As someone currently living in Canada, I can vouch for this. For a "tolerant people," Canadians make a whole lot of offensive generalizations about Americans. Of course, if anyone was to say the same things that are said about Americans about any other "group" of people, they would quickly get shot down on the grounds that it is not "politically correct." This hypocrisy annoys me to no end, and appears to be getting more prevalent as time goes by.
Well, for starters, I think most Americans are unhappy with the current government. I can't speak for the midwest, as I live in California, but most people I know hate what Bush&Co. have done with the country, and this movie is just a convenient means to point the finger at him.
I can understand being unhappy or angry at one's own government and expressing the desire for change; however, one must have valid reasons (and I'm definitely not saying that these don't exist) for that anger and must be able and willing to express and debate these reasons. Blind, unjustified hatred is certainly not good for anyone. If "Bush&Co." are to be hanged, then let it be for the right reasons, or do you believe that these people think that the ends justify the means (fabrication of facts, misinformation, suppression of information, etc. [sounds just like the charges being levied against the Bush administration by many])?
In the article, Moore is quoted as saying: "I do well enough already and I made this film because I want the world, to change. The more people who see it the better, so I'm happy this is happening." and "I think information, art and ideas should be shared."
Moore makes no mention of wanting a profit or considering the online version only a sample designed to generate more profit for him. If that was his belief, he should have stated it. Instead, he talks about "wanting the world to change" and "sharing". If he truly believes this, he should release a high quality version of his movie on the P2P networks (he already has an absurd amount of money, why does he need more?), otherwise he is just talking about things which are outside his control and isn't backing up his statements with actions.
If the whole point of the movie is to get a message out, why doesn't Moore release a DVD rip onto the P2P networks?
Moore is smart enough to realize that he can't prevent people from downloading his movie, and bitching and moaning about it would make him look like a hypocrite. Instead, he states that he doesn't mind letting people do the same thing that they would do regardless, and in the process improves his public image tremendously.
If Moore is serious about getting the message out, he should put his money where his mouth is and release a DVD rip on the P2P networks.
I ask you, how can a comment praising Fahrenheit 9/11 without providing any supporting proof be modded +5 informative, while a comment questioning the validity of the movie is modded down into oblivion as Overrated? Are Moore supporters so unwilling to allow anyone to question any of the points presented in the "documentary" which has somehow attained the status of scripture? Read my whole rebuttal and point out where I am wrong; modding down a person's opinion instead of rebutting it is nothing more than cowardice, akin to asking for Fahrenheit 9/11 to be banned from all movie theatres.
Michael Moore is a "documentarian" in the same sense that Leni Riefenstahl was a "documentarian", and Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary in the same sense that Triumph of the Will was a documentary. (Both movies also won prominent French awards... coincidence?) Fahrenheit 9/11 makes Fox News seem like a bastion of journalistic integrity by comparison.
Michael Moore's arguments lack a logical flow or any direction whatsoever. He seems to just string together a sequence of often unrelated anti-Bush/Iraq War arguments (which have the depth of talking points) hoping to rile up his already anti-Bush/Iraq War audience.
Moore builds his whole argument upon omissions, discarding any and all facts which are not in accordance with his world view. The claim that there are no factual inaccuracies in the movie is partly true; however, this is no great feat, as the movie is filled with omissions, innuendos, and logical fallacies (post hoc ergo propter hoc, etc). For example, I could very easily convince someone with no knowledge of 20th century European History that Hitler was a great guy, simply through omissions and without making one factually inaccurate statement i.e. Hitler was a great connoisseur of art; his love of art lead to him amassing a great art collection, spanning art from all over Europe. Hitler also implemented economic policies which restored Germany's shattered economy and made Germany into one of the most powerful economic powers of its time. He was much loved by his people, and took great pride in his heritage, etc, etc, etc. I'm sure my point has become evident, and I no longer need to pursue this perverted example.
Moore is well known for his editing prowess, and I have no reason to believe that he does not continue using his "skills" in Fahrenheit 9/11. There are several well known instances of Moore's editing in Bowling For Columbine i.e. Heston's tie changing colours, the clip of Heston's speech not being the one he gave right after Columbine, but rather a different one altogether (1st Google Result on Query), etc. I'm sure there are many other examples in both movies.
Moore makes several assertions in Fahrenheit 9/11 which not only make no logical sense, but also contradict with other statements he made in the movie. Moore mentions the well documented effort on Saddam's behalf to murder George H. W. Bush (probably intended as an argumentum ad hominem), then he refers to the sovereign nation of Iraq, which had never threatened or harmed a single American life. Ok, let's see, Moore himself admits that Saddam tried to kill H. W. Bush. Furthermore, Iraq invaded Kuwait, and constantly threatened Saudi Arabia and Israel. First of all, there are plenty of Americans in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. Furthermore, plenty of American lives were lost in Desert Storm, which was clearly in response to a war of unilateral aggression on Saddam's behalf (then again, Moore may very well oppose Desert Storm, as well as England and France declaring war on Germany when they invaded Poland... who knows). After the end of Desert Storm, Americans remained in the region and constantly flew sorties to enforce the no-fly zones in the north and south of Iraq and make sure they minimized the number of Kurds and Shiites massacred by Saddam and his gang of (Sunni) thugs. Anyways, the Iraqis constantly attempted to shoot down the American planes that were merely enforcing the UN sanctioned No-fly Zones. (Seems like threatening American lives to me.)
Ok, moving on... Moore attempts to make it seem like there is no link between Saddam and international terrorism, where in reality Saddam offered USD $10000-20000 to the family members of Palestinian suicide bombers (what a great guy) (Google Link, scroll down)
No, the reason Hollywood actors and director are mostly Democrats is quite simple: they want to feel good about themselves, and it is much easier to feel good about yourself with mindless slogans like "will somebody think of the [starving children/poor/[ethnic/racial/linguistic/religious] minorities]" and "war is baaaddd!" than it is if one considers varying economic theories (perhaps something that did not originate with Marx/Engels *gasp* i.e. Hayek's theories), the validity of just war theory, etc.
21 members of the Bin Laden family were flown out of the country on special chartered flights on September 13 while all other flights were grounded. They were NEVER questioned on Osama at all and there is no clear reason why they were given free flight out without interrogation.
Not only was this authorized by Dick Clark himself, but the bin Laden family had also disowned Osama a while back. Do you expect to be detained / questioned it your disowned nephew, with whom you haven't talked in twenty years, goes and kills someone?
Prior to the war in Afghanistan, there were plans on the board to put in a gas pipeline through the country. Members of the Taliban visited Texas regarding the issue. The project was abandoned after the US bombed Afghanistan in 1999. After the recent war, Hamid Karzai was made the leader. The papers were signed giving the green light for the pipline. Prior to being the leader, Karzai was a consultant for one of the companies trying to build the pipeline.
Where is the pipeline? What evidence is there that is it being constructed? Unocal, the company which was originally planning on making the pipeline, issued this statement, categorically affirming that they have "no plans or interest in becoming involved in any projects in Afghanistan." So, which company is building the pipeline?
Ok, who modded this down all the way from 5 to -1, Redundant? How can this possibly be redundant? There is no mention of Hitchens or his rebuttal before this post. Was it modded down only because it provided a half-decent rebuttal of Moore's movie? Was it modded down by the same people who cried out (and rightly so) when Republican morons attempted to pressure movie managers into not playing this movie? Seems a bit hypocritical to me...
Anyways, here's a link to the full article rebutting Moore's movie. I'm curious whether this post will be modded down as well... after all, dissenting viewpoints are dangerous...
We just have to liberally sprinkle lots of pro-China comments in our messages to ensure that our geeky breathern in the Far East can continue to enjoy the scintillating, intellectual banter found everyday on this great site.
Given the political leanings and the level of historical knowledge of a large portion of Slashdot'
s posters (just like most of Western civilization's inhabitants), this will probably occur naturally.
Why are there so many anti-Israeli protesters and yet so few Free Tibet protesters. If one were to sit down and logically analyze the two issues, would there still be such a disparity between the number of people supporting each cause?
Why is there so little outcry when the PRC decided to "test" yet another missile across the Strait of Taiwan? Why are Europeans so concerned with the actions of the US yet so (relatively) apathetic toward the actions of China? (I can understand why some Americans are so concerned about the actions of their own government, but what about the Europeans and the Canadians?)
I never stated that a free market guarantees complete and utter freedom; I merely stated that a free market is closer to freedom than a centrally planned economy, a claim which you did not refute. Given two hypothetical countries, both with brutally despotic rulers and the same amount of rights, with the exception of one being centrally planned, and the other possessing a free market, which country is freer?
My point was "Free societies require (at least mostly) free markets." Rebutting this statement by listing states which possessed a free market and yet were not completely and utterly free does not disprove my point; implying that I stated that societies with free markets are always free and then disproving that point it a straw man fallacy.
Furthermore, there is evidence to support the fact that free market economies eventually lead to the downfall of oppressive regimes (see East Asian Tigers excluding Singapore, etc.). Certainly you will agree that a free market economy is far less hospitable for tyrannical rulers and oppressive regimes than a centrally planned economy.
Perhaps there is a reason why all the countries which "declared themselves to be based off of Marx and Engels have also been one-party dictatorships." Sure, correlation does not imply causality, but given enough examples, perhaps one should begin doubting the divinity of communism. There are certainly enough beliefs within the dogma of communism (must be attained through a revolution, forcefully taking controll from some and giving it to others, etc.) which would be conducive to the sort of "one-party dictatorships" that have historically emerged.
I see. I would have personally attempted to link the rampant growth of the Chinese economy with the low number of Chinese citizens reading Slashdot. In that case, you would be engaging in a logical fallacy, but at least the the individual statements which you would be linking would be factually correct. I find humour to be a bit more humorous when build upon reality rather than fiction disguised as such; then again, what do I know...
In fact there has never been a communist country per Marx. China is a not free and seeks to control every aspect of the life of the people that live there.
China would not necessarily have been any freer if it had been "a communist country per Marx." I think it's time that people finally accepted that the Austrian / Chicago school of economic thought is far closer to freedom than any of the garbage Marx, Engels, and Lenin were spewing. Free societies require (at least mostly) free markets; history has shown this.
And oh, completely offtopic -- what's the deal with saying, work fine in OOorg -- shouldn't that be works fine with OO? Why the org/.org thingy?
"The name is "OpenOffice.org" and not "OpenOffice", because someone else already had the trademark. The name should be used as an adjective: "OpenOffice.org Application", "OpenOffice.org Community" and so on..." Link
Why choose Riefenstahl of all people? There are loads of people who make polemic films about political issues. Why choose an apologist for one of the worst regimes of the 20th century? It shows a complete lack of understanding to compare Moore with Riefenstahl. It was just a cheap jibe.
Perhaps a bit like calling George Bush a Nazi?
Do you get so worked up when someone draws the comparison between Bush and Hitler, or do you turn a blind eye because it is in accordance with your political view?
Slashdot Mirror
As someone currently living in Canada, I can vouch for this. For a "tolerant people," Canadians make a whole lot of offensive generalizations about Americans. Of course, if anyone was to say the same things that are said about Americans about any other "group" of people, they would quickly get shot down on the grounds that it is not "politically correct." This hypocrisy annoys me to no end, and appears to be getting more prevalent as time goes by.
The page renders just fine for me in Opera 7.52, as well as Konqueror 3.2.3 and Firefox.
Have you looked at Ruby? Regular expressions are very well integrated, and it seems like a far more elegant language (to me).
It's actually -O3, as in the letter "O", not the numeral 0. A lot of people seem to make this mistake.
By the way, is it just me, or are the anti-gentoo trolls getting to be quite annoying and abundant?
Thank you.
Well, for starters, I think most Americans are unhappy with the current government. I can't speak for the midwest, as I live in California, but most people I know hate what Bush&Co. have done with the country, and this movie is just a convenient means to point the finger at him.
I can understand being unhappy or angry at one's own government and expressing the desire for change; however, one must have valid reasons (and I'm definitely not saying that these don't exist) for that anger and must be able and willing to express and debate these reasons. Blind, unjustified hatred is certainly not good for anyone. If "Bush&Co." are to be hanged, then let it be for the right reasons, or do you believe that these people think that the ends justify the means (fabrication of facts, misinformation, suppression of information, etc. [sounds just like the charges being levied against the Bush administration by many])?
Good, it's a dirty rotten piece of shit to begin with. It shouldn't have gotten modded up to begin with.
Instead of stringing together expletives and asserting "facts" without any proof, why don't you write up a reply rebutting the points I made?
In the article, Moore is quoted as saying: "I do well enough already and I made this film because I want the world, to change. The more people who see it the better, so I'm happy this is happening." and "I think information, art and ideas should be shared."
Moore makes no mention of wanting a profit or considering the online version only a sample designed to generate more profit for him. If that was his belief, he should have stated it. Instead, he talks about "wanting the world to change" and "sharing". If he truly believes this, he should release a high quality version of his movie on the P2P networks (he already has an absurd amount of money, why does he need more?), otherwise he is just talking about things which are outside his control and isn't backing up his statements with actions.
Wow, this comment is sinking fast. Smells of moderation abuse.
:(
Yeah.
If the whole point of the movie is to get a message out, why doesn't Moore release a DVD rip onto the P2P networks?
Moore is smart enough to realize that he can't prevent people from downloading his movie, and bitching and moaning about it would make him look like a hypocrite. Instead, he states that he doesn't mind letting people do the same thing that they would do regardless, and in the process improves his public image tremendously.
If Moore is serious about getting the message out, he should put his money where his mouth is and release a DVD rip on the P2P networks.
I ask you, how can a comment praising Fahrenheit 9/11 without providing any supporting proof be modded +5 informative, while a comment questioning the validity of the movie is modded down into oblivion as Overrated? Are Moore supporters so unwilling to allow anyone to question any of the points presented in the "documentary" which has somehow attained the status of scripture? Read my whole rebuttal and point out where I am wrong; modding down a person's opinion instead of rebutting it is nothing more than cowardice, akin to asking for Fahrenheit 9/11 to be banned from all movie theatres.
Michael Moore is a "documentarian" in the same sense that Leni Riefenstahl was a "documentarian", and Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary in the same sense that Triumph of the Will was a documentary. (Both movies also won prominent French awards... coincidence?) Fahrenheit 9/11 makes Fox News seem like a bastion of journalistic integrity by comparison.
Michael Moore's arguments lack a logical flow or any direction whatsoever. He seems to just string together a sequence of often unrelated anti-Bush/Iraq War arguments (which have the depth of talking points) hoping to rile up his already anti-Bush/Iraq War audience.
Moore builds his whole argument upon omissions, discarding any and all facts which are not in accordance with his world view. The claim that there are no factual inaccuracies in the movie is partly true; however, this is no great feat, as the movie is filled with omissions, innuendos, and logical fallacies (post hoc ergo propter hoc, etc). For example, I could very easily convince someone with no knowledge of 20th century European History that Hitler was a great guy, simply through omissions and without making one factually inaccurate statement i.e. Hitler was a great connoisseur of art; his love of art lead to him amassing a great art collection, spanning art from all over Europe. Hitler also implemented economic policies which restored Germany's shattered economy and made Germany into one of the most powerful economic powers of its time. He was much loved by his people, and took great pride in his heritage, etc, etc, etc. I'm sure my point has become evident, and I no longer need to pursue this perverted example.
Moore is well known for his editing prowess, and I have no reason to believe that he does not continue using his "skills" in Fahrenheit 9/11. There are several well known instances of Moore's editing in Bowling For Columbine i.e. Heston's tie changing colours, the clip of Heston's speech not being the one he gave right after Columbine, but rather a different one altogether (1st Google Result on Query), etc. I'm sure there are many other examples in both movies.
Moore makes several assertions in Fahrenheit 9/11 which not only make no logical sense, but also contradict with other statements he made in the movie. Moore mentions the well documented effort on Saddam's behalf to murder George H. W. Bush (probably intended as an argumentum ad hominem), then he refers to the sovereign nation of Iraq, which had never threatened or harmed a single American life. Ok, let's see, Moore himself admits that Saddam tried to kill H. W. Bush. Furthermore, Iraq invaded Kuwait, and constantly threatened Saudi Arabia and Israel. First of all, there are plenty of Americans in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. Furthermore, plenty of American lives were lost in Desert Storm, which was clearly in response to a war of unilateral aggression on Saddam's behalf (then again, Moore may very well oppose Desert Storm, as well as England and France declaring war on Germany when they invaded Poland... who knows). After the end of Desert Storm, Americans remained in the region and constantly flew sorties to enforce the no-fly zones in the north and south of Iraq and make sure they minimized the number of Kurds and Shiites massacred by Saddam and his gang of (Sunni) thugs. Anyways, the Iraqis constantly attempted to shoot down the American planes that were merely enforcing the UN sanctioned No-fly Zones. (Seems like threatening American lives to me.)
Ok, moving on... Moore attempts to make it seem like there is no link between Saddam and international terrorism, where in reality Saddam offered USD $10000-20000 to the family members of Palestinian suicide bombers (what a great guy) (Google Link, scroll down)
Its a parliamentary system like France, Canada, England, Australia etc.
You can hardly call France a parliamentary system after the establishment of the Fifth Republic (1958).
I myself just received a 300-yen gift certificate
Um... 300 yen is less than 3 American Dollars ($2.79 to be exact) with the current exchange rate. You must know some pretty cheap people...
No, the reason Hollywood actors and director are mostly Democrats is quite simple: they want to feel good about themselves, and it is much easier to feel good about yourself with mindless slogans like "will somebody think of the [starving children/poor/[ethnic/racial/linguistic/religious] minorities]" and "war is baaaddd!" than it is if one considers varying economic theories (perhaps something that did not originate with Marx/Engels *gasp* i.e. Hayek's theories), the validity of just war theory, etc.
21 members of the Bin Laden family were flown out of the country on special chartered flights on September 13 while all other flights were grounded. They were NEVER questioned on Osama at all and there is no clear reason why they were given free flight out without interrogation.
Not only was this authorized by Dick Clark himself, but the bin Laden family had also disowned Osama a while back. Do you expect to be detained / questioned it your disowned nephew, with whom you haven't talked in twenty years, goes and kills someone?
Prior to the war in Afghanistan, there were plans on the board to put in a gas pipeline through the country. Members of the Taliban visited Texas regarding the issue. The project was abandoned after the US bombed Afghanistan in 1999. After the recent war, Hamid Karzai was made the leader. The papers were signed giving the green light for the pipline. Prior to being the leader, Karzai was a consultant for one of the companies trying to build the pipeline.
Where is the pipeline? What evidence is there that is it being constructed? Unocal, the company which was originally planning on making the pipeline, issued this statement, categorically affirming that they have "no plans or interest in becoming involved in any projects in Afghanistan." So, which company is building the pipeline?
Ok, who modded this down all the way from 5 to -1, Redundant? How can this possibly be redundant? There is no mention of Hitchens or his rebuttal before this post. Was it modded down only because it provided a half-decent rebuttal of Moore's movie? Was it modded down by the same people who cried out (and rightly so) when Republican morons attempted to pressure movie managers into not playing this movie? Seems a bit hypocritical to me...
Anyways, here's a link to the full article rebutting Moore's movie. I'm curious whether this post will be modded down as well... after all, dissenting viewpoints are dangerous...
We just have to liberally sprinkle lots of pro-China comments in our messages to ensure that our geeky breathern in the Far East can continue to enjoy the scintillating, intellectual banter found everyday on this great site.
Given the political leanings and the level of historical knowledge of a large portion of Slashdot' s posters (just like most of Western civilization's inhabitants), this will probably occur naturally.
Why are there so many anti-Israeli protesters and yet so few Free Tibet protesters. If one were to sit down and logically analyze the two issues, would there still be such a disparity between the number of people supporting each cause?
Why is there so little outcry when the PRC decided to "test" yet another missile across the Strait of Taiwan? Why are Europeans so concerned with the actions of the US yet so (relatively) apathetic toward the actions of China? (I can understand why some Americans are so concerned about the actions of their own government, but what about the Europeans and the Canadians?)
I never stated that a free market guarantees complete and utter freedom; I merely stated that a free market is closer to freedom than a centrally planned economy, a claim which you did not refute. Given two hypothetical countries, both with brutally despotic rulers and the same amount of rights, with the exception of one being centrally planned, and the other possessing a free market, which country is freer?
My point was "Free societies require (at least mostly) free markets." Rebutting this statement by listing states which possessed a free market and yet were not completely and utterly free does not disprove my point; implying that I stated that societies with free markets are always free and then disproving that point it a straw man fallacy.
Furthermore, there is evidence to support the fact that free market economies eventually lead to the downfall of oppressive regimes (see East Asian Tigers excluding Singapore, etc.). Certainly you will agree that a free market economy is far less hospitable for tyrannical rulers and oppressive regimes than a centrally planned economy.
Perhaps there is a reason why all the countries which "declared themselves to be based off of Marx and Engels have also been one-party dictatorships." Sure, correlation does not imply causality, but given enough examples, perhaps one should begin doubting the divinity of communism. There are certainly enough beliefs within the dogma of communism (must be attained through a revolution, forcefully taking controll from some and giving it to others, etc.) which would be conducive to the sort of "one-party dictatorships" that have historically emerged.
I see. I would have personally attempted to link the rampant growth of the Chinese economy with the low number of Chinese citizens reading Slashdot. In that case, you would be engaging in a logical fallacy, but at least the the individual statements which you would be linking would be factually correct. I find humour to be a bit more humorous when build upon reality rather than fiction disguised as such; then again, what do I know...
In fact there has never been a communist country per Marx. China is a not free and seeks to control every aspect of the life of the people that live there.
China would not necessarily have been any freer if it had been "a communist country per Marx." I think it's time that people finally accepted that the Austrian / Chicago school of economic thought is far closer to freedom than any of the garbage Marx, Engels, and Lenin were spewing. Free societies require (at least mostly) free markets; history has shown this.
The very next line of the article states:
"This past weekend that block was extended to include other language versions as well."
Um, what makes you think that Slashdot is blocked in India? I call BS.
By the way, most of the programming jobs are being outsorced to India, with extremely few going to China (manufacturing is a different matter).
And oh, completely offtopic -- what's the deal with saying, work fine in OOorg -- shouldn't that be works fine with OO? Why the org/.org thingy?
"The name is "OpenOffice.org" and not "OpenOffice", because someone else already had the trademark. The name should be used as an adjective: "OpenOffice.org Application", "OpenOffice.org Community" and so on..." Link
Why choose Riefenstahl of all people? There are loads of people who make polemic films about political issues. Why choose an apologist for one of the worst regimes of the 20th century? It shows a complete lack of understanding to compare Moore with Riefenstahl. It was just a cheap jibe.
Perhaps a bit like calling George Bush a Nazi?
Do you get so worked up when someone draws the comparison between Bush and Hitler, or do you turn a blind eye because it is in accordance with your political view?