What has this dubious assertion to do with anything? For that matter, I’ve repeatedly heard you complain about how people aren’t nice to each other, but I’ve rarely heard you say “a single kind word” toward liberals. (NOTE: It is relevant to note here that Hiryuu has previously said kind words about me.) Except I don’t take that as a sign that you “hate all liberals,” and I don’t expect you to preface each of your posts with a disclaimer about how you don’t hate all of them.
Once again, if you wanted to hear “the other part of the story,” all you had to do was turn on the TV at any point in time during the past three years. During the rush to war with Iraq, the news was inundated with the administration’s “side of the story,” that being their lies about the “threat” posed by Iraq. Opposing viewpoints were marginalized and the debate over the war was cut short. The administration sure as hell didn’t invite anyone to give an opposing viewpoint after each one of Bush’s warmongering speeches. Fahrenheit 9/11 was first and foremost born of those circumstances - it was the counterpoint that no one had really previously given before a mass audience, and contained the images that the mainstream media had prohibited or ignored. It’s hardly Michael Moore’s fault that Bush took the country to war based on lies; if someone walks away from Fahrenheit 9/11 angry about that fact, which is really the most “hateful” thing that movie can inspire, that really has little to do with Michael Moore. The issue of this war, especially when the administration has worked so hard to couch it in its own terms, is itself divisive and inflammatory. Wars are divisive; wars elicit strong emotional responses. People who disagree about wars are going to be divided.
Except, of course, for the fact that the sources used in Fox’s reporting (e.g. the people interviewed on Special Report with Brit Hume) are aggressively slanted towards Republican and conservative figures. Other news organizations have this slant too, it’s just much greater on Fox.
No on all counts. He doesn’t know, and that was the whole point of the film. In the film, he looked at a whole bunch of different simplistic yet popular rationales proposed to explain why there’s so much gun violence in America: video game violence, “evil” music, not enough gun control, not enough “zero tolerance” in schools, and so forth. He rejected every one of them, including the one that holds that gun control will solve the problem of gun violence. In the end, he didn’t have an easy explanation for gun violence; his opinion was that it arose from greater social problems, such as poverty, and that instead of adopting those simplistic rationales, we should find better ways to address the greater problems. Regardless of the merits of this opinion, writing it off as “propaganda” is just an easy way to dismiss it without actually engaging the issue.
Anyone who expresses any opinion at all in public already hopes to “influence the masses” in some way. If there’s a sound argument behind one’s opinion, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.
About “conservatives”? People do complain about the Bush administration, I’ve noticed. Occasionally people also complain about various individual conservatives, such as Bill O’Reilly. This is not the same thing as expressing “hateful things” about “conservatives,” and “constantly” at that.
Actually, what people bitch about is Bill O’Reilly’s reprehensible views. They consider them, and Bill O’Reilly’s bullying tactics, to be appalling, and that is why they condemn Bill O’Reilly. Michael Moore is not relevant to this discussion of O’Reilly’s appalling views because Michael Moore does not advocate similar views or use the same kind of tactics. Bill O’Reilly says hateful things about people who oppose the war and tells them to shut up. Michael Moore does not say hateful things about all people who support the war or tell them to shut up. Instead, Michael Moore attacks the Bush administration and some individuals who are connected with it. Attacking the Bush administration is not the same as attacking all conservatives (especially given that many conservatives oppose the war). Bill O’Reilly’s rhetoric encourages people to view liberals as traitors and supports the murder of civilians. Michael Moore’s rhetoric does not encourage people to view conservatives as traitors and does not support the murder of anyone. Bill O’Reilly throws his false accusations at everyone who disagrees with him. Michael Moore throws his largely true accusations at specific individuals. Bill O’Reilly’s orders that dissenting opinions “shut up” attempt to stifle debate. Michael Moore’s film attempts to spark debate. The two are not comparable.