Bowling for Columbine
- Thread starter alec
- Start date
Bisonman80
First time out of the vault
that movie had some good points to make, but it also had a lot of loaded bullshit.
:/
take everything with a grain of salt
:/
take everything with a grain of salt
SimpleMinded
Vault Fossil
Eh, Bowling for Columbine is good and has an accurate message. But one hsa to remember that it's what he wants you to hear. So its a very filtered message.
Angrim
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
Even though Michael Moore's documentaries tend to be a bit over-dramatized (and could almost be considered as propaganda by some) they have a very important and a good message.
There are some things in Bowling for Columbine, where the truth might be a bit colored or bent, but there really isn't any bullshit. Moore's not *lying*.
Bowling for Columbine is a great movie. Is it a great documentary? Well, yes. It's a Hollywood style scandalous documentary, but that's just good. It's entertaining, so more people went to see it and the message was spread wider.
Yay.
There are some things in Bowling for Columbine, where the truth might be a bit colored or bent, but there really isn't any bullshit. Moore's not *lying*.
Bowling for Columbine is a great movie. Is it a great documentary? Well, yes. It's a Hollywood style scandalous documentary, but that's just good. It's entertaining, so more people went to see it and the message was spread wider.
Yay.
Magus Zeal
First time out of the vault
Another reason why I'm moving out of this doomed country.alec said:
Let's face the facts -- there's no such thing as an unbiased message. I think Moore just throws some of the facts out there and leaves the conclusion mostly up to the viewer. Sadly, too many people want the conclusion fed to them.
alec said:
We do? Actually, Bowling for Columbine is a cheaply manipulated collection of willy-nilly halftruths, and it is very dangerous to look upon it as a convincing documentary.
Michael Moore is lying, and the validity of his message is lost in the heaps of bullshit and demagogery.
Cimmerian Nights
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
I lived overseas for years, you'll be suprised how backassed the rest of the world is too.Magus Zeal said:
The human condition doesn't care what color your passport is.
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/
Bowling for Columbine is factually a manipulating movie that does a great job at sequencing images and sounds to get its message across. Regardless of the correctness of its message, the movie itself and the 'arguments' given are absolute bullshit.
Bowling for Columbine is factually a manipulating movie that does a great job at sequencing images and sounds to get its message across. Regardless of the correctness of its message, the movie itself and the 'arguments' given are absolute bullshit.
Er, no. It's alive and working.Muff said:
citizenkhan
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Come on... you're arguing against Michael Moore by linking to a page that advertises for Ann Coulter?
Yeah, neat. Did you actually read anything?citizenkhan said:
Sander said:
Actually, bar the frontpage, all the headlines in first table lead to a 404 in ths sky.
Well, that's a bitch. I hadn't actually checked on that.
Ah well, here's a link that *is* working:
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
Ah well, here's a link that *is* working:
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
.
welsh
Junkmaster
To be honest, I thought Bowling for Columbine raised some interesting questions and there were some interesting bits. That part with the relatives of the Oklahoma bombers was pretty freaky. Open a bank account and get a shotgun? Damn, it used to be that you got a free NFL glass when you tanked a car at Shell.
If anything, Moore's documentary seemed to raise the question of why murder is so high and how that is often a consequence of fear. It is, to use a political science model- an insecurity dilemma.
The security dilemma Explains how two countries can go to war without really wanting to. Becuase they fear each other and are mutually suspicious they build up armies. Those armies could be seen as a defensive respons, but they can also be offensive.
Many in the US saw the invasion of Iraq as a defense use of the military to prevent another terrorist attack or an attack using WMD (yes, I know that's bullshit, but that's what many people thought). But in the Arab world and elsewhere, that invasion looks offensive.
Brian Job repackaged the security dilemma (which applies to interstate conflict) to civil conflicts within a state, explaining how tensions can lead to violence. This actually fits well into notions of human security. Fear drives human behavior leading to sub-optimal outcomes.
Who benefits from this- the gun industry.
If anything, Moore's documentary seemed to raise the question of why murder is so high and how that is often a consequence of fear. It is, to use a political science model- an insecurity dilemma.
The security dilemma Explains how two countries can go to war without really wanting to. Becuase they fear each other and are mutually suspicious they build up armies. Those armies could be seen as a defensive respons, but they can also be offensive.
Many in the US saw the invasion of Iraq as a defense use of the military to prevent another terrorist attack or an attack using WMD (yes, I know that's bullshit, but that's what many people thought). But in the Arab world and elsewhere, that invasion looks offensive.
Brian Job repackaged the security dilemma (which applies to interstate conflict) to civil conflicts within a state, explaining how tensions can lead to violence. This actually fits well into notions of human security. Fear drives human behavior leading to sub-optimal outcomes.
Who benefits from this- the gun industry.
Please refrain from calling that thing a documentary. It isn't. In any way.welsh said:
welsh
Junkmaster
Sander said:
Well even if I didn't WIkipedia does-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_for_Columbine
Honestly, I didn't agree with everything in Moore's film, but I think his thoughts on a the climate of fear were especially interesting. It seems that much of the reaction to Moore has come from those who took offense at his attack at gun ownership. But I suspect much of the justification for gun ownership - the "self-help" defense- is based on perceptions of fear that are largely unwarranted. Who benefits when an image is sold? So actually I think Moore was "swift boated." Sure there are failures in his documentary, but I saw it more as a thought piece than much else.