I think the two categories have significant overlap. Many propaganda films are fictional, like Eisenstein's The Battleship Potemkin, and thus not documentaries. Many documentaries are not propaganda, per se, like nature films (but even some nature films are propaganda, and more fictional than many people assume). Some documentaries, like Moore's, can rightly be considered propaganda. I wouldn't think that this would be all that confusing. Things can often fit into more than one category.
Jefe: We have many beautiful piñatas for your birthday celebration, each one filled with little surprises! El Guapo: How many piñatas? Jefe: Many piñatas, many! El Guapo: Jefe, would you say I have a plethora of piñatas? Jefe: A what? El Guapo: A plethora. Jefe: Oh yes, El Guapo. You have a plethora. El Guapo: Jefe, what is a plethora? Jefe: Why, El Guapo? El Guapo: Well, you just told me that I had a plethora, and I would just like to know if you know what it means to have a plethora. I would not like to think that someone would tell someone else he has a plethora, and then find out that that person has no idea what it means to have a plethora. Jefe: El Guapo, I know that I, Jefe, do not have your superior intellect and education, but could it be that once again, you are angry at something else, and are looking to take it out on me?
What do you mean? Some places, mostly very small places, don't have rules. Most places have rules. The rules spell out when you need a permit, and when you don't. You and the family picnicking in the park? Don't need a permit. You and the school band holding a rally with over ten people in the park? You need a permit.
I was trying to convey the reasons a city might want to impose a permit rule. The real problem, as I said, and as you failed to address, is the allocation of shared resources.
When someone imposes rules on you that you do not like, you can attempt to change them through politics, you can protest them civilly, or you can protest them using civil disobedience. Not getting a permit means disrupting other people's use of a shared resource. We, the other people that share the planet with you, will not allow you to disrupt our lives without consequences. If you feel strongly enough that you are willing to risk the consequences, more power to you. I've felt that way before too.
But as I said, your right to use public resources does not trump my right to use them. If you are holding a rally with a number of people, traffic and business WILL be disrupted. The polite thing to do in those cases, is to let the affected parties know ahead of time, and arrange for some kind of help managing traffic. You may also, depending on the size of the rally, need to arrange for porta-potties, so your protesters don't piss all over our sidewalks or overload public and private facilities.
Or you can shut up about your damn rights and just get out there and do it, consequences be damned. But you don't get to disrupt other's lives without the risk of consequences, and arguing that you DO have such a right won't get you very far, which means that, practically speaking, you don't have that right.
Basically, if you want to live in society, you should at least attempt to play nicely with others rather than insisting that, in every case, your right to do what you want trumps other people's silly laws, customs, and regulations. That is an incredibly childish philosophy.
NOBODY expects the Business Software Alliance! Our chief weapon is surprise. Surprise and fear. Fear and surprise. Our two chief weapons are fear, surprise, and unlimited duration copyrights. Our THREE weapons are fear, surprise, unlimited duration copyrights, and employees who hate their bosses. Our FOUR, no... amongst our weapons... amongst our weaponry... are such elements... as fear, surprise... can I come in again?
Because the lack of a permit is not the actual problem. The permit is just one solution to the real problem, the police offered several other solutions. Now, I bet if you stopped to think about it, you would realize what the real problem is. The real problem is, how do we fairly allocate the use of resources we share? Why should the protesters get precedence over the daily users of streets and sidewalks? It is a tricky issue, to be sure, and one I have been on both sides of. In my mind it boils down to this: either you play by the rules and try not to piss off the people you are attempting to reach with your message, or you specifically DO try to piss them off, to show how serious you are. But if you do that, you must accept the possibility that you will be inconvenienced at least as much as the people you are trying to piss off, if you get thrown in a holding cell for a few hours and have to pay a $100 fine.
Do you see how it works? Either we agree to play by the rules and hold a protest that is respectful of its audience and all the other users of public property, or we participate in civil disobedience to show how serious we are. What we do NOT do, unless we are assholes, is claim a right to disrupt other people's lives without consequence.
It is not "the government" that determines this. It is a local governing body. They determine what can and can not be done with property the citizens own collectively, i.e. public property. Do you only support property rights for certain classes of owners? If this were a mall, would you dispute the mall owner's right to limit who does what, when, inside the mall? The people of a particular city have a right to say, "We don't want protesters blocking our streets unless they get a permit so the police can route traffic around the area and people aren't inconvenienced." The protesters have the right to say, "I feel strongly enough about this issue that I am willing to inconvenience you, but I am also willing to risk a small fine and perhaps a few hours in a holding cell. We will both be inconvenienced, and I hope that helps make my point."
You can make the case that citizens would be better served allowing any unplanned event to take place at any time, any place, but that also means that if you and your grandma decide to have high tea in the middle of the street during rush hour, you can do so. If you start to limit it to "not blocking traffic" and "not blocking access to places of business" and "not making too much noise at 2am" then you are right back to limiting where, when, and how protests take place. As with all rights, there is a trade off. You trade a freedom you desire less for one you desire more. What is more important to you, getting a good nights sleep and getting in to work on time, or letting some tree hugging hippie or right wing teaparty loon or antivivisectionist or suffragette or whatever have his say in public. Free speech is all well and good, but most people haven't thought through the consequences. If we all have an absolute right to free speech, then I have a right to wake you up every morning at four by singing "Louie, Louie" at the top of my lungs outside your window. If we want to allow unplanned protests any time, anywhere, then we will have to put up with being late for work every time some loon with a cause gets a bug up their ass. And I say that having been one of those loons, having participated in a great many unauthorized protests. I didn't whine about the consequences, because I understood why those consequences were there, and I was willing to accept that I might go to jail for my beliefs. Not that I ever did, even in the craziest sorts of property smashing protests you can imagine, you can stay safe if you keep your eyes open and your wits about you.
Just remember, you don't need to be faster than the cops, you just need to be faster than the protester next to you.
I do read Fox News daily, to keep up on what the propaganda arm of the Republican party is up to.
All words are from a biased source. Even the choice to report or not report on something indicates bias.
Not all "sides" are equally valid. There is only one reality, and it is the same for everyone. Some "sides" are at least loosely based in reality. Some are not. Do you look at both sides of the moon landing "debate?"
While it is important to check your biases, there is no true neutral position on anything. Trying to achieve neutrality or impartiality is impossible. Choosing to believe in reality is not indicative of bias, unless reality itself is biased. There is one Truth, one reality. There are not two sides to it. Reality is not a matter of opinion.
They could sell you the old movie, and THEN sell you the two disc set. No, I think they really don't want too many people remembering how bad the original was.
You are comparing it favorably to "The Last Starfighter." Talk about damning with faint praise.
You know, I just looked it up and "documentary" means "non fiction" not "unbiased." It is an evolving art form, as well, so anything that can be said of the genre must be placed in historical context. Really, it's a fascinating history:
So, Moore's films can be both biased editorial and documentary, at the same time. I think you are missing something, namely, the real definition of 'documentary film.'
The awesomely bad graphics are one reason you can not purchase the original Tron in advance of the sequel. The awesomely bad plot is another. Disney doesn't want people to remember how bad the movie really was. I mean, I loved it as a kid, don't get me wrong, but I also loved the Dukes of Hazzard, Benny Hill, and the A-Team. Kids have terrible taste in entertainment.
Is it an email forward? I sure didn't get it in an email, I got it from a website. I guess that makes it not lame? Or maybe, just maybe, you think it is lame because you still feel stupid for having voted for the worst president in the entire history of America?
Yeah, I'm guessing that has something to do with it.
Lame excuse. "We did it for the lulz" means "We don't really care." But you do care, and everyone can tell that you do. The guys who really did it for the lulz aren't posting defensively about it on Slashdot
Perhaps I feel that way about Moore because I had already learned of the things he was trying to say, through other sources, and he was not telling me anything I did not already know. If anything, I thought he was far more even handed than I would be, presenting the same material.
My critique of his films is that I've never learned a single new thing from them. In my circles, everything he talks about is common knowledge. They are nice introductions for the uninformed, though.
Slashdot Mirror
I think something like "Tapinthatass" would be more Anonymous style as a fake name.
I think the two categories have significant overlap. Many propaganda films are fictional, like Eisenstein's The Battleship Potemkin, and thus not documentaries. Many documentaries are not propaganda, per se, like nature films (but even some nature films are propaganda, and more fictional than many people assume). Some documentaries, like Moore's, can rightly be considered propaganda. I wouldn't think that this would be all that confusing. Things can often fit into more than one category.
Ooh! This is fun! I've got one, too
Jefe: We have many beautiful piñatas for your birthday celebration, each one filled with little surprises!
El Guapo: How many piñatas?
Jefe: Many piñatas, many!
El Guapo: Jefe, would you say I have a plethora of piñatas?
Jefe: A what?
El Guapo: A plethora.
Jefe: Oh yes, El Guapo. You have a plethora.
El Guapo: Jefe, what is a plethora?
Jefe: Why, El Guapo?
El Guapo: Well, you just told me that I had a plethora, and I would just like to know if you know what it means to have a plethora. I would not like to think that someone would tell someone else he has a plethora, and then find out that that person has no idea what it means to have a plethora.
Jefe: El Guapo, I know that I, Jefe, do not have your superior intellect and education, but could it be that once again, you are angry at something else, and are looking to take it out on me?
What do you mean? Some places, mostly very small places, don't have rules. Most places have rules. The rules spell out when you need a permit, and when you don't. You and the family picnicking in the park? Don't need a permit. You and the school band holding a rally with over ten people in the park? You need a permit.
I was trying to convey the reasons a city might want to impose a permit rule. The real problem, as I said, and as you failed to address, is the allocation of shared resources.
When someone imposes rules on you that you do not like, you can attempt to change them through politics, you can protest them civilly, or you can protest them using civil disobedience. Not getting a permit means disrupting other people's use of a shared resource. We, the other people that share the planet with you, will not allow you to disrupt our lives without consequences. If you feel strongly enough that you are willing to risk the consequences, more power to you. I've felt that way before too.
But as I said, your right to use public resources does not trump my right to use them. If you are holding a rally with a number of people, traffic and business WILL be disrupted. The polite thing to do in those cases, is to let the affected parties know ahead of time, and arrange for some kind of help managing traffic. You may also, depending on the size of the rally, need to arrange for porta-potties, so your protesters don't piss all over our sidewalks or overload public and private facilities.
Or you can shut up about your damn rights and just get out there and do it, consequences be damned. But you don't get to disrupt other's lives without the risk of consequences, and arguing that you DO have such a right won't get you very far, which means that, practically speaking, you don't have that right.
Basically, if you want to live in society, you should at least attempt to play nicely with others rather than insisting that, in every case, your right to do what you want trumps other people's silly laws, customs, and regulations. That is an incredibly childish philosophy.
It's a whooshfest here today, ladies and gentlemen, the missed references are flying fast and furious from all sides!
NOBODY expects the Business Software Alliance! Our chief weapon is surprise. Surprise and fear. Fear and surprise. Our two chief weapons are fear, surprise, and unlimited duration copyrights. Our THREE weapons are fear, surprise, unlimited duration copyrights, and employees who hate their bosses. Our FOUR, no... amongst our weapons... amongst our weaponry... are such elements... as fear, surprise... can I come in again?
Because the lack of a permit is not the actual problem. The permit is just one solution to the real problem, the police offered several other solutions. Now, I bet if you stopped to think about it, you would realize what the real problem is. The real problem is, how do we fairly allocate the use of resources we share? Why should the protesters get precedence over the daily users of streets and sidewalks? It is a tricky issue, to be sure, and one I have been on both sides of. In my mind it boils down to this: either you play by the rules and try not to piss off the people you are attempting to reach with your message, or you specifically DO try to piss them off, to show how serious you are. But if you do that, you must accept the possibility that you will be inconvenienced at least as much as the people you are trying to piss off, if you get thrown in a holding cell for a few hours and have to pay a $100 fine.
Do you see how it works? Either we agree to play by the rules and hold a protest that is respectful of its audience and all the other users of public property, or we participate in civil disobedience to show how serious we are. What we do NOT do, unless we are assholes, is claim a right to disrupt other people's lives without consequence.
It is not "the government" that determines this. It is a local governing body. They determine what can and can not be done with property the citizens own collectively, i.e. public property. Do you only support property rights for certain classes of owners? If this were a mall, would you dispute the mall owner's right to limit who does what, when, inside the mall? The people of a particular city have a right to say, "We don't want protesters blocking our streets unless they get a permit so the police can route traffic around the area and people aren't inconvenienced." The protesters have the right to say, "I feel strongly enough about this issue that I am willing to inconvenience you, but I am also willing to risk a small fine and perhaps a few hours in a holding cell. We will both be inconvenienced, and I hope that helps make my point."
You can make the case that citizens would be better served allowing any unplanned event to take place at any time, any place, but that also means that if you and your grandma decide to have high tea in the middle of the street during rush hour, you can do so. If you start to limit it to "not blocking traffic" and "not blocking access to places of business" and "not making too much noise at 2am" then you are right back to limiting where, when, and how protests take place. As with all rights, there is a trade off. You trade a freedom you desire less for one you desire more. What is more important to you, getting a good nights sleep and getting in to work on time, or letting some tree hugging hippie or right wing teaparty loon or antivivisectionist or suffragette or whatever have his say in public. Free speech is all well and good, but most people haven't thought through the consequences. If we all have an absolute right to free speech, then I have a right to wake you up every morning at four by singing "Louie, Louie" at the top of my lungs outside your window. If we want to allow unplanned protests any time, anywhere, then we will have to put up with being late for work every time some loon with a cause gets a bug up their ass. And I say that having been one of those loons, having participated in a great many unauthorized protests. I didn't whine about the consequences, because I understood why those consequences were there, and I was willing to accept that I might go to jail for my beliefs. Not that I ever did, even in the craziest sorts of property smashing protests you can imagine, you can stay safe if you keep your eyes open and your wits about you.
Just remember, you don't need to be faster than the cops, you just need to be faster than the protester next to you.
Remember when we had all those polite and insightful conversations about religion and politics? Man, those were the days, huh?
I was an early bloomer. I never went through a "girls are icky" phase. I knew I liked boobies from a young age.
I do read Fox News daily, to keep up on what the propaganda arm of the Republican party is up to.
All words are from a biased source. Even the choice to report or not report on something indicates bias.
Not all "sides" are equally valid. There is only one reality, and it is the same for everyone. Some "sides" are at least loosely based in reality. Some are not. Do you look at both sides of the moon landing "debate?"
While it is important to check your biases, there is no true neutral position on anything. Trying to achieve neutrality or impartiality is impossible. Choosing to believe in reality is not indicative of bias, unless reality itself is biased. There is one Truth, one reality. There are not two sides to it. Reality is not a matter of opinion.
My original post was a (lame) joke. The first lesson in the linked article is "don't poke the bear" so I was poking the bear.
Try renting it. Try buying it. Go on, I'll wait. Oh, you can only get it on E-Bay, for over $100? Yeah, the Mouse took it off the market.
Whoosh.
And from what I hear, there is no way these clueless, juvenile script kiddies could EVER hack Slashdot.
They could sell you the old movie, and THEN sell you the two disc set. No, I think they really don't want too many people remembering how bad the original was.
You are comparing it favorably to "The Last Starfighter." Talk about damning with faint praise.
You know, I just looked it up and "documentary" means "non fiction" not "unbiased." It is an evolving art form, as well, so anything that can be said of the genre must be placed in historical context. Really, it's a fascinating history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary
So, Moore's films can be both biased editorial and documentary, at the same time. I think you are missing something, namely, the real definition of 'documentary film.'
The awesomely bad graphics are one reason you can not purchase the original Tron in advance of the sequel. The awesomely bad plot is another. Disney doesn't want people to remember how bad the movie really was. I mean, I loved it as a kid, don't get me wrong, but I also loved the Dukes of Hazzard, Benny Hill, and the A-Team. Kids have terrible taste in entertainment.
Is it an email forward? I sure didn't get it in an email, I got it from a website. I guess that makes it not lame? Or maybe, just maybe, you think it is lame because you still feel stupid for having voted for the worst president in the entire history of America?
Yeah, I'm guessing that has something to do with it.
Absolutely. We can't let the wrong fucking lizard get elected, can we?
Lame excuse. "We did it for the lulz" means "We don't really care." But you do care, and everyone can tell that you do. The guys who really did it for the lulz aren't posting defensively about it on Slashdot
No, I write like this when I'm so fucking happy that rainbows and unicorns shoot out my ass. Bro.
Are his films documentaries, or opinion pieces? I always thought they were supposed to be editorials.
Perhaps I feel that way about Moore because I had already learned of the things he was trying to say, through other sources, and he was not telling me anything I did not already know. If anything, I thought he was far more even handed than I would be, presenting the same material.
My critique of his films is that I've never learned a single new thing from them. In my circles, everything he talks about is common knowledge. They are nice introductions for the uninformed, though.