Capitalism: A Love Story

[Vympel]

Link

Another grenade from Michael Moore

[Big Orange]

He's biased, he's a fat fuck, sometimes spews out a lot of shit, and can be annoying, but he has a few nuggets of truth about the fatally broken political/corporate system running the United States of America into the ground.

[Ritterin Sophia]

He's biased

Of course he's biased, he's going to present the facts that have the most persuasive value to you. On the same token, so is every living human being. I fail to see how this is an indictment of his character.

[Darth Wong]

"Bias" is the most overused adjective in what passes for "debate" on the Internet. We try to keep a lid on overuse of that particular accusation here, but in most places you see it used as a one-stop catch-all rebuttal, and people seem to actually buy it as such.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Michael Moore's films are biased and manipulative, but I'm pretty sure that's his point. An illustrative example comes by way of one of his films, Fahrenheit 9/11. There was the guy from New York (or Jersey, I don't recall which) whose son was a firefighter who died in the towers. When the invasion of Iraq began he supported it because he had extrapolated from what was being said in the press and by the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. So he sent a letter to some air force guys, and got his son's name painted on a bomb. Some time after the invasion he found, to his disgust, that the administration was now denying that they had ever implied a Saddam-9/11 connection. Next thing, he's appearing in Fahrenheit 9/11. So on the one hand you have Michael Moore, filmmaker, creating documentaries skewed towards his viewpoint, and on the other, you have the full force and media influence of the executive branch being used to promulgate false rumors and lies.

Basically, the mass of people are being manipulated pretty much all the time by status quo conservatives--this isn't a partisan label, I'd include many Democratic politicians in this category. This is why Michael Moore is so reviled by people on the right. The agreement basically goes that progressives and liberals supply people with facts and argument and hope that they'll make the right conclusions, while the right tells people the facts (or perhaps lie blatantly as we're now seeing) in a wildly tilted way to lead people directly to the favored conclusions. Michael Moore doesn't do this, he uses smart media techniques and emotionally loaded rhetoric to get people to realize important truths. The issue is not that he propagandizes too much (what he actually does is far less unfair than what any number of right-wing propagandists--e.g. Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, and many more--do constantly), it's that left-wingers aren't supposed to propagandize at all, they're supposed to keep to a gentleman's agreement that maintains the status quo by hobbling the side that has stronger facts.

In a society where civic awareness is appallingly low and most voters couldn't find their real interests with a roadmap, I think Moore provides a service.

[Axis Kast]

Of course he's biased, he's going to present the facts that have the most persuasive value to you. On the same token, so is every living human being. I fail to see how this is an indictment of his character.

Shall I say the same of FOX News, or is that bias "bad bias" because you happen to disagree with it very strongly?

The problem with presenting only one side of an issue is that people tend to be ignorant and lazy. There's no need to wonder about where conservatives get their one-sided points of view: they turn on the radio, listen to people who repeat mantras, and consider themselves "educated" with respect to the issues of the day. It's an extremely detrimental development, this one-sided offering of news. Moore offers the same thing for a different audience.

Bias implies, rightly or wrongly, that the author has something to hide -- that his argument could not quite stand up to the facts, as they actually exist beyond the boundaries of his or her particular presentation -- or that the author is actually himself unaware of alternative interpretations, reducing confidence in any subsequent analysis. A biased article often distracts the reader by provoking outrage rather than critical engagement. In other words, the author ends up doing himself a disservice by restricting his audience to the choir.

Any document - any argument, for that matter - should always be taken to task. On the "really important" issues, one should do independent research. Will the majority of Moore's readers do that? No. Therefore, Moore should indicate some of the potential counterarguments with more than just a tongue-in-cheek, cherry-pick-your-examples attitude. He should show that he doesn't fear different opinions because he can credibly defeat them in logical battle.

None of this, of course, is likely: Moore is an entertainer as well as a self-declared educator, and the bottom line is that his movie will sell better if it is not troubled by fairness, which slows down narrative by adding complexity. However, praising bias as a good or useful thing? That's unsound. You're not an entertainer. There's no bottom line for you.

[Simon_Jester]

Of course he's biased, he's going to present the facts that have the most persuasive value to you. On the same token, so is every living human being. I fail to see how this is an indictment of his character.

Shall I say the same of FOX News, or is that bias "bad bias" because you happen to disagree with it very strongly?

If FOX were small enough that it wasn't possible to formulate all your opinions by listening to them, I wouldn't consider FOX all that dangerous. Moore only comes up with a movie every few years; if he's full of shit, you have plenty of time between movies to figure it out.

If FOX is full of shit, one may never notice, because it's quite possible for a lot of people to get their fill of information about the world from FOX alone.

Biases become more dangerous when backed by a lot of muscle; large organizations have a stronger obligation to be fair-minded than individuals, That's the only ethical difference I see between Moore's bias and FOX's bias... except, of course, for the fact that I agree with more of Moore than of FOX, which probably colors my opinions. But then, I have even less power than Moore does...

[Ritterin Sophia]

Of course he's biased, he's going to present the facts that have the most persuasive value to you. On the same token, so is every living human being. I fail to see how this is an indictment of his character.

Shall I say the same of FOX News, or is that bias "bad bias" because you happen to disagree with it very strongly?

I frankly don't care if they're biased, however, they are dishonest.

The problem with presenting only one side of an issue is that people tend to be ignorant and lazy. There's no need to wonder about where conservatives get their one-sided points of view: they turn on the radio, listen to people who repeat mantras, and consider themselves "educated" with respect to the issues of the day. It's an extremely detrimental development, this one-sided offering of news. Moore offers the same thing for a different audience.

Bias implies, rightly or wrongly, that the author has something to hide -- that his argument could not quite stand up to the facts, as they actually exist beyond the boundaries of his or her particular presentation -- or that the author is actually himself unaware of alternative interpretations, reducing confidence in any subsequent analysis. A biased article often distracts the reader by provoking outrage rather than critical engagement. In other words, the author ends up doing himself a disservice by restricting his audience to the choir.

Wrong, dumbass.

Main Entry: bias
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): bi·ased or bi·assed; bi·as·ing or bi·as·sing
Date: circa 1628
1 : to give a settled and often prejudiced outlook to <his background biases him against foreigners>

I'm not even going to bother with your inane stupidity, simply because it all hinges upon your incorrect definition of the word bias.

[Darth Wong]

Of course he's biased, he's going to present the facts that have the most persuasive value to you. On the same token, so is every living human being. I fail to see how this is an indictment of his character.

Shall I say the same of FOX News, or is that bias "bad bias" because you happen to disagree with it very strongly?

Nice false analogy. FOXNews calls itself "fair and balanced news". Michael Moore doesn't even call himself a journalist.

The problem with presenting only one side of an issue is that people tend to be ignorant and lazy. There's no need to wonder about where conservatives get their one-sided points of view: they turn on the radio, listen to people who repeat mantras, and consider themselves "educated" with respect to the issues of the day. It's an extremely detrimental development, this one-sided offering of news. Moore offers the same thing for a different audience.

Yes, but he's one of only a handful of prominent figures standing against a tidal wave coming the other way. The idea that people are not getting exposure to right-wing viewpoints if they watch Michael Moore is as preposterous as the common Christian notion that people are not able to hear about Christian beliefs if they read atheist literature.

There's only one side of the political aisle which has achieved a hermetically sealed ideological environment, and that's the right wing. The avowed socialist is an openly reviled miniscule minority in America, and you know it. To declare that an anti-capitalist documentary in America runs the risk of creating viewers who are not exposed to the competing viewpoint is either outrageous dishonesty or breathtaking stupidity.

[Rye]

The telegraph is "biased", FOX is outright propaganda. "Bias" per se isn't what makes FOX bad, it's the rampant bullshit they continually put out in the "opinion" shows with no regard for anything approaching the truth except (at most) as a means to segue to political punchlines.

[Darth Wong]

Right-wingers always pull out the "it's just as bad on both sides" canard, no matter how manifestly false it is. People tend to assume that anyone who says such thing is automatically more reasonable than anyone else, thanks to Mindless Middle dogma.

[Axis Kast]

If FOX were small enough that it wasn't possible to formulate all your opinions by listening to them, I wouldn't consider FOX all that dangerous. Moore only comes up with a movie every few years; if he's full of shit, you have plenty of time between movies to figure it out.

Why does time lapse matter more than potential alternatives? FOX News has a great deal more competition than Michael Moore, who produces documentaries in a marketplace almost empty of high-caliber competition. Why should either one make a difference when the average person will leave the living room, or the theater, thinking, "I've just seen the straight shit"?

If FOX is full of shit, one may never notice, because it's quite possible for a lot of people to get their fill of information about the world from FOX alone.

FOX News is more influential than Michael Moore. Neither has successfully provided meaningful public education in the issues they claim to tackle, except to signal, "Hey! There's a problem!"

Biases become more dangerous when backed by a lot of muscle; large organizations have a stronger obligation to be fair-minded than individuals, That's the only ethical difference I see between Moore's bias and FOX's bias... except, of course, for the fact that I agree with more of Moore than of FOX, which probably colors my opinions. But then, I have even less power than Moore does...

What bothers me is the possibility that people here are now arguing that bias isn't something to be regretted, or even avoided.
Bias always detracts from the quality of argument, either by blunting its impact (because the reader is distracted by claims that appear unfair or excessive) or because it results in omission of essential caveats or facts that might turn the argument in another direction.

I frankly don't care if they're biased, however, they are dishonest.

If a position is persuasive because competing evidence has been omitted, that's a problem. It's a problem when FOX does it. It's a problem when Michael Moore does it.

Wrong, dumbass.

Main Entry: bias
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): bi•ased or bi•assed; bi•as•ing or bi•as•sing
Date: circa 1628
1 : to give a settled and often prejudiced outlook to <his background biases him against foreigners>

I'm not even going to bother with your inane stupidity, simply because it all hinges upon your incorrect definition of the word bias.

Fortunately, I was not defining bias, but explaining what bias implies to a keen reader.
Also, where bias is synonymous with prejudice, it's a tremendous knock to the idea that biased persons can be depended upon to make sound arguments that will effectively inform ignorant people. You've helped make my point.

Nice false analogy. FOXNews calls itself "fair and balanced news". Michael Moore doesn't even call himself a journalist.

Michael Moore purports to be offering facts. He clearly operates under a mantle of issue authority.

Yes, but he's one of only a handful of prominent figures standing against a tidal wave coming the other way. The idea that people are not getting exposure to right-wing viewpoints if they watch Michael Moore is as preposterous as the common Christian notion that people are not able to hear about Christian beliefs if they read atheist literature.

I have not, for one second, argued that people are losing out because Michael Moore doesn't give them exposure to "right-wing viewpoints." Michael Moore, like many documentary filmmakers, removes issues from their proper context and fails to give all of the evidence. When he's right, he's right. When he's wrong, many members of his audience will never know.

There's only one side of the political aisle which has achieved a hermetically sealed ideological environment, and that's the right wing. The avowed socialist is an openly reviled miniscule minority in America, and you know it.

No, Mike. This very board is a monument to the fact that it's possible to achieve a hermetically sealed ideological environment even among people who proudly identify as the "leftest of the left wing." It's signed, sealed, and delivered when you accuse me of making arguments I've never made, and when you complain that the problems people see with Michael Moore must somehow stem from their desire to hear "right-wing" talking points along with "left."
My argument is simple: bias is to be avoided in the presentation of arguments. At best, it diverts readers from any valid arguments one attempts to make. At worst, it leads the author to a conclusion resting on a table with only two legs.

To declare that an anti-capitalist documentary in America runs the risk of creating viewers who are not exposed to the competing viewpoint is either outrageous dishonesty or breathtaking stupidity.

No need for generalization. Based on past experience with Moore's work, his documentary runs the risk of giving viewers a one-sided, and therefore inferior, education to the one they might receive from a less biased filmmaker who was more transparent. FOX News everyday chooses which facts - or lies - to send spinning toward the American public. Ignoring the lies, you are still outraged when FOX gives only some of the evidence while sitting on the rest - as well you should be. Why shouldn't I be any less disturbed when somebody else does it?

Right-wingers always pull out the "it's just as bad on both sides" canard, no matter how manifestly false it is. People tend to assume that anyone who says such thing is automatically more reasonable than anyone else, thanks to Mindless Middle dogma.

My alarm is over the idea, put forth by Schatten, that providing only the "most persuasive" pieces of fact is a laudable method of public dialogue.

You've written papers, I'm sure. Is not the strongest paper that which acknowledges as many of the potential counterarguments as possible - fearlessly, because the case it makes for another point of view is superior?

[Darth Wong]

Nice false analogy. FOXNews calls itself "fair and balanced news". Michael Moore doesn't even call himself a journalist.

Michael Moore purports to be offering facts. He clearly operates under a mantle of issue authority.

What the fuck is "issue authority"?

I have not, for one second, argued that people are losing out because Michael Moore doesn't give them exposure to "right-wing viewpoints." Michael Moore, like many documentary filmmakers, removes issues from their proper context and fails to give all of the evidence. When he's right, he's right. When he's wrong, many members of his audience will never know.

Bullshit. It is impossible to avoid right-wing thought in America.

There's only one side of the political aisle which has achieved a hermetically sealed ideological environment, and that's the right wing. The avowed socialist is an openly reviled miniscule minority in America, and you know it.

No, Mike. This very board is a monument to the fact that it's possible to achieve a hermetically sealed ideological environment even among people who proudly identify as the "leftest of the left wing."

Then why are right-wingers such as yourself allowed to make arguments here so long as you avoid the major crimes like lying? For that matter, why do we regularly discuss right-wing editorials and opinions which are reproduced here verbatim for discussion, quoted directly from the source? You do realize that when I refer to right-wingers who live in a hermetically sealed ideological environment, I'm literally talking about people who have no idea what a genuine left-winger's argument looks like, right? You realize that these people literally avoid reading anything from the left-wing in unfiltered form? You're merely confirming what I said in my previous post: people like you insist on manufacturing false equivalence between left and right.

It's signed, sealed, and delivered when you accuse me of making arguments I've never made, and when you complain that the problems people see with Michael Moore must somehow stem from their desire to hear "right-wing" talking points along with "left."

Despite your denials, that's precisely the argument you're making: you're saying that an argument must be "balanced" in order to have merit. In other words, you insist that you must always hear right-wing talking points to go along with the left-wing ones. You have yet to provide any justification for this claim. In truth, an argument is valid so long as its conclusions are reasonable in light of the facts at hand. It is not necessary to provide "balance".

My argument is simple: bias is to be avoided in the presentation of arguments. At best, it diverts readers from any valid arguments one attempts to make. At worst, it leads the author to a conclusion resting on a table with only two legs.

And my argument is equally simple: you're wrong. And since you haven't really justified this statement other than to repeat it, "you're wrong" is pretty much the only rebuttal your argument merits.

No need for generalization. Based on past experience with Moore's work, his documentary runs the risk of giving viewers a one-sided, and therefore inferior, education to the one they might receive from a less biased filmmaker who was more transparent.

He makes video editorials. He does not purport to be an educator, or to be offering training courses on video. Yes, I would agree that an education should be much more comprehensive than what he provides. That is, however, irrelevant to the merits of his work.

FOX News everyday chooses which facts - or lies - to send spinning toward the American public. Ignoring the lies, you are still outraged when FOX gives only some of the evidence while sitting on the rest - as well you should be. Why shouldn't I be any less disturbed when somebody else does it?

If only FOXNews limited itself to merely "sitting on" some of the facts, instead of outright lying and inciting hatred, I would consider it a huge improvement.

You've written papers, I'm sure. Is not the strongest paper that which acknowledges as many of the potential counterarguments as possible - fearlessly, because the case it makes for another point of view is superior?

Yes. I've never said that Michael Moore is perfect, or had no room for improvement. I have also never claimed him to be an educator, or an author of scholarly articles. Congratulations on proving that he is neither, and thus refuting an argument I never made. My only point is that "bias" does not necessarily make an argument weak or invalid; at worst, it only invites critical examination, which all arguments do anyway.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Mike seems to be covering all the things I would have in a reply to Axis Dumbass, so there's really no need for me to pile on.

[Axis Kast]

What the fuck is "issue authority"?

Moore's movies purport to be studies of their subject. Bowling for Columbine was a study of gun culture in the United States, Fahrenheit 9/11 of the Bush administration and so-called "security theater;" and Sicko of the sorry state of American healthcare. The audience perceives that Moore is cognizant of the major issues at play and presents "all the fact one needs to know." There isn't a sense that this is one man's very stilted campaign on behalf of a particular idea.

Bullshit. It is impossible to avoid right-wing thought in America.

What is it with you and "right-wing thought in America?" We aren't talking about "right-wing" thought. The antithesis to Michael Moore's bias is a discussions of the issues with context and alternative points of view, not "right-wing thought." You're still thinking of this as balance-cum-Mindless Middle, as opposed to what it really is: the full story.

Then why are right-wingers such as yourself allowed to make arguments here so long as you avoid the major crimes like lying?

Let's be very clear. I'm a "right-winger" to the extent that I have voted for Republican candidates for president; supported the Iraq War; regard international politics as zero-sum; and am not concerned over the negative social impact of "Big Business," or the complex moral, political, cultural, and legal arguments relating to how we handle homeland security and the processing of persons captured or detained within the context of the Global War on Terror. I am fully and frankly in support of gay marriage; consider universal health care a useful, morally appropriate, and achievable goal; support abortion rights; and favor stem cell research. I think tax cuts generally are a bad idea during periods of higher government spending, but disapprove of a policy that imposes higher taxes on upper-income Americans inconsistent with tax hikes across the board. I am not convinced that we should be raising taxes for low-income Americans, however.

Now, having said all that, it's no damn secret that I'm about the only so-called "right-winger" active on this forum. As demonstrated on multiple occasions, people can't even keep civil tongues (or fingers) in my presence. In many cases, folks don't even read my arguments, but wade in to contribute either, "Me, too!" posts, or to assemble and then burn strawmen.

Don't kid yourself into believing that we have argument or debate. We talk past each other - often as I try, in vain, to describe for you the dysfunctional rationales behind the very thinking that drives you up walls. I try to explain the honest processes by which well-meaning people come to political conclusions that to you, make no sense. Almost daily, I am told that this is ridiculous: any idiot and his nephew can see the facts, which have only one interpretation that doesn't depend on malice and ulterior motives.

For that matter, why do we regularly discuss right-wing editorials and opinions which are reproduced here verbatim for discussion, quoted directly from the source? You do realize that when I refer to right-wingers who live in a hermetically sealed ideological environment, I'm literally talking about people who have no idea what a genuine left-winger's argument looks like, right? You realize that these people literally avoid reading anything from the left-wing in unfiltered form?

You regularly discuss right-wing editorials and opinions because it interests a huge number of people on this forum to wax philosophic about their great intelligence, tolerance, forbearance, and capacity for righteous suffering. It is the equivalent of a slapping of one's forehead every hour, on the hour, shouting, "Oh! Oh! The perfidy of the Evil Bush!" I think I caught your drift somewhere back in Act 3.
When you refer to "right-wingers," as in this thread, you're falling back on form. It's easy for you to dismiss my arguments that way. As a reasonable individual, you would never say, "But, Matt, I think an article is better if the bias of the author is perfectly evident." That's never the case, and I'm absolutely certain that we're in lock-step agreement. We aren't having a discussion, or an argument. We're having a car wreck, because you don't stop to think that we're somewhat alike, you and I, and that perhaps, while I spent less time bemoaning FOX News and think less of the value and political ingenuity of Michael Moore films, we agree about a lot of things, and aren't even making contradictory or opposing arguments. From where I'm standing, it looks as if you've suggested that I think the perfect complement to a Michael Moore movie would be a dose of Rush Limbaugh, or that I even think Limbaugh and Moore are somewhat on the same level. They aren't. I do, however, think that bias shouldn't be dismissed the way that Schatten dismissed it.
My "function" here is as a gadfly - to inject some unconventional, out-of-the-box thinking from a point of view that clearly differs from the majority of people now active in this forum.

That's precisely the argument you're making: you're saying that an argument must be "balanced" in order to have merit. You have yet to provide any justification for this claim. In truth, an argument is valid so long as its conclusions are reasonable in light of the facts at hand. It is not necessary to provide "balance".

Quite incorrect. I am saying that an argument, when ideal, isn't biased. Responding directly to Schatten, I am contending that "presenting the facts that have the most persuasive value to you" is bad business. One wants to present all of the facts, or as much as one can manage reasonably, taking into account not only one's own analysis, but also those of others. If others are wrong, let it be known why and how. It is fine to come down hard on a side - but let it not be without discredit alternative interpretations, not discounting them altogether. Think of it as if you were a principal, and somebody handed you a memo. You don't just want a single point of view - you want the facts, the analysis, the alternative points of view, the rebuttal, and the recommendations, often in that order.

And my argument is equally simple: you're wrong. And since you haven't really justified this statement other than to repeat it, "you're wrong" is pretty much the only rebuttal your argument merits.

You disagree that bias is to be avoided, whenever possible? I didn't say that opinions are to be avoided - I said that bias is to be avoided. And here, I mean prejudicial dealing with the facts, and clearly have from the outset. Bias is liable to distract the reader, which no author should want, even when the essential argument is correct and alternative points of view are otherwise bunk. At worst, bias is what one sees on FOX News: a one-sided presentation of the argument, sometimes mingled with falsehoods about alternative points of view.

He makes video editorials. He does not purport to be an educator, or to be offering training courses on video. Yes, I would agree that an education should be much more comprehensive than what he provides. That is, however, irrelevant to the merits of his work.

He is clearly attempting to come across as a reasonable, sensible presenter of right and wrong, good and bad. He doesn't just ridicule the other side - he implies that he has let them speak, completely, for themselves, which is simply untrue. It may be impossible, in his business, or in that market, for Moore to do any different. It doesn't change the fact of the matter: cherry-picking facts is poor form. With Moore, we understand: he's a filmmaker, with a limited span of film, who needs to pack them in.

If only FOXNews limited itself to merely "sitting on" some of the facts, instead of outright lying and inciting hatred, I would consider it a huge improvement.

I am confident that you would continue to complain long and loudly.

Yes. I've never said that Michael Moore is perfect, or had no room for improvement. I have also never claimed him to be an educator, or an author of scholarly articles. Congratulations on proving that he is neither, and thus refuting an argument I never made. My only point is that "bias" does not necessarily make an argument weak or invalid; at worst, it only invites critical examination, which all arguments do anyway.

Bias weakens the potential impact of an argument. It calls into question the methodology of the author: is he blind, is he dishonest, or was there some other reason that he chose to present only one point of view? Therefore, one should avoid bias.

[Axis Kast]

Mike seems to be covering all the things I would have in a reply to Axis Dumbass, so there's really no need for me to pile on.

Seriously. It's the Internet. What's with the name calling?!

[Ritterin Sophia]

Mike seems to be covering all the things I would have in a reply to Axis Dumbass, so there's really no need for me to pile on.

Seriously. It's the Internet. What's with the name calling?!

Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people.

[Bluewolf]

Which is a perfect excuse to rip the shit out of someone over the slightest thing and act like a total prick. Ok I got you and don't bother trying to agrue with me on it. I am seriously not interested in a debate.

[Bluewolf]

OK, just ignore that screed. I am kind of pissed at the moment. Please continue on with the thread.

[Morilore]

Which is a perfect excuse to rip the shit out of someone over the slightest thing and act like a total prick. Ok I got you and don't bother trying to agrue with me on it. I am seriously not interested in a debate.

If you don't want a debate, don't fucking post.

[Bluewolf]

Which is why I just said to continue on.

[Axis Kast]

Schatten - You suggest there's no need for you to "pile on." Well, how about to answer for the fact that you accused me of applying a definition incorrectly when I was talking about the implication, rather than the precise meaning, of the term? You jumped the gun, then resorted to ad hominem attack.

According to your own citation, bias is often found to occur with prejudice. Do you believe that prejudice has any place in the making of sound argument?

[Bluewolf]

Oh and to be on topic, There is always going to be some bias in a statement. Its near impossible to get rid of. The question is, how mcuh bias is tolerable before your start distorting the reality of the thing your arguing for or against?

[Darth Wong]

Moore's movies purport to be studies of their subject. Bowling for Columbine was a study of gun culture in the United States, Fahrenheit 9/11 of the Bush administration and so-called "security theater;" and Sicko of the sorry state of American healthcare. The audience perceives that Moore is cognizant of the major issues at play and presents "all the fact one needs to know." There isn't a sense that this is one man's very stilted campaign on behalf of a particular idea.

Oh bullshit; nobody with half a brain watches a movie for a serious scholarly "study" of a subject.

What is it with you and "right-wing thought in America?" We aren't talking about "right-wing" thought. The antithesis to Michael Moore's bias is a discussions of the issues with context and alternative points of view, not "right-wing thought." You're still thinking of this as balance-cum-Mindless Middle, as opposed to what it really is: the full story.

See above. You are demanding a comprehensive academic treatment of a subject in movie format, as if a movie (a Michael Moore movie, no less) is seriously masquerading as scholarly study of a subject. You even preposterously claim that these movies are seriously accepted by the public as scholarly studies. He doesn't even have any particular education in the subject matter he discusses, nor does he pretend to.

Let's be very clear. I'm a "right-winger" to the extent that I have voted for Republican candidates for president; supported the Iraq War; regard international politics as zero-sum; and am not concerned over the negative social impact of "Big Business," or the complex moral, political, cultural, and legal arguments relating to how we handle homeland security and the processing of persons captured or detained within the context of the Global War on Terror. I am fully and frankly in support of gay marriage; consider universal health care a useful, morally appropriate, and achievable goal; support abortion rights; and favor stem cell research. I think tax cuts generally are a bad idea during periods of higher government spending, but disapprove of a policy that imposes higher taxes on upper-income Americans inconsistent with tax hikes across the board. I am not convinced that we should be raising taxes for low-income Americans, however.

This is not about the detailed specifics of your beliefs; it's about the point that we are not trying to isolate ourselves from right-wing ideas and arguments here, and the fact that if we were trying to do such a thing as you charged earlier, you would have been banned a long time ago.

Now, having said all that, it's no damn secret that I'm about the only so-called "right-winger" active on this forum. As demonstrated on multiple occasions, people can't even keep civil tongues (or fingers) in my presence. In many cases, folks don't even read my arguments, but wade in to contribute either, "Me, too!" posts, or to assemble and then burn strawmen.

And it's no damn secret that the majority of the right-wingers were never banned or otherwise forcefully driven off; they simply wilted over the last few years as the full extent of the Bush Administration's incompetence and dishonesty became harder and harder to explain away. You're right that some of the dipshit kiddies need to shut the fuck up and stop wasting bandwidth with me-too posts, but that phenomenon has nothing to do with left-wing vs right-wing and you know it.

Don't kid yourself into believing that we have argument or debate. We talk past each other - often as I try, in vain, to describe for you the dysfunctional rationales behind the very thinking that drives you up walls. I try to explain the honest processes by which well-meaning people come to political conclusions that to you, make no sense. Almost daily, I am told that this is ridiculous: any idiot and his nephew can see the facts, which have only one interpretation that doesn't depend on malice and ulterior motives.

You work hard to elevate your own opinion of yourself. It's not as if you state preposterously and gloriously false things like your bizarre assertion that the Republican party cannot be tied to inflammatory "death panel" rhetoric, right? Or you commit a ridiculously obvious logic fallacy by attacking anyone who derides obscene bank CEO bonuses by accusing them of "sour grapes" thinking and then pontificating at length about their hidden personality motives, right? Oh no, you're just the long-suffering teacher, patiently explaining reality to us stupid left-wingers who can't figure out how good honest hard-working Republicans think.

You regularly discuss right-wing editorials and opinions because it interests a huge number of people on this forum to wax philosophic about their great intelligence, tolerance, forbearance, and capacity for righteous suffering. It is the equivalent of a slapping of one's forehead every hour, on the hour, shouting, "Oh! Oh! The perfidy of the Evil Bush!" I think I caught your drift somewhere back in Act 3.

That's an interesting way of evading the fact that you were caught lying again about how this place is supposedly "hermetically sealed" away from right-wing arguments and ideas. Simply change the subject to yet another of your armchair psychoanalyst sessions.

When you refer to "right-wingers," as in this thread, you're falling back on form. It's easy for you to dismiss my arguments that way. As a reasonable individual, you would never say, "But, Matt, I think an article is better if the bias of the author is perfectly evident." That's never the case, and I'm absolutely certain that we're in lock-step agreement. We aren't having a discussion, or an argument. We're having a car wreck, because you don't stop to think that we're somewhat alike, you and I, and that perhaps, while I spent less time bemoaning FOX News and think less of the value and political ingenuity of Michael Moore films, we agree about a lot of things, and aren't even making contradictory or opposing arguments. From where I'm standing, it looks as if you've suggested that I think the perfect complement to a Michael Moore movie would be a dose of Rush Limbaugh, or that I even think Limbaugh and Moore are somewhat on the same level. They aren't. I do, however, think that bias shouldn't be dismissed the way that Schatten dismissed it.

I would agree, if this were actually a "study" of the subject as you claimed earlier. Frankly, I find that claim to be utterly preposterous; it's a movie, and Michael Moore is not thought of as a scholarly researcher even by people who like his work. Even such fans generally admit that he comes off as a used-car salesman. If anything, his bias is made more tolerable by the fact that it is so obvious, hence my derision for your claim that anyone could possibly think he is trying to pass himself off as a serious academic researcher on the subject rather than a video editorialist.

My "function" here is as a gadfly - to inject some unconventional, out-of-the-box thinking from a point of view that clearly differs from the majority of people now active in this forum.

Indeed it is, which is why I do consider you a valuable person to have on the forum, despite your many recent bouts of flagrant dishonesty.

Quite incorrect. I am saying that an argument, when ideal, isn't biased. Responding directly to Schatten, I am contending that "presenting the facts that have the most persuasive value to you" is bad business. One wants to present all of the facts, or as much as one can manage reasonably, taking into account not only one's own analysis, but also those of others. If others are wrong, let it be known why and how. It is fine to come down hard on a side - but let it not be without discredit alternative interpretations, not discounting them altogether. Think of it as if you were a principal, and somebody handed you a memo. You don't just want a single point of view - you want the facts, the analysis, the alternative points of view, the rebuttal, and the recommendations, often in that order.

It appears that the crux of our problem is your belief that these movies might be treated as scholarly studies of the subject matter. I treat them as video editorials, like a salvo in a debate. One does not expect a person launching a salvo in a debate to be "balanced" or to present the opposing side's argument as much as possible. That is something you would do in a scholarly study.

You disagree that bias is to be avoided, whenever possible? I didn't say that opinions are to be avoided - I said that bias is to be avoided. And here, I mean prejudicial dealing with the facts, and clearly have from the outset. Bias is liable to distract the reader, which no author should want, even when the essential argument is correct and alternative points of view are otherwise bunk. At worst, bias is what one sees on FOX News: a one-sided presentation of the argument, sometimes mingled with falsehoods about alternative points of view.

I disagree that an argument should necessarily be free of bias. I would agree that a study should be as impartial as possible.

He is clearly attempting to come across as a reasonable, sensible presenter of right and wrong, good and bad. He doesn't just ridicule the other side - he implies that he has let them speak, completely, for themselves, which is simply untrue. It may be impossible, in his business, or in that market, for Moore to do any different. It doesn't change the fact of the matter: cherry-picking facts is poor form. With Moore, we understand: he's a filmmaker, with a limited span of film, who needs to pack them in.

Have you actually watched his movies? I'm not kidding when I say he comes off as a salesman, and I do sincerely find it almost impossible to believe that anyone could watch them and think he's watching anything other than a video editorial. In fact, one consistent feature of his movies is that they are most compelling when he is not talking. That is precisely what I said about "Sicko" when I watched it. IIRC, I even said precisely that here.

If only FOXNews limited itself to merely "sitting on" some of the facts, instead of outright lying and inciting hatred, I would consider it a huge improvement.

I am confident that you would continue to complain long and loudly.

As usual, you evade the point by attacking me. But the point remains: if FOXNews merely "sat on" some of the facts, that would be a huge improvement. It would at least take us back to the old biased media I grew up with, instead of the fucking nut-house we have going on right now.

Bias weakens the potential impact of an argument. It calls into question the methodology of the author: is he blind, is he dishonest, or was there some other reason that he chose to present only one point of view? Therefore, one should avoid bias.

By that logic, all of your arguments are weak, because you make no attempt to present my point of view. And vice versa.

As I said earlier, this seems to boil down to your belief that Michael Moore is making something that will be viewed as a scholarly study of the subject matter rather than a video editorial. I do not see how anyone can seriously think this.

[Axis Kast]

Oh bullshit; nobody with half a brain watches a movie for a serious scholarly "study" of a subject.

It isn't a question of scholarly study; it's a question of whether a large number of Americans go to see Michael Moore movies with the belief that they can actually pick up munition for political argument. They can. However, the conclusions they are able to draw from it will be severely circumscribed. Less healthy than if they'd picked up a book. We've established that I don't expect Moore to change his behavior, however - precisely because he isn't a formal educator.

See above. You are demanding a comprehensive academic treatment of a subject in movie format, as if a movie (a Michael Moore movie, no less) is seriously masquerading as scholarly study of a subject. You even preposterously claim that these movies are seriously accepted by the public as scholarly studies. He doesn't even have any particular education in the subject matter he discusses, nor does he pretend to.

I am demanding nothing. I am referring to the fact that, as Republicans listen to what is really the equivalent of shock radio to get their talking points, so too a good number (not as many, of course, but a good number) will view Moore's movie with the sense that his presentation is more or less an accurate presentation, if opinionated.

This is not about the detailed specifics of your beliefs; it's about the point that we are not trying to isolate ourselves from right-wing ideas and arguments here, and the fact that if we were trying to do such a thing as you charged earlier, you would have been banned a long time ago.

I contend that you isolate yourselves by a kind of thinking which suggests that the conclusions which you draw are so self-evident, there can be no valid explanation of divergence except perfidy. A good example can be seen in the lengthy discussion between Stas Bush and myself regarding perceptions of a Missile Gap by members of the U.S. Congress. Stas was flabbergasted as to why any legislator would not be convinced of the foolhardiness of any such condition of military inferiority after receiving a briefing from the CIA. He seemed hard put to understand that anybody could doubt the validity of those reports with anything but a heart black as coal. You yourself seem unable to believe that most Republicans avoid speaking out about Limbaugh or "militia nuts" because they simply don't feel any personal sense of ownership or intellectual disenfranchisement when those parties receive air time or attention. You suggest that there's been an alliance; most Republicans see a coincidence of views. Is the left responsible for anarchists and their ilk?

And it's no damn secret that the majority of the right-wingers were never banned or otherwise forcefully driven off; they simply wilted over the last few years as the full extent of the Bush Administration's incompetence and dishonesty became harder and harder to explain away. You're right that some of the dipshit kiddies need to shut the fuck up and stop wasting bandwidth with me-too posts, but that phenomenon has nothing to do with left-wing vs right-wing and you know it.

It's no secret that many of them have chosen to duck out because they fear for reputations and friendships that I never bothered cultivating, and therefore couldn't miss. They wilted because they felt that it was "open season," and got out of town before they took a Dick Cheney special right to the head.

You work hard to elevate your own opinion of yourself. It's not as if you state preposterously and gloriously false things like your bizarre assertion that the Republican party cannot be tied to inflammatory "death panel" rhetoric, right? Or you commit a ridiculously obvious logic fallacy by attacking anyone who derides obscene bank CEO bonuses by accusing them of "sour grapes" thinking and then pontificating at length about their hidden personality motives, right? Oh no, you're just the long-suffering teacher, patiently explaining reality to us stupid left-wingers who can't figure out how good honest hard-working Republicans think.

I never said that the Republican Party couldn't be tied to death panel rhetoric - I said that the rhetoric was offered with a very often honest set of assumptions, making no testimony as to their truth value except that it was zip. I asked you for evidence that the Republican Party was either allied with militia types, or that most Republicans supported them. My contention was that the two groups share political space, and that it was unreasonable to ask Republicans to assume responsibility for those others.

The sour grapes seemed even more clear to me after the discussion of banks than before. People were making bizarre claims that banking itself - the very act of it - was "wasting money" or "shoving it down a hole." If that were true, nobody, anywhere, would ever put money in a bank. I didn't ask if banks had lost money recently. I further explained the rationale for non-performance-based pay, and why change would have to be handled delicately. When people start claiming, "Any old hack could do better!" and strut around sharing their brilliant schemes for investment success, my suspicion of sour grapes spikes. None of those statements of theirs was remotely justified. You think for a minute that all of those analytical mills missed the same conclusions?

That's an interesting way of evading the fact that you were caught lying again about how this place is supposedly "hermetically sealed" away from right-wing arguments and ideas. Simply change the subject to yet another of your armchair psychoanalyst sessions.

You're taking "hermetically sealed" to mean "no mention of," wheras I take it to mean, "no practical hope of impact for."

I would agree, if this were actually a "study" of the subject as you claimed earlier. Frankly, I find that claim to be utterly preposterous; it's a movie, and Michael Moore is not thought of as a scholarly researcher even by people who like his work. Even such fans generally admit that he comes off as a used-car salesman. If anything, his bias is made more tolerable by the fact that it is so obvious, hence my derision for your claim that anyone could possibly think he is trying to pass himself off as a serious academic researcher on the subject rather than a video editorialist.

You persist in using the term "study," which you then compare to Michael Moore's acknowledged profession - of "video editorialist," in an effort to make me seem ridiculous. However, if so many Americans are ignorant enough to watch the news, particularly Fox, and swallow it hook, line, and sinker, then why not Moore's movies? It doesn't require a sense that he's produced scholarship - just a look at a problem that accurately presents both sides. Sure, there are many folks who know better. But there are also many who do not.

It appears that the crux of our problem is your belief that these movies might be treated as scholarly studies of the subject matter. I treat them as video editorials, like a salvo in a debate. One does not expect a person launching a salvo in a debate to be "balanced" or to present the opposing side's argument as much as possible. That is something you would do in a scholarly study.

A person launching a salvo in debate is expected to be cognizant of the other side's potential arguments, and, more important, the evidence from which those might be crafted.

I disagree that an argument should necessarily be free of bias. I would agree that a study should be as impartial as possible.

The strongest argument will be conducted with all the evidence in hand.

Have you actually watched his movies? I'm not kidding when I say he comes off as a salesman, and I do sincerely find it almost impossible to believe that anyone could watch them and think he's watching anything other than a video editorial. In fact, one consistent feature of his movies is that they are most compelling when he is not talking. That is precisely what I said about "Sicko" when I watched it. IIRC, I even said precisely that here.

I have. I enjoyed Bowling for Columbine immensely. What sticks out in my memory are those moments in which Moore offered "the other side of the story." Moments such as those when he interviewed Charlton Heston.

As usual, you evade the point by attacking me. But the point remains: if FOXNews merely "sat on" some of the facts, that would be a huge improvement. It would at least take us back to the old biased media I grew up with, instead of the fucking nut-house we have going on right now.

No; I make the clear point that you'd still find Fox News odious. I still find "sitting on" evidence odious.