Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Critique of Ann Coulter's The Church of Liberalism: Godless
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 31 of 298 (326577)
06-26-2006 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by rgb
06-24-2006 1:58 AM


someday i want to write a book
ann coulter is a raging cunt wad
subtitled: how to talk to ann coulter if you're unfortunate enough to have caught that std.
at any rate. she's an imbecile and she repeats the same bullshit lies every time she's on the air. she's full of it. disagreeing with her intentions is one thing. but i'm mostly concerned with her methods. it's like michael moore. he's full of shit, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by rgb, posted 06-24-2006 1:58 AM rgb has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 06-26-2006 6:18 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied
 Message 200 by clpMINI, posted 08-09-2006 1:36 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 32 of 298 (326586)
06-26-2006 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by macaroniandcheese
06-26-2006 6:02 PM


it's like michael moore. he's full of shit, too.
You know, that's what everybody says - "Farenheight 9/11 was full of Moore's lies" - but they never seem to have any examples. Like, the worst the can come up with is that Moore uses the "spinning newspaper" visual gag on a headline that wasn't actually a headline - it was just the title of a story that did actually appear in a newspaper.
Oh, yeah, Moore's a liar! It's pretty obvious when you see it, of course, that you're looking at a visual effect, not a real copy of a newspaper. And I've never seen Ann Coulter or any other liar actually release an annotated bibliography for their media appearance that provides sources for their assertions - but Moore did that with Farenheight 9/11.
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me exactly what Moore lied about. I've been waiting since the movie came to video. Does he use humor, parody, and special effect to get his point across? Does he impugn motives to people that he couldn't possibly know about? Absolutely. Ken Burns did all that in "Civil War" and nobody jumps up his ass. Since when couldn't you do those things in a documentary?
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by macaroniandcheese, posted 06-26-2006 6:02 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-26-2006 7:24 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 35 by arachnophilia, posted 06-26-2006 8:41 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 40 by Mammuthus, posted 06-27-2006 3:52 AM crashfrog has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 33 of 298 (326605)
06-26-2006 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by crashfrog
06-26-2006 6:18 PM


Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me exactly what Moore lied about.
Me too, but at a Fahrenheit 9/11 topic.
farenheit 9/11 (the "liberal media", other things relating to film maker Michael Moore) is closed at 304 messages, but Fahrenheit 9/11 is still open at 133 messages.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 06-26-2006 6:18 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by arachnophilia, posted 06-26-2006 8:37 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 34 of 298 (326631)
06-26-2006 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Minnemooseus
06-26-2006 7:24 PM


Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me exactly what Moore lied about.
Me too, but at a Fahrenheit 9/11 topic.
well, on my self-assigned reading list this summer is a book called "michael moore is a big fat stupid white man." after i get around to reading that, i'll let you know if i thought any of the authors' points were valid.
but i have two spong books to read and give back to brenna first, so it might be a bit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-26-2006 7:24 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 35 of 298 (326632)
06-26-2006 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by crashfrog
06-26-2006 6:18 PM


on a headline that wasn't actually a headline - it was just the title of a story that did actually appear in a newspaper.
editorials don't carry the same weight as factual newspaper stories. to conflate the two is dishonest, whether or not they both appear in newspapers.
And I've never seen Ann Coulter or any other liar actually release an annotated bibliography for their media appearance that provides sources for their assertions - but Moore did that with Farenheight 9/11.
go find an ann coulter book. i bet it has a bibliography. (although, apparently, not an extensive enough one to cover all of her plagiarism...)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 06-26-2006 6:18 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by crashfrog, posted 06-26-2006 10:42 PM arachnophilia has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 36 of 298 (326677)
06-26-2006 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by arachnophilia
06-26-2006 8:41 PM


editorials don't carry the same weight as factual newspaper stories. to conflate the two is dishonest, whether or not they both appear in newspapers.
I guess I don't agree. It's showmanship, not dishonesty. And it's abundantly clear in the movie that we're not looking at a real newspaper. I don't remember Moore saying that he was talking about facts when he was really talking about opinions; moreover, factual information is often relayed through editorials. Editorials may be more commentary on the facts than they are facts, but editorials aren't lies, either. They're not fiction; they're conclusion.
go find an ann coulter book. i bet it has a bibliography.
Sure, for the stuff she puts in print. Maybe. Never read one of her books, I guess.
For the stuff she shoots her mouth off about on TV or in movies? Not a chance. You can be damn sure that Faren-hype 9/11 (or whatever it was called) or any of the other rightwing political slanderfests took the trouble to source their statements.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by arachnophilia, posted 06-26-2006 8:41 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by arachnophilia, posted 06-26-2006 11:17 PM crashfrog has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 37 of 298 (326685)
06-26-2006 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by crashfrog
06-26-2006 10:42 PM


I guess I don't agree. It's showmanship, not dishonesty.
silly froggy, showmanship is dishonesty.
Editorials may be more commentary on the facts than they are facts, but editorials aren't lies, either. They're not fiction; they're conclusion.
look, of course the documentary is largely personal opinion. that's a standard bit they tell you in basic english classes. you don't put "it's my opinion that..." or "i think..." in an essay. of course you think, and of course it's your opinion. you're writing the the essay to defend or promote your opinion. that much is granted.
but this is not the same as conflating facts and opinions, or presenting opinions as facts. they are not the same thing. even if the opinion is right. this stuff about "factual information can be relayed editorials" is garbage, and you know it. it's still dishonest to present someone's opinions as a factual event reported in a newspaper.
we're not even talking about a staff editorial. we're talking about a letter to the editor. as in, something written by a member of the average population, in response to something the newspaper wrote (in an editorial, btw), put in an envelope with a stamp, sent through the mail to newspaper, and published in the "opinion" section, under the heading "your views."
publishing a letter to the editor as a factual statement made by a newspaper is not only dishonest, it's exactly the same as the worst kind of creationist quotemining: when someone quotes another author as saying something that they were quoting from someone else. it is misattribution of intellectual property, and makes it look like the newspaper has a view that it does not neccessarily hold.
it's about like me quoting you, quoting me, as proof that you agree to what i'm saying. because, look, there's my opinion right there in your post. it's dishonest.
And it's abundantly clear in the movie that we're not looking at a real newspaper.
and yet, it's presented as something the newspaper reported, not something that someone wrote into the newspaper to voice their opinion about. it doesn't matter how obviously dishonest something is. you can't say, "well, it's so obviously fake that it doesn't count."
it's still a lie.
You can be damn sure that Faren-hype 9/11 (or whatever it was called) or any of the other rightwing political slanderfests took the trouble to source their statements.
you're aware that about half the content of farenhype 9/11 is told from the mouth of ann coulter?
personally, i like george w. bush: faith in the whitehouse, which says on the back:
quote:
Says BBC correspondent Justin Webb, "Nobody spends more time on his knees than George W. Bush. "
Edited by arachnophilia, : typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by crashfrog, posted 06-26-2006 10:42 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by crashfrog, posted 06-26-2006 11:33 PM arachnophilia has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 38 of 298 (326689)
06-26-2006 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by arachnophilia
06-26-2006 11:17 PM


but this is not the same as conflating facts and opinions, or presenting opinions as facts. they are not the same thing. even if the opinion is right. this stuff about "factual information can be relayed editorials" is garbage, and you know it. it's still dishonest to present someone's opinions as a factual event reported in a newspaper.
I'm still waiting for an example where Moore did that. You're wasting your time explaining what a "lie" is, without defending the assertion that Moore did lie.
you can't say, "well, it's so obviously fake that it doesn't count."
Oh, you think Peter Jackson is a liar, too? Because he made a movie about stuff that didn't happen, called "Lord of the Rings"?
Seems to me that "it's obviously fake" is a pretty good defense against charges of dishonesty. Lies require the intent to deceive.
Did Moore say "as reported by the Miami Herald..." (or whatever paper it was)? Or not?
publishing a letter to the editor as a factual statement made by a newspaper is not only dishonest, it's exactly the same as the worst kind of creationist quotemining: when someone quotes another author as saying something that they were quoting from someone else. it is misattribution of intellectual property, and makes it look like the newspaper has a view that it does not neccessarily hold.
As I recall, Moore didn't publish the letter. He uses a two-second graphic of the title of the letter.
The people who write the letters, though, don't title them. The editors of the newspaper do. So, the only copy that Moore presented in his two-second graphic bumper as being the words of the newspaper in question actually were the words of the newspaper in question. They came up with that stuff, not the author of the letter. Again, how is that a lie?
you're aware that about half the content of farenhype 9/11 is told from the mouth of ann coulter?
Never seen it, but that's the first I've heard of her involvment.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by arachnophilia, posted 06-26-2006 11:17 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by arachnophilia, posted 06-26-2006 11:49 PM crashfrog has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 39 of 298 (326693)
06-26-2006 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by crashfrog
06-26-2006 11:33 PM


Oh, you think Peter Jackson is a liar, too? Because he made a movie about stuff that didn't happen, called "Lord of the Rings"?
can you not tell the difference? we don't have a guy named "gandalf" or even "sauron" in the whitehouse. the closest thing he have to hobbits are an ancient species of hominds. no one things anything in the lord of the rings is even remotely true. compare to bio-pic movie, say the recent "walk the line." johnny cash was a real person, and so was june carter. but watching it, we know it's a fictionalized account of their lives, and not neccessarily accurate in every minute detail. we realize that artistic license has been taken.
but turn on something presented as a documentary, and you don't expect the same degree of artistic freedom. you may expect that documentarian is not telling you the whole truth -- stuff has to be editted for time, and a common license is what is and what is not shown. but misrepresentation of a letter to the editor as a factual newspaper article? that's not the kind of "artistic license" you can take in a documentary.
Seems to me that "it's obviously fake" is a pretty good defense against charges of dishonesty. Lies require the intent to deceive.
lies being pathetic does not make them not-lies.
Did Moore say "as reported by the Miami Herald..." (or whatever paper it was)? Or not?
tell you what, i'll see if i can find that portion of the film tonight, and tell you exactly what he said.
The people who write the letters, though, don't title them. The editors of the newspaper do. So, the only copy that Moore presented in his two-second graphic bumper as being the words of the newspaper in question actually were the words of the newspaper in question. They came up with that stuff, not the author of the letter. Again, how is that a lie?
as a summary of the content of the letter, not a factual account or even a representation of their opinion. it's still quotemining. if a creationist did this, would you still defend them?
Never seen it, but that's the first I've heard of her involvment.
i watched it, but tried to pay very, very little attention. it's far, far less scrupulous than moore's film. frankly, it made me more than a little nauseated.
Edited by arachnophilia, : typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by crashfrog, posted 06-26-2006 11:33 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2006 5:10 PM arachnophilia has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 40 of 298 (326724)
06-27-2006 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by crashfrog
06-26-2006 6:18 PM


quote:
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me exactly what Moore lied about.
Me to because I see this as the key feature of the idiocy and weakness of US "news" media. Moore is a liar because some conservative who did not like his opinions said so often enough that it became a part of the "official" public record. Ann Coulter is an honest, intelligent, well spoken woman because some conservative who liked her opinions (or her looks) said so often enough that it bacame a part of the "official" public record.
This is something one might expect from internet chat sites which to paraphrase Jon Stewart from America the Book combines the reliability of anonymous hearsay with the joy of typing. But it is certainly not what one would expect or want from the so called professional media.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 06-26-2006 6:18 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Modulous, posted 06-27-2006 6:40 PM Mammuthus has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 41 of 298 (326914)
06-27-2006 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by arachnophilia
06-26-2006 11:49 PM


tell you what, i'll see if i can find that portion of the film tonight, and tell you exactly what he said.
That would be helpful, I think. At that time why don't we move it to one of the threads MM mentioned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by arachnophilia, posted 06-26-2006 11:49 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by arachnophilia, posted 06-28-2006 2:37 AM crashfrog has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 42 of 298 (326922)
06-27-2006 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Mammuthus
06-27-2006 3:52 AM


dishonesty and propaganda
Me to because I see this as the key feature of the idiocy and weakness of US "news" media. Moore is a liar because some conservative who did not like his opinions said so often enough that it became a part of the "official" public record
I'm not conservative, and I think that Moore is dishonest. He might be able to say 'its not technically lying' but he is still dishonest. If you think creationists are dishonest for quote mining, then so is Moore (a master quote miner), if you think skipping important context is dishonest, then Moore is dishonest.
I believe somebody once said of Moore 'you shouldn't have to lie to tell the truth' and I pretty much agree with that sentiment.
A quick example (I think from Farenheit) is Moore talking about the coffin ban in a way that would lead you to think that it was Bush Jnr's idea to ban the photos. He neglects to mention an important fact: that the ban was imposed in the first Gulf war by Bush Snr due to reactions from the Servicemen's families. He also neglected to mention that the specific directive that was used was penned by Clinton in 2000. Finally he didn't mention that the military has its own restrictions about photographs that have been in place since before either Directives. The interesting fact that Moore should have discussed was the inconsistency of applying the ban (ie when it was convenient to ignore it, it was ignored and when it was convenient to enforce it, it was enforced).
Another example: After Bowling... I went away thinking that Charlon Heston was an cold hearted racist. Why did I think that? Because Moore spliced several comments by Heston together totally out of context and time from the incidents being discussed (the shootings).
To me, that is dishonesty pretending to be honesty (technically no lie has been made, but good faith has been betrayed by ommision rather than by commision). Moore can (and has) weasel out of it by claiming he didn't intend for the viewer to be fooled.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Mammuthus, posted 06-27-2006 3:52 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Omnivorous, posted 06-27-2006 9:37 PM Modulous has replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 43 of 298 (326971)
06-27-2006 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Modulous
06-27-2006 6:40 PM


Re: dishonesty and propaganda
A quick example (I think from Farenheit) is Moore talking about the coffin ban in a way that would lead you to think that it was Bush Jnr's idea to ban the photos. He neglects to mention an important fact: that the ban was imposed in the first Gulf war by Bush Snr due to reactions from the Servicemen's families.
No.
I remember this clearly, and I watched it happen.
After some feverish Advanced Googling, I've found someone else who does as well. Here's a recollection of the magic moment from journalist Pat Sloyan at digitaljournalist.com.
Bush was badly stung by the reality of warfare while president. After the 1989 American invasion of Panama - where reporters were also blocked from witnessing a short-lived slaughter in Panama City - Bush held a White House news conference to boast about the dramatic assault on the Central American leader, Gen. Manuel Noriega. Bush was chipper and wisecracking with reporters when two major networks shifted coverage to the arrival ceremony for American soldiers killed in Panama at the Air Force Base in Dover, Del. Millions of viewers watched as the network television screens were split: Bush bantering with the press while flag-draped coffers were carried off Air Force planes by honor guards. Dover was the military mortuary for troops killed while serving abroad. On Bush’s orders, the Pentagon banned future news coverage of honor guard ceremonies for the dead. The ban was continued by President Bill Clinton.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Modulous, posted 06-27-2006 6:40 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Modulous, posted 06-27-2006 9:40 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 44 of 298 (326975)
06-27-2006 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Omnivorous
06-27-2006 9:37 PM


Bush Bans
Modulous writes:
No.
No what?
Sorry, Mod, I guess that was telegraphic to the point of obscurity.
No, Bush Sr. did not ban photos of honor guard ceremonies for arriving coffins because of pressures or requests from bereaved families.
He banned them because the networks showed him smirking and strutting at a news conference while coffins arrived.
It is true that Clinton did not rescind the ban. He should have.
Abe: Ooops. Modulous, I inadvertently edited your post instead of replying to it, and I have no idea how to undo that. Sorry about that!
Edited by AdminOmni, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminOmni, : Ooops.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Omnivorous, posted 06-27-2006 9:37 PM Omnivorous has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 45 of 298 (327042)
06-28-2006 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by crashfrog
06-27-2006 5:10 PM


tell you what, i'll see if i can find that portion of the film tonight, and tell you exactly what he said.
That would be helpful, I think. At that time why don't we move it to one of the threads MM mentioned.
it's in the context of "how could bush get away with having fox rig the election" in the first 5 minutes of the film. the sentance out of moore's mouth while the fake article is on screen is "and even if numerous independent investigations prove that gore got the most votes" (then he goes to say that all that matters if how your daddy's friends on the supreme court vote). the pantagraph "article" is presented as a newspaper report on an independent investigation. it doesn't look egregiously fake on the video. it's presented alongside what presumably is a real newspaper article.
it's dishonest for a number of a reasons, most which i presented above. but secondary to those misrepresentations of what the source is, is the fact that it's not the number of votes that matters. districting has a very large effect -- it's actually something of an undisputed fact that gore got the most votes in the 2000 election. but that's not how the presidential election is run. ie: moore is also misrepresenting the american democratic process, by oversimplifying it.
now, if you can't understand how quotemining summary header in a "letters to the editor" section, and misrepresenting it as a factual newspaper report is dishonest, you can feel free to take it to one of those threads. you wouldn't stand for it if a creationist quotemined a source in this manner. step back for a second, let go of the left v. right bias, and forget that moore is making a valid point that you (and i both) think is right. lying for the right cause is not honest. it's not when creationists did it on the stand in dover, and it's not when moore does it either.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2006 5:10 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Mammuthus, posted 06-28-2006 5:21 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2006 8:15 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024