~Stupid White Men~ ~How much of it is true?~~

Sure some would say this belongs in the Ampetheatre (sp)

but i more would like to hear the polictical reactions from people and there views on those in the book.




~~~~~~~~~~~Actual Thread~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Michael Moore's (Director of Bowling for Columbine) book Stupid White Men has once agian risen on the Best Seller charts, I have recently read it and must say he does bring up some good points however my one big question is how much is true? I mean it kinda comes off as Green party propagagna, thats taking it alittle far. He does refernce were he got all his facts, and they are from reliable sources. So if we can say its true, its scary. Very scary.

If you have not read the book please do its a quick read.


And i know someone is going to bring up his Oscar speech. I myself thought it was werid they booed. I didnt see the Hollywood crowd booing such things. Thats when I turned on NPR. Sure enough, an interview with Michael Moore. They asked him about the Booing. And he had a surprising answer. The people who booed where first of all, all in the balcony. They were also in a tight nit little group, and they were planted there by the goverment. Of course im a logical person, my first reaction was, "Yeah right! Come on man!" But then I started hearing the same thing from different sources, that they were planted there. Its still sinking in how werid that is and I'm not sure what to believe. Im not the kind of person with straight beliefs (on things i cant prove I mean) because the world is not black and white. Im kinda suspicious of anyone who really believes in one side of something with no truth...


If anyone actually read that please share your thoughts? Who is feeding us? The goverment or the more librel crowd?

I know ive gotten alittle off topic but these are all things that I want to hear other peoples views about.


**Edit**

Please dont blast me, these are things we must discuss, last time i made a thread that some how could show american as not perfect everyone called me an anti american terroist!

 

Good book and great documentary.

I don't agree with the majority of his views, but there are some which I do agree with.

Although, I prefer Roger and Me, which dealt more with the subject of big business.

I don't know if I buy that "plant" stuff. But the majority didn't boo him, they cheered him. That is true. I doubt the ones that booed him were "plants".

There are a great deal of Hollywood Republicans who are pro war as well, such as Bruce Willis, Sly, Arnold and many others.

Either way, it was not the time nor place for to do that little speech.

 

It's by Michael Moore. That should tell you how much of it is true.

 

..ha?

that simply isnt enough, can i hear of some instances in which he has stated things taht were false? Do you have any proof?

 

It has already been documented how he manipulated and in some cases flat out lied in Bowling for COlumbine, so it bears to mind that he lies an many more things.

Of course, I have not read STUPID WHITE MEN, as that would be pretty stupid of me to read any garbage that comes from Michael Moorer.

 

Here's a rather widely mentioned spinsanity article on this topic

For my own money I wouldn't take anything Morre says or writes seriously since he himself acknowledges the untruthfulness of it.

Or to be accurate, everytime he's confronted with an inconcistancy he shrugs it off by saying it's political satire and thus can't be innaccurate.

Obviously he's a idealouge with no real comprehension of anything other then what he wants to be true.

 

i see,

however i may point out that most of the Inaccuarcyiesipfnies in Stupid White Men, are dealing with numbers. I mean things like that, relationships of things.

 

And it shows a complete lack of willingness to do even basic research.

This is, I feel, a rather egregious problem in a 'documentary' or even a work of non fiction.

 

i think your taking it a bit too far. more stuff he says is true then not

 

You say that like it's a good thing.

We're not talking about just mistakes here, we're talking about knowingly putting in falsehoods and outright lies.

I suppsoe you might say it's for a good cause, but what does it say if you can't convince someone to agree with you based on facts instead of outright lies.

You may decide that you don't mind being lied to, but don't pretend others shouldn't mind either.

 

I've heard some of these supposed "falsehoods" Moore put in his documentary. No doubt Moore milked sentiment for all it was worth. But there was no lie that I saw. Most of what I've heard from the criticism of his documentary comes in the form of really small and unimportant pieces. Like "the transcripts don't match what he showed". Well transcripts do not always match precisely word for word anyway. They often do but there are many occaisions where the wording is slightly different. Why doesn't someone sue him for libel then if it was such lies? I think it has to be admitted: it was uncomfortable, it was shameless, but it was also 80% truth. More truth than we're often given from our own news services.

 

80% truth is okay?

Well why didn't you say so.

I shall now endevour to make sure all my posts contain 80% truthfullness in an effort to comply with the Micheal Moore standard of honesty.

80%? I don't know where you went to school but here thats a ****ing C+.

No, it isn't even 80% truth because much of it is unverifiable opinions spewed out as fact.

So tell me Gonk, if one out of every five words you said was completely untrue, would you expect anyone to trust you?

 

Well 80% truth will still get you convicted of purgery if you lie in a court of law. So it's either 100% or nothing.

That is why Micheal Moron is a liar and he is a disgrace.

 

I haven`t read the book, but I`d like to. It is on my to read pile. I have read his online chapterwhich I find quite interesting. I do not take every thing he says for granted, but it offers an other point of view that I like.

 

There were some numerical discrepancies in SWM, as Ben Fritz pointed out, but that shouldn't invalidate the whole book. As one journalist said:

---

Fritz?s accusations may be true. Moore seems to have been a bit sloppy at certain points in the book. But that shouldn?t totally invalidate everything that he has to say. Moore represents an important voice of dissent at a time when it seems that nearly everyone is discouraging the very thing. As Moore himself likes to point out, the stunning sales numbers of Stupid White Men tell an important story in and of themselves. ?There's something going on here, and [the pundits and publishers] don't know what it is." Stupid White Men may have its flaws, but it does give us insight into what that something is.[hr][/blockquote]

 

The spinsanity articles on SWM and BFC are must-reads. Spinsanity does a good job looking for political messages that go 'over the line' and stives to be non-partisan. In fact, they fall a little left of center on most days, which makes their absolute damning of Moore's work all the more convincing.

Moore is extremely divisive, even though he is so funny. Most would agree he has biting satire...but once someone tries to take his work seriously/politically, trouble arises. Those who are inclined to disagree immediately bring up his huge, insurmountable credibility issues (guess which camp I generally fall into), and those that are inclined to agree tend to overlook this...because hey, he's saying what they want to hear.

I don't think that the two sides are going to meet on this matter. The evidence is out there, and people have already made up their mind whether to heed it, or ignore it. (EDIT: and use popularity to supercede accuracy, apparently).


Cloine4, got a link? I've read that before, but can't remember enoug to google it.

 

From a modern historians perspective - I can honestly say that very few documentaries or books in which people argue a certain point of view are ever going to be 100% correct.

Why? Because most people, historians, documenatary makers, politicians, teachers etc will argue the view and the facts that supports their ideas. If this means deliberately editing or only taking some facts but not others I think you'll find most people willing to do that.

It doesn't make it right. However, doing so doesn't make Michael Moore any more or any less special then his fellow journalists and documentary makers.

Kithera

 

You may decide that you don't mind being lied to, but don't pretend others shouldn't mind either




I see it that either way your lied to, i rahter believe some lieing chubby funny guy then some...well for the sake of being flammed ill just call him George w. Bush

i think we're being lied to on both fronts, but i think michael moore is looking out for us, though he may not always be telling the truth at least he has good intentions

 

Yeah right, do the stunning sales figures of tabloids reflect the worthiness of their content?

Kit' I draw a line between manufacturing evidence and skewing evidence.

Superimposing two seperate images or editting someones comments to change what they said are not acceptable by anyone with even a passing relationship with the truth.

Micheal Moore reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer get accused of sexual harrasment.

The re-editted interview would fit right in with most of Moores works.

 

um i your responding to something no one said, it doesnt matter how much his books sell, and everyone knows this, i think


i may point out that everyone hates the dirty truth

 

Yeah right, do the stunning sales figures of tabloids reflect the worthiness of their content?

I think book sales fare a little differently to newspaper tabloids.


Red Seven - Here is a link to that article I quoted.

 

As Moore himself likes to point out, the stunning sales numbers of Stupid White Men tell an important story in and of themselves.

No one?

Edit// Oh? Then you'd say that if Ann Coulter's next book hit's number one she must be right?

 

80% truth is okay?

Well why didn't you say so.

I shall now endevour to make sure all my posts contain 80% truthfullness in an effort to comply with the Micheal Moore standard of honesty.

80%? I don't know where you went to school but here thats a ****ing C+.

COME ON MAN, IT'S MICHAEL MOORE! What did you expect? You didn't think the guy was going to be somewhat biased? How much truth do you think is in the average war news report in America? I'll bet it's right up there with him.

 

What did I expect?

Not bloody much at all. Unfortunately there are people out there who think he's honest.

And you didn't respond to if you'd expect other people to trust you if 1 out of five thigns you said were lies.

Is any one surprised that if you set the hurdle low enough eventually they'll make it over?

 

As Moore himself likes to point out, the stunning sales numbers of Stupid White Men tell an important story in and of themselves.

No one?


I said "i think". i dont think he means what you think he does anyway.






im bet its higher then 80, because if you coutn the more simple claims he makes..



if it is 80 im sure thats alot higher then what the goverment tells us