I had to run earlier and didn't have a chance to resolve the situation.
First, I wanted to say teflep was right – I do see sensationalism in general as a problem in our society. Since MM thrives on it, that's one reason I don't like him. I also said I don't like right-wingers who use similar tactics to further their agendas.
Also, I’m sorry if my use of the term “anti-America” insulted anyone; that wasn’t my intention.
I will say that I just don’t agree with/like/support how MM goes about making his point. I don’t see anything wrong with anyone wanting to reform areas that could use improvement (health care, the economy, etc., as I said earlier). I don't have a problem with wanting to reform health care - I just don't like his ideas about what that would look like. The US is not perfect, by any means, but the kind of change MM wants would change what many people feel are fundamental principles of American government and culture.
I don’t have time to give an example for every point I’m trying to make (it seems like other people can make sweeping, general, one-liner comments in support of MM, but I’m expected to write a novel to show that I don’t like or support him). I just wanted to retract the term “anti-America,” since it seems to have offended some people, and I wanted to shed light on my point of view.
I don’t have time to give an example for every point I’m trying to make (it seems like other people can make sweeping, general, one-liner comments in support of MM, but I’m expected to write a novel to show that I don’t like or support him). I just wanted to retract the term “anti-America,” since it seems to have offended some people, and I wanted to shed light on my point of view.
Wahh wahh wahh.
I only asked you to defend your use of the incendiary phrase "anti-America," not write a thesis on your dislike of Michael Moore.
I think his bit on the difference between the US and mass shootings in the world is interesting, because yes, countries with stricter gun control have had mass shootings but for some reason they are less. Is this though the gun control or is it something else? After the mass shooting in Tasmania in 1996, gun control measures were extreme and swift, there were slight grumblings (DH didn't like the classification of some guns, people didn't want to give up guns that had been in the family for generations) but for the most part people didn't question that they were actually needed. BTW, DH still has the majority of his hunting riffles and only had to hand a few guns over in the amnesty.
I'm only somewhat of a MM fan but I agree with him on the Fear and Consumption philosophy (in the movie). I also agree that we'd be in a much better position to address gun control if our poor weren't so motherfuvking poor and desperate and our health issues were acutally being addressed and taken care of. People are naturally more apt to be violent when their resources are scarce.
Hell even just enforcing the law we have would be a start...
I don't care if you don't LIKE Michael Moore. I find his tactics unnecessary a lot of the time. But to call him "anti-American" is asinine and just as unnecessarily incendiary as you claim him to be.
I'll agree with this. He irks me to no end - but I'm aware it's mostly because he's an excellent storyteller, and he uses that to message out his stance, which I disagree with a majority of the time. I don't have to like it, but I also don't doubt that he does what he does because he believes it's his best way to make a positive influence for the country and its citizens.