Street
Log In to post a reply
Pages: 11 – [ Previous | 15 6 7 8 9 10 | Next ]

View: flat \ threaded
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

hito
hito
1745 posts

Re: Occupy Wall Street

cyberpainter wrote:
hito wrote:


Moore has caught onto this propaganda model and decided that the way to battle half truths is to fight fire with fire. He manipulates, omits, emphasises and exaggerates to get his message across. In part, he has been very successful and managed to achieve left wing goals or get the left wing story out there.


Can you give us some specific examples of his manipulation, omissions, and exaggerations? I think the other one is acceptable: emphasis. Nothing wrong with emphasizing something to make your point. But in any case, some examples would be appreciated.


Good question and it took me some time to think about it.
I watched Bowling when it came out and thought it was a half baked thesis. It took a whole lot of ideas and put them together. Some of it was good and powerful but a lot of it did not seem to go with the rest. It really has been a long time since I saw it so I am probably being unfair in not rewatching it but I know it disappointed me due to its lack of coherence.
This guy here goes to town on it:
http://www.mooreexposed.com/bfc.html
and I am not saying his word is gospel but there appears to be some truth in it or at least there are questions that need answering. As my entire post suggested, my big criticism with Moore is he leaves himself open to attack with his apporach.
And if you say, "who is Dave Hardy?" I can see where you are coming from. But check out this rant from Christopher Hitchens and you can see that Moore is open at least to criticism:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2004/06/unfairenheit_911.single.html
Now again, Hitchens is no saint and I can counter some of his points but I think he lands a few body blows.
I should make this disclaimer that I did not read all of these articles listed as they started to bore me like Moore does. Moore is a bit like a Christian or devout atheist in that I don't care much about what they have to say, save a neat precis. Pulling Moore apart in detail is of little interest to me now as I find him unwatchable. I couldn't be bothered with his 911 film after 30 minutes or so because it assumes I am a simpleton in need of hearing the things I want to believe.
And that was my original point. I don't like Moore's approach and I don't like the approach of those placard carrying people because they assume they can lump many woes together and that I - as a left leaning person - will lap it up. I won't.
More than anything, I want honesty. I want to counter the covert dictatorships, corporate welfare and capitalist elections with genuine investigation and scrupulous debate. I don't want anyone questioning the veracity of my claims or the claims of those who are on my side because it distracts from the main game.

Oct 10, 2011, 11:33


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

cyberpainter
cyberpainter
5922 posts

Re: Occupy Wall Street

hito wrote:
cyberpainter wrote:
hito wrote:


Moore has caught onto this propaganda model and decided that the way to battle half truths is to fight fire with fire. He manipulates, omits, emphasises and exaggerates to get his message across. In part, he has been very successful and managed to achieve left wing goals or get the left wing story out there.


Can you give us some specific examples of his manipulation, omissions, and exaggerations? I think the other one is acceptable: emphasis. Nothing wrong with emphasizing something to make your point. But in any case, some examples would be appreciated.


Good question and it took me some time to think about it.
I watched Bowling when it came out and thought it was a half baked thesis. It took a whole lot of ideas and put them together. Some of it was good and powerful but a lot of it did not seem to go with the rest. It really has been a long time since I saw it so I am probably being unfair in not rewatching it but I know it disappointed me due to its lack of coherence.
This guy here goes to town on it:
http://www.mooreexposed.com/bfc.html
and I am not saying his word is gospel but there appears to be some truth in it or at least there are questions that need answering. As my entire post suggested, my big criticism with Moore is he leaves himself open to attack with his apporach.
And if you say, "who is Dave Hardy?" I can see where you are coming from. But check out this rant from Christopher Hitchens and you can see that Moore is open at least to criticism:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2004/06/unfairenheit_911.single.html
Now again, Hitchens is no saint and I can counter some of his points but I think he lands a few body blows.
I should make this disclaimer that I did not read all of these articles listed as they started to bore me like Moore does. Moore is a bit like a Christian or devout atheist in that I don't care much about what they have to say, save a neat precis. Pulling Moore apart in detail is of little interest to me now as I find him unwatchable. I couldn't be bothered with his 911 film after 30 minutes or so because it assumes I am a simpleton in need of hearing the things I want to believe.
And that was my original point. I don't like Moore's approach and I don't like the approach of those placard carrying people because they assume they can lump many woes together and that I - as a left leaning person - will lap it up. I won't.
More than anything, I want honesty. I want to counter the covert dictatorships, corporate welfare and capitalist elections with genuine investigation and scrupulous debate. I don't want anyone questioning the veracity of my claims or the claims of those who are on my side because it distracts from the main game.



That second article was so tedious I didn't get through it yet. However, to reject that opinions, politics, and history can have grey areas, that everything is an either/or proposition, makes this guy sound very small minded, despite is grandiose language. I may attempt to go back again and read it but it's quite a snoozefest, and is terribly flawed. I can't begin to say that I agree with everything Michael Moore says or does. But that doesn't make me reject en masse all of his questioning, which is what I consider what he basically does.

Oct 11, 2011, 19:12


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

hito
hito
1745 posts

Re: Occupy Wall Street

cyberpainter wrote:
But that doesn't make me reject en masse all of his questioning, which is what I consider what he basically does.


I agree with this and although I have been a little strident, he is not the worst person in the world by a long shot. I actually like a lot of things he does and has done but I don't like his willingness to conflate ideas and I don't like him manipulating material to suit his own argument.
It would be nice to think that he is just asking questions but ultimately, he is a player. He is very rich and has an empire at stake if he oes not make a product that sells.

Oct 12, 2011, 07:40


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

cyberpainter
cyberpainter
5922 posts

Re: Occupy Wall Street

hito wrote:
cyberpainter wrote:
But that doesn't make me reject en masse all of his questioning, which is what I consider what he basically does.


I agree with this and although I have been a little strident, he is not the worst person in the world by a long shot. I actually like a lot of things he does and has done but I don't like his willingness to conflate ideas and I don't like him manipulating material to suit his own argument.
It would be nice to think that he is just asking questions but ultimately, he is a player. He is very rich and has an empire at stake if he oes not make a product that sells.



You mean he has an "empire" because he's creating films that are successful and making money, therefore he's not to be trusted?

Oct 12, 2011, 08:08


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

JS
JS
489 posts

Re: Occupy Wall Street

vivakomeda wrote:
I worked hard as hell and lived lightly for years to create a secure adulthood. And even today, I still feel lucky to have the job I've got.



The key word here is "lucky".

Working hard to create a secure adulthood is often not enough, especially these days. Luck is important too. Certainly a lot of these protesters worked as hard as you did.

What should be done about these people who weren't as lucky as you? Let them starve?

Oct 13, 2011, 02:48


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

hito
hito
1745 posts

Re: Occupy Wall Street

cyberpainter wrote:

You mean he has an "empire" because he's creating films that are successful and making money, therefore he's not to be trusted?


Well I think I have made a number of points about the integrity of Moore so this is a bit simplistic. I think is financial gain from his films and books does need to be considered because:

a) he does have to make a successful product for financial reasons. He is not just asking questions like you or me. The whole framing of the questions and answers has a financial consideration. Bill O’Rielly would probably claim he is just asking questions but we know he belongs to a media organisation that makes money (and influences people who will financially feed his corporations agenda) due to the framing of the questions and answers.
b) Moore is rich. In part, his wealth leaves his message open to question as the things he asks of those he exposes, he does not ask of himself. Now I don’t know where you draw the line but I am pretty sure he is over most people’s line when it comes to money. His children are privately educated, he lives in a wealthy area, he charges a lot of money to speak etc. I think it is difficult to be rich and demand that others curb their wealth.
This is not to say that Moore is completely untrustworthy. I am sure that he believes most of what he says and would favour the redistribution of wealth and power from the rich to workers to some extent. He is just like a number of liberals who are obscenely wealthy but have an armchair and arms length humanitarian side to them.

Oct 13, 2011, 04:07


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

hito
hito
1745 posts

Re: Occupy Wall Street

I think luck plays only a small part. To some extent, the outcomes of workers are luck but I would say most people who want to succeed in western countries can. I think the worst luck that some of these protesters had (cancer) has nothing to do with Wall St and everything to do with bad luck.

But your second point is important. I don't think we can let those who don't succeed starve, turn to crime etc. Some provision must be made and some share of the wealth must come their way. But those people must know that the wealth that is coming their way during these times in temporary and given by those who work (mostly the working and middle class who cannot fiddle their taxes). I don't think people who stuff up can expect everything be done for them but they should be helped. I found those placards to be annoying because these people seemed to expect their life of woe to be solved by others. I think they must be helped, must not be tempted to commit crimes that hurt us all (by providing wealth, not the threat of prison) but once this is in place, get on with it. Part of getting on with it is the assurance of fair pay for working 40 hours per week.

Oct 13, 2011, 04:17


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Mars Rover
Mars Rover
1337 posts

Re: Occupy Wall Street

http://swampland.time.com/2011/10/13/why-occupy-wall-street-s-more-popular-than-the-tea-party/?hpt=hp_c1

"Twice as many respondents (54%) have a favorable impression of the eclectic band massing in lower Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park than of the conservative movement that has, after two years, become a staple of the American political scene."

"Nearly 80% of respondents (96% of Democrats and 56% of Republicans) think the class chasm between rich and poor has grown too large, and 68%, including 40% of Republicans, say the affluent should pay more taxes."

Oct 13, 2011, 20:52


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Mu Mu
Mu Mu
2778 posts

Re: Occupy Wall Street



Oct 14, 2011, 01:38


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Mu Mu
Mu Mu
2778 posts

Re: Occupy Wall Street

What are the protesters so upset about, really?

Do they have legitimate gripes?

To answer the latter question first, yes, they have very legitimate gripes.

And if America cannot figure out a way to address these gripes, the country will likely become increasingly "de-stabilized," as sociologists might say. And in that scenario, the current protests will likely be only the beginning.The problem in a nutshell is this: Inequality in this country has hit a level that has been seen only once in the nation's history, and unemployment has reached a level that has been seen only once since the Great Depression. And, at the same time, corporate profits are at a record high.In other words, in the never-ending tug-of-war between "labor" and "capital," there has rarely—if ever—been a time when "capital" was so clearly winning.

Oct 14, 2011, 03:05

Pages: 11 – [ Previous | 15 6 7 8 9 10 | Next ]

add a reply to this topic
________________________________________________________________\______________________________________
stereolab table Index