Keep telling yourself that the world has no heroes. Those guys who gave their lives rescuing people on 9/11 were just people who refuse to adapt and tried to make the world adapt to them. They didn't want innocent people to die, what hubris!
There is a reason people hate your profession. There is a reason Bill Hicks wanted you all to kill yourselves. You call it compromise, and dismiss those who refuse to make that compromise as being ones who "refuse to adapt and try to make the world adapt to them."
All real progress comes from courageous people who take risks and try to make the world adapt to them. Martin Luther King, for instance. You are not one of those courageous people. Although there are heroes in the world, you are not one of them. Perhaps you could have been, but you chose comfort and security
I am truly shocked to find that marketers, a group that sells dishonesty, have a dishonest term for what they do. Shocked, I tell you.
Basically, what you do is to attempt to get people to act against their own interests, and in the interests of the immoral assholes who hire you. You take money that could have gone into improving a product or service, and use it to give the illusion of improvement. You attempt to get people to believe things that are not true, but worse, you manipulate their emotions, to get them to feel as if a company is their friend. No company is anyone's friend. You attempt to put that company into a person's "in-group." It is not. You attempt to make people feel insecure, and then tout the company and product as a source of security. I could go on, illustrating all the underhanded and psychologically damaging techniques that are taught in marketing and advertising, right in the open no less! But I won't, as you already know them, don't you?
What you do is disgusting. It is worse than a waste of your talent and creativity, what you do is actually harmful to humanity.
Provide an example, please. I'm getting sick of all the generalities. Absolutely no one has provided anything concrete. It is all just opinion. And a link to a google search for "Micheal Moore lying" which I can obviously rebut simply by linking to a google search for "Micheal Moore telling the truth."
This is all the more evidence that Micheal Moore detractors are simply reacting in a knee-jerk manner to facts they find inconvenient, rather than any real reasoning. When asked for concrete examples of the things they supposedly find offensive, not a single detractor can do so.
I've already read and rebutted every single one of those ~900,000 results, I can't be bothered to do it all again. What's more, I have just as much proof that I have done so as you have proof that Moore lies. If you have any new lies about him that need rebutting, please post them. Otherwise, I know that your posts here are just uninformed liberal bashing. You do not provide any criticism, which I would be more than happy to refute. You provide uninformed opinion, which is impossible to refute except with more opinion.
"I think he lies!"
Yeah, well I think he doesn't. And since you are the one making the claim, it is up to you to back it up, otherwise, sensible people everywhere will simply ignore you. And providing a link to "Micheal Moore Lying" is not proof. If it were, then I could provide counterproof simply by linking to a google search for "Micheal Moore telling the truth."
The reason that I want specific examples, rather than a general fucking google search, is that I can rebut specific examples. Thanks for wasting everyone's time with your useless contribution to the discussion. Give me some specific examples of Micheal Moore lying so I can prove he isn't, or shut the hell up.
Do you know what it means when you think "There's something not quite right about that, and I can't put my finger on it?"
It means you aren't thinking. You are feeling. And based on your feelings, you reach a conclusion that you then try to reason backwards from, to find evidence. Don't feel bad, that is exactly what most people are doing when they say they are 'thinking' about something.
What a fucked up analogy, woven out of pure imagination. You really couldn't find any actual arguments Moore has used? You had to make up an argument to illustrate your point? Holy fucking balls, your analogy is MADE UP, it does not relate to the real world, it does nothing to illustrate anything except the dark and fugly interior of your head. Your analogy only relates to a fantasy Micheal Moore, I was asking about the real one. Thanks for wasting our time.
I wonder if I compared your mother to a crack whore, what the missing tooth ratio would be?
Now, you can't get upset about that, because I am not calling your mother a crack whore. I am just wondering how much like a crack whore she is. You see, I don't know your mother. I have no evidence that she is a crack whore. I haven't looked for any evidence, because if I did, I would almost certainly find that your mother bears almost no resemblance to a crack whore.
In case you need it spelled out, people have fact checked both Glenn Beck and Micheal Moore and there is no comparison. Glenn Beck has been verified by multiple sources to be a sociopathic lying sack of shit, while Micheal Moore tells the truth. Seriously, if you want to call Moore a liar, you could at the very least copypasta come right wing rant against him, or link to a website or something with some sort of proof.
Uh, wow. Just... wow. You saw this movie? You saw a movie named "Bowling for Columbine," and you watched the whole thing? Really?
I am reminded of a scene in A Fish Called Wanda and a line that goes "The central theme of Buddhism is NOT 'Every man for himself.'" You think the central theme of Bowling for Columbine is gun control?!? Really?!?
I just have to ask, what about the whole last half of the movie? What about Canada? Micheal discovers that gun control isn't the answer, because guns were never the problem in the first place, and he makes that very clear.
So, I'm afraid I'm going to have to stop you right there and ask you to actually watch one of Micheal Moore's films before you critique him.
And yet, Michael Moore continues to sell tickets to his movies. He motivates and inspires quite a few fans. He does not, in fact, "lose arguments." He wins them, if convincing people is any measure.
I suspect that nearly all of the people who dislike Micheal Moore dislike his message first, and him only as a consequence of disliking his message. I'm also convinced that, the human ability to self justify being what it is, those people will find a way to convince themselves that it is Micheal the man the dislike, and not his message. Finally, I suspect The Lord God Himself could present the message in the most eloquent and infinitely perfect manner possible, and some people would "dislike the way he said it." There's just no pleasing some people. And some people just do not like broccoli, no matter how well it is prepared, they wanted beef.
And I think your mother was a llama. What do I base that on? Absolutely nothing, which appears to be the standard of proof you are using.
Moore made his argument. Your rebuttal to his argument is "He lies and uses bad logic." which isn't really any kind of rebuttal or argument at all, it is just an unsupported opinion. Remember, that which can be claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. So, consider yourself and your opinions dismissed until you come back with some evidence.
Huh. No accounting for taste, I guess. As for me, I like his style. I've always thought that people who "disliked his personality" did so because Fox News told them too. But I'm guessing that's not the case with you, just honest aesthetic distaste.
I hear this complaint about him but don't understand it. You are upset because you think he is aggrandizing himself in his movies? How so I just don't see it. I've always thought critiques like this were mere cover for people who either don't like what he says, or don't like the fact that it is a fat working class slob and not an ivy league snob saying it.
Please point out where MM is lying. I hear this all the time, but his work has been fact checked left, right, up, down and sideways and no one can find the glaring lies that some people claim are there. Please, you seem quite upset by him, so I just know you have actual factual, verifiable examples of him lying.
I hear this all the time, "He makes some good points but makes them badly." I don't understand this at all. You agree with him, but the way he says things makes you not want to agree? How does that work? What is it about his communication style that makes you want to disagree with things you actually agree with?
Are you sure you agree with what he is saying? Maybe you do agree with him, but you really don't want to agree with him? Maybe you don't want a fat hippie liberal slob to be right, because it sets a bad precedent and then other fat hippie liberal slobs might start speaking up? I don't know, I'm just guessing here. Maybe it is because he is a populist, and you are an elitist, and even when populists are correct, elitists have to put them down, to maintain their elite status? Maybe "He makes some good points but makes them badly." is some sort of code for "I really don't want to agree with him, but I have pretensions of intellectual honesty I am loath to give up, and I have to admit that he is telling the truth even though I don't want to."
Quite correct. But even non-commercial sites need visitors. Or do you think that only Walmart and Amazon employ this "highly controversial" tool called marketing?
Nearly everyone employs the highly controversial tool called "the toilet," but few over the age of two are particularly proud of what they do with it.
Fuck you and fuck every single subhuman sociopathic manipulator in the advertising and marketing fields. You know what has changed in the last twenty years? You mindfuckers have gotten even better at your mindfuckery. Now fuck off and die like Bill Hicks suggested. You are all worthless wastes of human talent. Do you understand that? You're pretty smart and creative and you could have given something wonderful back to humanity. Instead, you chose to worship at the idol of greed and manipulation.
Wait, how was anyone taking what mattack2 said out of context? He said Ron Paul votes against funding his own district, which is ludicrous. Rand Paul is, like all libertarians, selfish. Of course he votes for his district. We were just pointing out that Ron Paul is a big government loving hypocrite. Like all libertarians. Big government for me, small government for you.
"Dude, you need to download this CNC file, man, wait 'till you see what it does!" Downloads file, begins printing... And a tiny mechanical Rick Astley begins to sing.
"Haha, good one, man, good one. Pretty funny. But wait 'till you see what I found! No, seriously, it's not Rick Astley." Downloads file, begins printing... A large mechanical penis appears, gyrating suggestively.
Yes, I would really like to see those ideas that are stuck in our heads. The "creativity" will be truly inspiring.
Unless you try to protest at a political rally and refuse to go to your assigned Free Speech Zone out back by the dumpsters. But technically, you are right. You won't be arrested for 'speaking out.' You will be arrested for disturbing the peace or some other trumped up charge.
Should snuff films also be legal to own, in your view?
The reason that child pornography is illegal to own is that it does encourage the production of child pornography. I believe that the laws prohibiting possession of child pornography have been shown to reduce the production of same. Hopefully we can agree that abusing children and forcing six year olds into sexual situations is bad, and reducing the occurrence of said abuse is good.
Well, I guess if you include a disclaimer that negates any reason for even including the original statement, you can say that. But you have to include the disclaimer.
Slashdot Mirror
Keep telling yourself that the world has no heroes. Those guys who gave their lives rescuing people on 9/11 were just people who refuse to adapt and tried to make the world adapt to them. They didn't want innocent people to die, what hubris!
There is a reason people hate your profession. There is a reason Bill Hicks wanted you all to kill yourselves. You call it compromise, and dismiss those who refuse to make that compromise as being ones who "refuse to adapt and try to make the world adapt to them."
All real progress comes from courageous people who take risks and try to make the world adapt to them. Martin Luther King, for instance. You are not one of those courageous people. Although there are heroes in the world, you are not one of them. Perhaps you could have been, but you chose comfort and security
I am truly shocked to find that marketers, a group that sells dishonesty, have a dishonest term for what they do. Shocked, I tell you.
Basically, what you do is to attempt to get people to act against their own interests, and in the interests of the immoral assholes who hire you. You take money that could have gone into improving a product or service, and use it to give the illusion of improvement. You attempt to get people to believe things that are not true, but worse, you manipulate their emotions, to get them to feel as if a company is their friend. No company is anyone's friend. You attempt to put that company into a person's "in-group." It is not. You attempt to make people feel insecure, and then tout the company and product as a source of security. I could go on, illustrating all the underhanded and psychologically damaging techniques that are taught in marketing and advertising, right in the open no less! But I won't, as you already know them, don't you?
What you do is disgusting. It is worse than a waste of your talent and creativity, what you do is actually harmful to humanity.
Provide an example, please. I'm getting sick of all the generalities. Absolutely no one has provided anything concrete. It is all just opinion. And a link to a google search for "Micheal Moore lying" which I can obviously rebut simply by linking to a google search for "Micheal Moore telling the truth."
This is all the more evidence that Micheal Moore detractors are simply reacting in a knee-jerk manner to facts they find inconvenient, rather than any real reasoning. When asked for concrete examples of the things they supposedly find offensive, not a single detractor can do so.
I've already read and rebutted every single one of those ~900,000 results, I can't be bothered to do it all again. What's more, I have just as much proof that I have done so as you have proof that Moore lies. If you have any new lies about him that need rebutting, please post them. Otherwise, I know that your posts here are just uninformed liberal bashing. You do not provide any criticism, which I would be more than happy to refute. You provide uninformed opinion, which is impossible to refute except with more opinion.
"I think he lies!"
Yeah, well I think he doesn't. And since you are the one making the claim, it is up to you to back it up, otherwise, sensible people everywhere will simply ignore you. And providing a link to "Micheal Moore Lying" is not proof. If it were, then I could provide counterproof simply by linking to a google search for "Micheal Moore telling the truth."
The reason that I want specific examples, rather than a general fucking google search, is that I can rebut specific examples. Thanks for wasting everyone's time with your useless contribution to the discussion. Give me some specific examples of Micheal Moore lying so I can prove he isn't, or shut the hell up.
Do you know what it means when you think "There's something not quite right about that, and I can't put my finger on it?"
It means you aren't thinking. You are feeling. And based on your feelings, you reach a conclusion that you then try to reason backwards from, to find evidence. Don't feel bad, that is exactly what most people are doing when they say they are 'thinking' about something.
What a fucked up analogy, woven out of pure imagination. You really couldn't find any actual arguments Moore has used? You had to make up an argument to illustrate your point? Holy fucking balls, your analogy is MADE UP, it does not relate to the real world, it does nothing to illustrate anything except the dark and fugly interior of your head. Your analogy only relates to a fantasy Micheal Moore, I was asking about the real one. Thanks for wasting our time.
I wonder if I compared your mother to a crack whore, what the missing tooth ratio would be?
Now, you can't get upset about that, because I am not calling your mother a crack whore. I am just wondering how much like a crack whore she is. You see, I don't know your mother. I have no evidence that she is a crack whore. I haven't looked for any evidence, because if I did, I would almost certainly find that your mother bears almost no resemblance to a crack whore.
In case you need it spelled out, people have fact checked both Glenn Beck and Micheal Moore and there is no comparison. Glenn Beck has been verified by multiple sources to be a sociopathic lying sack of shit, while Micheal Moore tells the truth. Seriously, if you want to call Moore a liar, you could at the very least copypasta come right wing rant against him, or link to a website or something with some sort of proof.
But your type never do that.
No. I have a bias against people who are proud of their crap. And by "crap" I mean advertising and marketing. I thought that was pretty clear.
Uh, wow. Just... wow. You saw this movie? You saw a movie named "Bowling for Columbine," and you watched the whole thing? Really?
I am reminded of a scene in A Fish Called Wanda and a line that goes "The central theme of Buddhism is NOT 'Every man for himself.'" You think the central theme of Bowling for Columbine is gun control?!? Really?!?
I just have to ask, what about the whole last half of the movie? What about Canada? Micheal discovers that gun control isn't the answer, because guns were never the problem in the first place, and he makes that very clear.
So, I'm afraid I'm going to have to stop you right there and ask you to actually watch one of Micheal Moore's films before you critique him.
And yet, Michael Moore continues to sell tickets to his movies. He motivates and inspires quite a few fans. He does not, in fact, "lose arguments." He wins them, if convincing people is any measure.
I suspect that nearly all of the people who dislike Micheal Moore dislike his message first, and him only as a consequence of disliking his message. I'm also convinced that, the human ability to self justify being what it is, those people will find a way to convince themselves that it is Micheal the man the dislike, and not his message. Finally, I suspect The Lord God Himself could present the message in the most eloquent and infinitely perfect manner possible, and some people would "dislike the way he said it." There's just no pleasing some people. And some people just do not like broccoli, no matter how well it is prepared, they wanted beef.
And I think your mother was a llama. What do I base that on? Absolutely nothing, which appears to be the standard of proof you are using.
Moore made his argument. Your rebuttal to his argument is "He lies and uses bad logic." which isn't really any kind of rebuttal or argument at all, it is just an unsupported opinion. Remember, that which can be claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. So, consider yourself and your opinions dismissed until you come back with some evidence.
Huh. No accounting for taste, I guess. As for me, I like his style. I've always thought that people who "disliked his personality" did so because Fox News told them too. But I'm guessing that's not the case with you, just honest aesthetic distaste.
I hear this complaint about him but don't understand it. You are upset because you think he is aggrandizing himself in his movies? How so I just don't see it. I've always thought critiques like this were mere cover for people who either don't like what he says, or don't like the fact that it is a fat working class slob and not an ivy league snob saying it.
Please point out where MM is lying. I hear this all the time, but his work has been fact checked left, right, up, down and sideways and no one can find the glaring lies that some people claim are there. Please, you seem quite upset by him, so I just know you have actual factual, verifiable examples of him lying.
I hear this all the time, "He makes some good points but makes them badly." I don't understand this at all. You agree with him, but the way he says things makes you not want to agree? How does that work? What is it about his communication style that makes you want to disagree with things you actually agree with?
Are you sure you agree with what he is saying? Maybe you do agree with him, but you really don't want to agree with him? Maybe you don't want a fat hippie liberal slob to be right, because it sets a bad precedent and then other fat hippie liberal slobs might start speaking up? I don't know, I'm just guessing here. Maybe it is because he is a populist, and you are an elitist, and even when populists are correct, elitists have to put them down, to maintain their elite status? Maybe "He makes some good points but makes them badly." is some sort of code for "I really don't want to agree with him, but I have pretensions of intellectual honesty I am loath to give up, and I have to admit that he is telling the truth even though I don't want to."
Quite correct. But even non-commercial sites need visitors. Or do you think that only Walmart and Amazon employ this "highly controversial" tool called marketing?
Nearly everyone employs the highly controversial tool called "the toilet," but few over the age of two are particularly proud of what they do with it.
Fuck you and fuck every single subhuman sociopathic manipulator in the advertising and marketing fields. You know what has changed in the last twenty years? You mindfuckers have gotten even better at your mindfuckery. Now fuck off and die like Bill Hicks suggested. You are all worthless wastes of human talent. Do you understand that? You're pretty smart and creative and you could have given something wonderful back to humanity. Instead, you chose to worship at the idol of greed and manipulation.
Wait, how was anyone taking what mattack2 said out of context? He said Ron Paul votes against funding his own district, which is ludicrous. Rand Paul is, like all libertarians, selfish. Of course he votes for his district. We were just pointing out that Ron Paul is a big government loving hypocrite. Like all libertarians. Big government for me, small government for you.
How long before someone creates a tiny singing mechanical Rick Astley and names the file "NakedAngelinaJolie.cnc?"
"Dude, you need to download this CNC file, man, wait 'till you see what it does!"
Downloads file, begins printing...
And a tiny mechanical Rick Astley begins to sing.
"Haha, good one, man, good one. Pretty funny. But wait 'till you see what I found! No, seriously, it's not Rick Astley."
Downloads file, begins printing...
A large mechanical penis appears, gyrating suggestively.
Yes, I would really like to see those ideas that are stuck in our heads. The "creativity" will be truly inspiring.
Unless you try to protest at a political rally and refuse to go to your assigned Free Speech Zone out back by the dumpsters. But technically, you are right. You won't be arrested for 'speaking out.' You will be arrested for disturbing the peace or some other trumped up charge.
Should snuff films also be legal to own, in your view?
The reason that child pornography is illegal to own is that it does encourage the production of child pornography. I believe that the laws prohibiting possession of child pornography have been shown to reduce the production of same. Hopefully we can agree that abusing children and forcing six year olds into sexual situations is bad, and reducing the occurrence of said abuse is good.
Also, I don't want to be paid to peruse 4chan.
Well, I guess if you include a disclaimer that negates any reason for even including the original statement, you can say that. But you have to include the disclaimer.
As I mentioned to the other AC, see the case Monsanto v. Oakhurst Dairy of Maine. Monsanto sued, forcing Oakhurst dairy to modify their labels.
See the case Monsanto v. Oakhurst Dairy of Maine. Monsanto sued, forcing Oakhurst dairy to modify their labels.