|TinManic - 2008-07-28 |
the past is another country with it's own customs and deeply complex relationships, and occasionally raided by the present for the sake of making points about a modern debate.
Yeah... may I clarify for the special needs section of the class?
No one's making the claim that we can't learn from history or that human nature has changed substantially. The point I believe Tin was trying to make was that this clip is typical inflammatory slanted Micheal Moore bullshit.
He's not attempting to educate us about the past. He's seeking to incense the audience by a simplified and steeply slanted rendition of the past.
That pigfucker is cherry picking the very worst of us to bolster his twisted fucking claims. Amusing, considering this is a tactic that is also employed by his arch-rivals in the media (which he frequently chastises them for).
We could learn a lot from history, yes. So could Micheal Moore apparently. If you chucklefucks are going to hold up this low budget South Park skit as "historically relevant", then fuck you.
Thank you Lindner, that's EXACTLY what i meant to say.
Oh. Well that's fair enough.
No. I don't own a firearm, nor am I interested in doing so.
... so what's your next theory?
May I make a bold statement about you as a person based upon your last post? I'm guessing you like to fuck kittens.
Lindner: Michael Moore is a moron, and the two films of his I have seen (Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 911) construct arguments based on such incredible leaps in logical thinking that they essentially fall apart (although there is a lot of interesting material to be rescued from both films).
Now, that being said, I will simplify my point to a level you may understand it: THIS IS A FUNNEH CARTOOOON.
It is an enjoyable, 3 minute humorous summarization of American history. No one here is saying this should be shown in schools instead of american history class, we are saying "hey, clever, funny, 5 stars, now let's move on with our lives", instead of posting some pseudo-poetic prose on the venomous effects of searching the past to validate the present.
Linder: Of course Moore is cherry-picking. Do you know what history is? It's really, really fucking BIG. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO PUT ANYTHING IN ANY HISTORICAL CONTEXT WITHOUT PICKING AND CHOOSING YOUR FACTS. The only way to be completely fair to all possible facts and perspectives is to present EVERYTHING there is know about American history, and that would make this cartoon several years long and not quite as funny.
And also that would be impossible, because what we know about our past is a tiny sliver of the truth, as huge amounts of knowledge have been lost to time.
Moore is often horribly slanted, but if you're going to give him shit for picking some facts and ignoring others, your next rant had better be against every historian who ever lived.
Apart from the fact that it's a goddamn 3 minute cartoon and you're mad at it for failing to reach the level of a graduate thesis.
Thesis? I didn't set those standards, Xeno, nor am I mad that it fails to meet them.
I'm mad at Takewithfood and SolRo who were implying that by dismissing this as inflammatory bullshit, we were pissing in our ancestors mouths.
I agree with you entirely. It's a cartoon.
Lindner, you're right when you say that both the left and the right engage in these attacks of propaganda. It's gotten to the point over the last twenty years where there is no room for compromise or dialogue. So we get this sort of thing instead.
However, since I'm from Soviet Canuckistan, four stars.
Linder: No theory. My next thing is to point out that you're a spaz. And to better explain why I gave this five stars.
Listen up, son, and let's leave Michael Moore out of this for now, 'kay?
Say every one is thinking the exact same thing. Everyone has been told through media not to waver from what they've been told to think, so no one wavers from thinking the exact same thing.
Suddenly, some new media message comes out saying WHOA MAN THINK SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT! And they do it really well. So well, that everyone has something to say on the matter.
And some something completely different. They change every thing they've thought, they back up the new media message as dogma. They preach it like it's fucking law. And they worship the conveyer of the new media message.
Some think something completely the same. They cling to their old thoughts, and they decry the new media message as heresy. They'll treat every word as if it were a lie, despite any truths in the information. They go out of their way to deride the converyer of the new media message at every turn (this one sounds like you, buck-o).
And then there's some that neither believe it, nor disbelieve it. They look at both side's arguements, and then they do research to better understand the arguements made in the new media message. They don't recite the new media message as dogma, or decry the new media message as heresy. They neither treat it as truth, or lies. And they neither praise nor deride the converyer of the new media message. The third group thinks, and takes on their newly researched ideas, sparked by but not relying on the new media message.
But regardless of the group you belong in, you're still talking about it.
Michael Moore pulled this off. He made an arguement that was so compelling, that the people who wanted to be swayed were swayed almost instantly. The people who didn't want to hear his message of hate (or, alternatively refused to entertain his arguements because he self-promotes) refused to be swayed. And group three, the least fucking insane of the groups, did their research, and now know more about arguments for and against.
So basically five stars, because Michael Moore, through his bright and flashy overblown presentations, got a lot of people thinking.
Now back to you, son.
You made a whiny post. I assumed it was because Michael Moore insulted you through this clip - this seemed to imply you were belonging to either the pilgrims (and I doubt you're a pilgrim), the slaves (and I doubt you're a slave), the KKK (I doubt you're a klansman), or the NRA (which seemed like the least offensive group on the list). I responded as such. Now, I think you're just a member of group two - close-minded moonbats.
I'm just going to end this with a though. You assumed my post infered that I'm a kitten fucker. There were only two opinions expressed in my post - that I support 'group three', people who desire to learn, and that I made an assumption about you. This implies that you believe either people who desire to learn are kitten fucker (which is remarkably ignorant), or that since you both assume things, and fuck kittens, you assume that all other people who assume things also fuck kittens. Which is incorrect, son. I didn't say what I chose to say because of bestiality. I just made an educated guess asto why you were so venomously anti-Michael Moore, giving you the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't over some whiny anti-fanboy-ish hate of him, and was incorrect.
Jesus just give him the URL already.
Now lets sort this out.
There are a lot of elisions in the potted history. It seeks to make a single central point (scairt white people) but I can see a number of flaws just from cursory viewing. For example: how did poor whites get drawn into the situation? Only after the end of the legal slave trade did Europeans engage in independent slave-raiding in any meaningful sense, so the "kidnapping" is a misrepresentation despite the culpability of demand in the trade.
It makes some interesting linkages but whether they stand up to scrutiny is another matter. As for Moore being a pigfucker, HE'S FROM FLINT. FLINT IS ABOUT AS POSTINDUSTRIAL WASTELAND AS YOU GET. Christ, Lindner.
Billie, nobody's going to read all of that shit you wrote.
My theory is that you all have earmites.
Yeah, I dig that. It's why I summarize my long-ass shit at the ends.
Shut the fuck up Billie you're out of your element.
Meerkat, earmites are not the issue here. It's about drawing a land in the sand: BEYOND THIS LINE YOU DO NOT!...
"let's leave Michael Moore out of this"
"Michael Moore pulled this off."
"So basically five stars, because Michael Moore..."
"... because Michael Moore insulted you.."
"..you were so venomously anti-Michael Moore.."
"..I'm a kitten fucker."
When I started reading that post, I did not expect to read the gentleman in question's name again. This is just my reaction seeing it being liberally used thereafter.
Ah. I see. Next time, I'll be sure to say 'Michael Moore out of my upcoming example.' See, the example is something I lifted from a debate on Jesus Christ.
Here's the part where you assume I'm comparing Michael Moore to Jesus Christ.
Also, eat a cock.
It's hard not to think that when you clearly state..
"I'm comparing Michael Moore to Jesus Christ."
I'm not assuming anything.
And though I know it almost certainly doesn't matter to you, and that this opinion holds little weight given that I post somewhere on POE roughly once a year, I still kind of like what you've got to say most of the time.
Peace. Thanks for the cock.
wow, didn't mean to set off this fag dance. i was just irritated at this abuse of history. this is after all not just a cartoon without context. it's meant to support the film's greater thesis and so is as valid a point to attack as any. unfortunately this film is NOT marginal, it got a great deal of exposure and so it cannot just be ignored when it pops up.
for the record i'm not a right wing nut, i'm a fairly liberal history major in canada who cares about the public's relationship with history.
No prob, you said your piece, hopefully learned something too, and sparked a massive fagsplosion that really belongs on POE NEWS forums where we all have room to stretch and slam into each other.
I starred it on being a funny cartoon out of context.. I wouldn't give 4 stars to anything else in "Columbine" except when he shows other countries atrocities to classical music, because that is also cool out of context.
I'm pretty sure Moore never changed anyone's mind about anything since he stopped doing "TV Nation".
Wow, I was just kidding around with my comment. And the 4 stars were because the video made me giggle.
|Caminante Nocturno - 2008-07-28 |
Being an asshole about history is a pretty lazy way to make yourself feel superior.
And damn it, Michael Moore is just the lazy man for the job.
|chumbucket - 2008-07-28 |
the bullet has a lot to say about this and the idea that white people buy guns because black people are "free"
|Hugo Gorilla - 2008-07-28 |
Or DID they?
|Hugo Gorilla - 2008-07-28 |
One star by the way.
|Hooker - 2008-07-28 |
You have to ask yourself if something is accurate and am I persuaded by it? The answer to the first clause for this is no, it is not accurate. If the answer to the second is yes, you are persuaded by it, then I would argue that you're only looking to hear what you want to hear, and thankfully enough, Michael Moore is there to tell you it.
Michael Moore's job isn't to persuade people, it's to convince people who already were convinced. And damn it, I'm CONVINCED.
|GiantAtomicFreak - 2008-07-28 |
I'm two starring this because it reminds me what a dick I must have been at university and I went to go and see this at the local indie theatre. Fuck you, 2003 Me.
Also, one of those stars is only because this short provoked a feud that ended with a puppet of Michael Moore being filled with ham and then detonated on film.
|facek - 2008-07-28 |
This is not a funny cartoon, it's on a level below south park, which it's trying to imitate. Does anyone see anything wrong with that?
|CornOnTheCabre - 2008-07-28 |
+1 for flame war but i really cant afford anything more to whatever Michael Moore does or says
|j lzrd / swift idiot - 2008-07-28 |
This wasn't funny or smart the first time. The reheated leftovers, even less so.
|Syd Midnight - 2008-07-28 |
I have no problems giving stars to funny Axis propaganda from WW2, why should I be scared to give stars to Michael Moore? This was really funny the first time I saw it.
|Big Muddy - 2008-07-28 |
It's no coincidence at all that Moore meant this to resemble South Park. These are Matt Stone's specific words taken from this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6228221/
“We have a very specific beef with Michael Moore,” Stone said. “I did an interview, and he didn’t mischaracterize me or anything I said in the movie. But what he did do was put this cartoon right after me that made it look like we did that cartoon.”
I quite clearly feel Moore aggrandizes shit to a level no one else would or should try for his chosen topics. It did nothing to legitimize facts or causes of wrongdoing within the administration. How come? Because James R. Bath and the Saudi Royalty have fuckall to do with Iraq, let alone Bin Laden.
Dirty pool. That's ma boy alright.
Yeah. On a global scale I'd call it propaganda and a real cheap shot because he's mocking South Park, for better or worse, but on a local scale it's simply "funny".
Ah loves mah gun. LOVES mah gun.
|DopeFiend - 2008-07-28 |
Yeah, fuck white people and fuck America!
This kind of garbage makes us liberals look really bad, and serves as ammunition for conservative pundits. I usually like Michael Moore, but there's just so much wrong with this little cartoon.
|Cena_mark - 2008-07-28 |
Oh you know I don't like this video.
|sheikurbouti - 2008-07-28 |
The cartoon is sanctimonious and unintentionally trivializes some really blah blah blah blah... The shitstorm it unsheashed from us is teh awesome, though.
|almo - 2008-07-28 |
high levels of spergin out in these comments
|Jefka - 2008-07-28 |
I'm torn between 5-starring the video for unleashing the awful fucking comments and backtalk and 1-starring the video on its own merits.
|mr666 - 2008-07-28 |
5 stras for the cmments coming dangerously close to being just like what you'll find on Youtube. All we need are some spam messages and we might just be there.
|crote - 2008-07-29 |
Not only does Michael Moore make a cartoon of dubious historical accuracy, he also simultaneously turns poe into a sped convention.
Well played, fat man.
So where are the rest of your stars? That's a grand slam by PoE standards.
|Bort - 2009-02-20 |
Five stars for the discussion. While the cartoon is obviously painting in very broad strokes, it is kind of funny that there was a surge in gun purchases immediately after the election of a black president. This cartoon may be playing fast and loose with generalizations, but there's a kernel of truth in there too.
|Spastic Avenger - 2009-05-03 |
I am rating this on its evil quotient, not because I agree with it. ISN'T THAT HOW WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO IT?
| Register or login To Post a Comment|