Support NeoGAF

[Foggy]

Hot damn, he was torched

 

[Stormhammer]

Hot damn, he was torched

you could say he was fahrenheit 109'd

 

[Shamrock7r]

No, Again this is your interpretation of what Moore said which isn't accurate



I said the exact same thing a page ago. People take shit and run with it. Its so fucking annoying.

Based on his post, it is entirely reasonsable to interpret his post as "here are some of the worst acts in human history, women don't do this".

And please give me a break with the "it's so annoying" whine about people who have a different interpretation and opinion about what he said. Yea I read the post, I think I very clearly pointed out the time stamps between the two posts. If you disagree, why don't you address that instead of "d.d.did you even read the post I am so annoyed!"

 

[Falchion]

Breaking news, broad generalizations about a gender / race / ethnicity, whether good or bad, will always can always be proven wrong.

 

[rambis]

Based on his post, it is entirely reasonsable to interpret his post as "here are some of the worst acts in human history, women don't do this".

And please give me a break with the "it's so annoying" whine about people who have a different interpretation and opinion about what he said. Yea I read the post, I think I very clearly pointed out the time stamps between the two posts. If you disagree, why don't you address that instead of "d.d.did you even read the post I am so annoyed!"

Maybe, but then to slide all the way home with this "you can't erase women" bullshit? Fuck that. It is fucking annoying. Again, maybe its not wise to take vague context-less tweets and try to run with it as some vast agenda. People these days seek outrage and its tiresome to me, sorry this offends you.

 

[turtle553]

No, not "even more than the average documentary". This is how documentaries are made. Unless you're watching something that is just 600 hours of raw source material, arranged chronologically by creation date, and hasn't been edited into a film at all, you're watching something where choices are being made at every stage, in service of a perspective. And even if you're watching 600 hours of raw source material, there's bias inherent in the topic being covered, the source material that was gathered, and the source material that wasn't gathered.

There is bias in documentaries by the nature of what they show. But Moore's films lean heavily on implications.

1) Roger and Me was about his inability to interview Roger Smith, except he had interviewed him before filming even started.

2) Fahrenheit 9/11 claims Peter Goss lied about having a 1-800 number for information. Goss actually had a 1-877 number.

3) In Sicko, it shows boatloads of people leaving Florida to get healthcare in Cuba and then boatloads of them trying to get into Cuba. Implying they took the boat when they really flew down.

 

[Shamrock7r]

Maybe, but then to slide all the way home with this "you can't erase women" bullshit? Fuck that. It is fucking annoying. Again, maybe its not wise to take vague context-less tweets and try to run with it as some vast agenda. People these days seek outrage and its tiresome to me, sorry this offends you.

Dude you are all over the place, lol. When did I ever say I was offended? If you keep trying to throw underhanded insults when replying I think that already says a lot about the confidence you have in articulating a point. I don't think his post was context less at all. Here is what I think happened. He thought of some terrible moments in human history, assumed it was only men in power at the time, and made that post. When he was called out for it, he dialed it back and tried to make a more general point. I don't think his second post was his original intention at all.

 

[rambis]

Dude you are all over the place, lol. When did I ever say I was offended? If you keep trying to throw underhanded insults when replying I think that already says a lot about the confidence you have in articulating a point. I don't think his post was context less at all. Here is what I think happened. He thought of some terrible moments in human history, assumed it was only men in power at the time, and made that post. When he was called out for it, he dialed it back and tried to make a more general point. I don't think his second post was his original intention at all.

Insults? The fact that you would even call it an insult tells me its touching you.

Anyway, I'm just glad you realize that your post is basically your own conjecture and didn't go on a rant about equality or erasing women. Good job.

 

[Fuchsdh]

No, that implies that human behavior is affected by hardwired impulses.

Why are you conflating race with sex? The poster you mentioned did no such thing. Why are you putting racist logic into his/her mouth to make your point?

Women are less violent and aggressive than men. Could that all be chalked up to cultural programming? I guess that's possible. Could some of it be due to biological differences in the sexes? I think it's unreasonable to rule that out as a possibility because the idea is unpalatable for some reason. And if that is true then maybe there is some sense in believing that, on average, the world might be a better place if more women were leaders in it.

Because exaggerating biological differences have underpinned racist and sexist attitudes for generations? I'm following the logical extension of his point.

 

[Shamrock7r]

Insults? The fact that you would even call it an insult tells me its touching you.

Anyway, I'm just glad you realize that your post is basically your own conjecture and didn't go on a rant about equality or erasing women. Good job.

My post is my opinion yes, that I developed logically from how Moore wrote what he wrote. It's a pretty logical conclusion for anyone to make, really, which is why so many people reached the same conclusion. He wrote what he wrote, it was stupid, and his "clarification" doesn't really match up. But I'll leave it at that with you as I can tell you are just getting passive aggressive with your posts and it really isn't all that impressive in getting whatever point you had across, if you had one, because you've pretty much surrendered it.

 

[DarkKyo]

Maybe, but then to slide all the way home with this "you can't erase women" bullshit? Fuck that. It is fucking annoying. Again, maybe its not wise to take vague context-less tweets and try to run with it as some vast agenda. People these days seek outrage and its tiresome to me, sorry this offends you.

Thanks for proving your own point.

I don't think it applies to the argument at hand though.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

That "we aren't inherently goodness, we choose" ending. Nailed it.

Let's all make better choices.

 

[Nafai1123]

Because exaggerating biological differences have underpinned racist and sexist attitudes for generations? I'm following the logical extension of his point.

Acknowledging there are basic, fundamental differences between men and women is not the same as claiming there are basic, fundamental differences between the races. You should not equate one with the other.

 

[Mackenzie 92]

Moore has really gone off the deep end this cycle. I had to unfollow him on Twitter a while back.

 

[3rdman]

There is bias in documentaries by the nature of what they show. But Moore's films lean heavily on implications.

1) Roger and Me was about his inability to interview Roger Smith, except he had interviewed him before filming even started.

2) Fahrenheit 9/11 claims Peter Goss lied about having a 1-800 number for information. Goss actually had a 1-877 number.

3) In Sicko, it shows boatloads of people leaving Florida to get healthcare in Cuba and then boatloads of them trying to get into Cuba. Implying they took the boat when they really flew down.

1. Roger and ME was most definitely NOT about his inability to interview Roger Smith...it was about what he did to the Flint, Michigan and the car industry. The "rosebudding" of the doc was done for structure and is entirely irrelevant to the premise of the film.

2. If this is an oversight or error, I'm sure he is sorry for it but the doc wasn't about who does and doesn't have 800 numbers...F9/11 was about the Iraq war, the run up, and the lies to make it happen. Does this minor error eliminate the entire argument of the film???

3. People on a boat sailing to Cuba is visually more exciting than heading there on a plane. Sicko was about the screwed up health system of the US...Does this alteration eliminate the entire argument of the film???

Almost all documentaries have these kinds of errors or leaps of artistic licensing believe it or not...I think the problem lies in that Moore injects himself into the films himself. He is a constant target from the right and people are more likely to shit on his entire films if they are able to shit on him.

In the grand scheme of things, Moore is right...almost always. To this day, I remind my conservative friends that while they were cheering on Bush going into Iraq, Moore (whom the all hated with a passion) was actually closer to the truth in F9/11 than anything our government had told them. They have no answer for this because they still haven't seen the movie but they sure like to remind me "something about 800 or 877 numbers..."

 

[rambis]

My post is my opinion yes, that I developed logically from how Moore wrote what he wrote. It's a pretty logical conclusion for anyone to make, really, which is why so many people reached the same conclusion. He wrote what he wrote, it was stupid, and his "clarification" doesn't really match up. But I'll leave it at that with you as I can tell you are just getting passive aggressive with your posts and it really isn't all that impressive in getting whatever point you had across, if you had one, because you've pretty much surrendered it.

I posted the same thing, before he posted his clarification. But I guess its illogical since it doesnt match the agenda eh? Yeah, I would leave it too.

Thanks for proving your own point.

I don't think it applies to the argument at hand though.

What?

 

[Shamrock7r]

I posted the same thing, before he posted his clarification. But I guess its illogical since it doesnt match the agenda eh? Yeah, I would leave it too.

Can you even explain what you are arguing because I don't think anyone in here knows.

You've changed your subject 3 or 4 times and now you are on something about an "agenda"

 

[rambis]

QUOTE=Shamrock7r;222796359]Can you even explain what you are arguing because I don't think anyone in here knows.

You've changed your subject 3 or 4 times and now you are on something about an "agenda"[/QUOTE]
I think youre phone is maybe translating my posts to mandarin or something. When has my subject changed?

On first glance it seemed like he was giving props to women for largely not committing some of the huge global atrocities that men have. Yet there's backlash? Mostly from women. I don't get the internet anymore

This seems like you are just running with it honestly.

It could very well be just him appealing to give a woman a chance(obvious context here) which seems hard for alot of people to do. Bottom line is its twitter. 150 Context-less characters, relax.

What part do I need to translate?