Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Wyz_sub10 · 03-25-2003, 07:04 AM

I just want to re-state a point and emphasize it a bit -

How many people there not only felt as Moore does, but have expressed this to the press and their fans at one point or another...but in some half-hearted, roundabout way?

Granted, saying "I disagree" is different than "fuck you." But many celebrities want to be namby-pamby about what they think - they want to be whatever the situation calls for (they're actors, after all).

Moore is, at least, honest to a fault about what he thinks. I may not agree with his approach at that time, but fuck...how many couched "yeah, war is bad...I dunno...whatever you think...but really, it's bad, so..." speeches do we need?

If it's not a forum, shut the fuck up about politics and talk about your movie. But if you're going to laud those who make meaningless, obvious statements, then at least tolerate those who speak directly.

Christ...I hate listening to athletes talk about giving "110%" and all that sound-bite bullshit. It's no easier to take from actors.

Chuck · 03-25-2003, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Without these freedoms that we have fought for through the years, we could be an oppressed nation and Michael Moore wouldn't even had the priveledge to exercise his little speech.

Ah yes, the "Stop exercising those freedoms we worked so hard to protect, dammit" argument.

Dissent is part of being American. I love it when people tell protesters "If you don't like America, just leave." Such a heartwarming celebration of our rights, and a stirring devotion to free speech.

If you don't like that, just leave.

Chuck

ExTheist · 03-25-2003, 08:25 AM

This drivel about protests "hurting the troops" is getting old fast. Our right to speak out trumps any such concern. It is the fault of G.W. Bush that troops are in harms way. It is US policy that is hurting the troops and the people of Iraq, both whom I value equally. So a US soldier sees a massive anti-war rally on TV and feels bad, I say boo hoo soldier this is what democracy looks like.

Captain Pedantic · 03-25-2003, 08:46 AM

I would say that the vast majority of human rights that have been won over the past however many years would not have been won without disruptive protest.

The suffragist women, when campaigning for the vote, broke the windows of shops. They got in the way. They fucked things up. Would all of you people have told them that there were "better" ways they could have made their feelings known? Would you have told all the people who wanted the same rights for the black race as the white race that there was a "time and a place"?

I don't mean to compare anyone here to racists or other bigots, but it is clear to me that disruptive protest is necessary for those who truly want their voices heard, and history has shown it to be so.

(Also, I am quite convinced that, if someone made a pro-war speech in the exact manner of Moore, all the people who are calling Moore an "asshole" now would be talking about freedom of speech and saying "It may have been disruptive, but he had a right to say what he did".)

Deacon · 03-25-2003, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lamma
You're missing the point. There's a difference between making a statement and being offensive. If you don't find how and what he said to be boorish and offensive-especially given the times we're in... That's up to you.

Moore has probably created 100's of thousands of detractors through his lack of decorum. Not a good way to get your point across.

Moore's statements were really only offensive to those who did not support his viewpoints. Just because they were offensive to you doesn't mean they were offensive to everyone.

Yeah, people who are against the war are now pro-War because Moore used, in your opinion, an inappropriate forum to express his views.

I thought it was cool he invited the other nominees up there, I think that was probably pre-planned (as Bowling for Columbine was the odds on favorite to win). The only thing I wonder, and haven't gotten an answer on yet, was how the other documentary filmmakers felt about his message? Did they support it?

[Ad hominem deleted - Clark]

Deacon · 03-25-2003, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ExTheist
This drivel about protests "hurting the troops" is getting old fast. Our right to speak out trumps any such concern. It is the fault of G.W. Bush that troops are in harms way. It is US policy that is hurting the troops and the people of Iraq, both whom I value equally. So a US soldier sees a massive anti-war rally on TV and feels bad, I say boo hoo soldier this is what democracy looks like.

Good point. If anything, an anti-war protest is a desire to get the soldiers home.

Kinda goes back to before Bush embarked on this crusade to oust Hussein when right-wing journalists were out right calling opponents of military action "traitors".

Bad Kitty · 03-25-2003, 09:20 AM

Michael Moore's speech was boring and uninspiring. He had all of the impact of a two-year old having a temper tantrum -- with less entertainment value.

That being said, I support his right to say whatever he damn well pleases during his acceptance speech.

TBZ

char · 03-25-2003, 10:56 AM

Was Bowling for Columbine a documentary? I was under the impression that he wrote a large majority of it. Wouldn't that make it a screenplay?

At anyrate, it is to bad that MM couldn't find a more articulate way to express his views at the Oscars.

August Spies · 03-25-2003, 11:02 AM

I have to say, in all honesty, that you people attacking moore sound like idiots. His speech was 4 sentences, it could hardly be called boring. If you get bored after 20 seconds I doubt anyone trying to say anything would be concerned with you.

two year old having a temper tantrum?

He clearly said a short "speech" that he had pre-written, he said it in a normal pace and in his normal style. Nothing about it, in any way, resembled a temper tantrum. Though I can't say as much about some posts against him here.

I don't care at all if you disagreed with Moores speech, but attack it for some real reasons. So far it seems people like Lamma think the more clever adjactives they can throw at moore the stronger their point is. not so.

MollyMac · 03-25-2003, 11:54 AM

I know this thread's about Moore's speech but a few people have mentioned the guy from the pianist in glowing terms. Personally, I found his reference to the war utterly trite - why bother saying something so safe, something that nobody could disagree with, something that's just bound to win you rapturous applause and accolades....Oh yeah, I see.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-25-2003, 07:04 AM	#61
Wyz_sub10 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the land of two boys and no sleep. Posts: 9,890	I just want to re-state a point and emphasize it a bit - How many people there not only felt as Moore does, but have expressed this to the press and their fans at one point or another...but in some half-hearted, roundabout way? Granted, saying "I disagree" is different than "fuck you." But many celebrities want to be namby-pamby about what they think - they want to be whatever the situation calls for (they're actors, after all). Moore is, at least, honest to a fault about what he thinks. I may not agree with his approach at that time, but fuck...how many couched "yeah, war is bad...I dunno...whatever you think...but really, it's bad, so..." speeches do we need? If it's not a forum, shut the fuck up about politics and talk about your movie. But if you're going to laud those who make meaningless, obvious statements, then at least tolerate those who speak directly. Christ...I hate listening to athletes talk about giving "110%" and all that sound-bite bullshit. It's no easier to take from actors.

03-25-2003, 08:25 AM	#63
ExTheist Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Earth Posts: 238	This drivel about protests "hurting the troops" is getting old fast. Our right to speak out trumps any such concern. It is the fault of G.W. Bush that troops are in harms way. It is US policy that is hurting the troops and the people of Iraq, both whom I value equally. So a US soldier sees a massive anti-war rally on TV and feels bad, I say boo hoo soldier this is what democracy looks like.

03-25-2003, 08:46 AM	#64
Captain Pedantic Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: UK. Posts: 588	I would say that the vast majority of human rights that have been won over the past however many years would not have been won without disruptive protest. The suffragist women, when campaigning for the vote, broke the windows of shops. They got in the way. They fucked things up. Would all of you people have told them that there were "better" ways they could have made their feelings known? Would you have told all the people who wanted the same rights for the black race as the white race that there was a "time and a place"? I don't mean to compare anyone here to racists or other bigots, but it is clear to me that disruptive protest is necessary for those who truly want their voices heard, and history has shown it to be so. (Also, I am quite convinced that, if someone made a pro-war speech in the exact manner of Moore, all the people who are calling Moore an "asshole" now would be talking about freedom of speech and saying "It may have been disruptive, but he had a right to say what he did".)

03-25-2003, 09:20 AM	#67
Bad Kitty Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: The South. Posts: 2,122	Michael Moore's speech was boring and uninspiring. He had all of the impact of a two-year old having a temper tantrum -- with less entertainment value. That being said, I support his right to say whatever he damn well pleases during his acceptance speech. TBZ

03-25-2003, 10:56 AM	#68
char Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: SEA Posts: 38	Was Bowling for Columbine a documentary? I was under the impression that he wrote a large majority of it. Wouldn't that make it a screenplay? At anyrate, it is to bad that MM couldn't find a more articulate way to express his views at the Oscars.

03-25-2003, 11:02 AM	#69
August Spies Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Vine Posts: 12,950	I have to say, in all honesty, that you people attacking moore sound like idiots. His speech was 4 sentences, it could hardly be called boring. If you get bored after 20 seconds I doubt anyone trying to say anything would be concerned with you. two year old having a temper tantrum? He clearly said a short "speech" that he had pre-written, he said it in a normal pace and in his normal style. Nothing about it, in any way, resembled a temper tantrum. Though I can't say as much about some posts against him here. I don't care at all if you disagreed with Moores speech, but attack it for some real reasons. So far it seems people like Lamma think the more clever adjactives they can throw at moore the stronger their point is. not so.

03-25-2003, 11:54 AM	#70
MollyMac Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: London, England Posts: 2,125	I know this thread's about Moore's speech but a few people have mentioned the guy from the pianist in glowing terms. Personally, I found his reference to the war utterly trite - why bother saying something so safe, something that nobody could disagree with, something that's just bound to win you rapturous applause and accolades....Oh yeah, I see.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.