Slacker uprising - new Moore film

  • Thread starter Thread starter OrbitalPower
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Film
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the film "Slacker Uprising" by Michael Moore, focusing on themes of free speech, censorship, and the role of universities in hosting controversial speakers. Participants explore the implications of Moore's work on political discourse, particularly in the context of college campuses and the value of freedom of speech in democratic societies.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern about censorship and argue that attempts to silence speakers are reminiscent of totalitarian regimes.
  • Others challenge the value of Moore's message and question whether his popularity equates to merit.
  • There are differing views on the appropriateness of using educational funding for speakers like Moore, with some advocating for more educational content over what they perceive as sensationalism.
  • Some participants highlight the importance of free speech, suggesting that universities should allow diverse viewpoints, even if they disagree with them.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of free speech laws in Europe compared to the U.S., with some arguing that European countries impose stricter regulations that could be seen as repressive.
  • Participants discuss the role of popular figures, like the Pope, in academic settings, debating the relevance of their opinions beyond their primary areas of expertise.
  • There is a contention regarding the nature of Moore's films, with some labeling them as "mockumentaries" and questioning their factual accuracy.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the value of Moore's work, the appropriateness of censorship, and the role of universities in facilitating free speech.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference specific examples of censorship in Europe and the implications for free speech, indicating a complex interplay of cultural and legal factors that influence the discussion.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in debates surrounding free speech, censorship, political discourse, and the role of educational institutions in fostering diverse viewpoints may find this discussion relevant.

OrbitalPower
Movie is available for online viewing:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001GIYC4K/?tag=pfamazon01-20

or for download at:

http://slackeruprising.hypernia.com/SlackerUprising_640x360.avi (unfortunately this is down now)

or bittorrent:
http://slackeruprising.com/download/SlackerUprising_640x360.avi.torrent (moore released it himself)
You can also get it on itunes etc.

Looks interesting. About college kids and voting, I assume.

Hopefully Moore will show what happened to him when he came to Utah State Univeristy and conservatives tried to force the Univeristy not to let him speak - just like what they do in totalitarian countries.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
OrbitalPower said:
just like what they do in totalitarian countries.
Fallacy: guilt by association. That 'evil' people do it doesn't mean that it's bad thing.
 
I didn't say it was wrong because they do it in totalitarian countries. I said trying to censor people is what they do in totalitarian countries, which is true.

Trying to stop people from speaking is wrong because it's been understood for centuries now what value freedom of speech is to a functioning democracy. So countries that try and censor it, some European countries, are wrong. The US has been wrong on this issue as well and in the US freedom of speech is stifled by the market place, through state backed media companies.

This movie really shows the value of bittorrent, if film makers, or independent film makers, want to release something though bit torrent, they should be able to.

I don't agree with intellectual property laws that would force technologies to close down, such as bittorrent, just because they can potentially be used for bad things.

You could give that argument for any item, or tool.
 
*Sigh* I do believe stupid people with stupid opinions and ideas should not be allowed a platform.
 
I'd rather educational funding be used for educational speakers, not fanatics with publicists.
 
There is a difference between someone with something of value to say and Michael Moore.
 
If people show up they obviously find his message of value.

Universities host popular speakers all the time - Sean Hannity has also been at Utah state.

Also, Moore was generally more correct than the media. He was right to talk about issues regarding WMDs, no-bid contracts, US history in the region, etc. (Which Moore talks about in the film.)

And I'd be willing to wager a media watchdog group would find more inaccuracies in a day of FOX news "journalism" than they'd ever find in a Moore film.
 
OrbitalPower said:
If people show up they obviously find his message of value.

Universities host popular speakers all the time - Sean Hannity has also been at Utah state.

Also, Moore was generally more correct than the media. He was right to talk about issues regarding WMDs, no-bid contracts, US history in the region, etc. (Which Moore talks about in the film.)

And I'd be willing to wager a media watchdog group would find more inaccuracies in a day of FOX news "journalism" than they'd ever find in a Moore film.

Uh, yeah, right. :rolleyes: People gawk at car wrecks too. It doesn't mean there's anything of value there, just something to horrific they can't help but look.
 
A car has never been a NY-Times best-selling author, nor has a car ever made the top-grossing documentary of all time. I believe tickets were sold to that event as well.

Anyway, Moore is certainly relevant to college campuses: popular political culture; I don't find Neal Boortz of value, or most other conservative authors, but I don't think they shouldn't be able to speak on campuses.
 
  • #10
Some European countries do what now?
 
  • #11
Kurdt said:
Some European countries do what now?

In many European countries you can be imprisoned for political speech.

I.e France and Faurisson, David Irving, in Vienna, I believe, and so on.

I thought this was pretty well known in politics.
 
  • #12
OrbitalPower said:
A car has never been a NY-Times best-selling author, nor has a car ever made the top-grossing documentary of all time. I believe tickets were sold to that event as well.
Don't mistake shock value and curiosity for something of merit.
 
  • #13
OrbitalPower said:
A car has never been a NY-Times best-selling author, nor has a car ever made the top-grossing documentary of all time. I believe tickets were sold to that event as well.

So what? The Pope was popular too. Does that mean what Moore and the Pope says is true? No. If you think so then you're appealing to popularity.
 
  • #14
No, but I think a lot of people would certainly want to hear what the Pope had to say as well.

Certainly the Pope would be even more relevant on a college campus as well: religious studies; a religious authority who helps determine the doctrine to the following of millions.
 
  • #15
OrbitalPower said:
No, but I think a lot of people would certainly want to hear what the Pope had to say as well.

Just because people want to hear what he says doesn't mean what he says has any merit to it.

Certainly the Pope would be even more relevant on a college campus as well: religious studies; a religious authority who helps determine the doctrine to the following of millions.

He's only an authority on religious studies. Anything else would merely be his opinion and just another dude touting his opinion.
 
  • #16
Hurkyl said:
Fallacy: guilt by association. That 'evil' people do it doesn't mean that it's bad thing.

In this context... Just Wow.

What has "truth" got to do with anything. Are not college students supposed to be bright and inquiring? Should now they be able to analyze the content of a speech and determine its value for themselves? It certainly is NOT in the spirit of this country to deny someone the right to speak just because some political group thinks they may disagree with what is going to be said.


I am appalled at the people in this thread who seem to be ok with this repressive mind set.

I have to admit that I am at a bit of a disadvantage, having never watched any of Michael Moore's movies.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
OrbitalPower said:
A car has never been a NY-Times best-selling author, nor has a car ever made the top-grossing documentary of all time.

You mean MOCKumentary. There are plenty of fictional novels on the NYTimes best seller list. Their popularity doesn't make them more truthful. If people are interested in what he has to say, they can see his movies. They don't need educational funding used to line his pockets and fund his soapbox unless it's through the drama department.
 
  • #18
That is an opinion.

As for free-speech in Europe, I remember a presentation a kid gave on political correctness in video games, and he went over all the precautions US game makers have to deal with in European countries like Germany - such as ID software and their game Wolfenstein, which had Nazi imagery in it, which is actually banned there. That's just like banning the confederate flag here from ever being displayed.

That type of thinking is normal in maybe a totalitarian dictatorship but it should be foreign to a democracy and I think the US has far better laws on free-speech than Europe, especially France and some other countries where you can get years in prison for what amounts to essentially, speech. Chomsky has pointed that out.

"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech." --Noam Chomsky

I agree, it's simple; and I certainly wouldn't favor any "speech-codes" that are cropping up on college campuses, espeically on publicly funded Universities.
 
  • #19
A universty has responsibilty for a certain level of academic integrity.
 
  • #20
Wait a minute, are you, OrbitalPower, suggesting that the U.S. is a despotic country? If so, wow, the paranoia has really gotten high.
 
  • #21
LightbulbSun said:
Wait a minute, are you, OrbitalPower, suggesting that the U.S. is a despotic country? If so, wow, the paranoia has really gotten high.

LOL. Did you even read my post? Nowhere did I suggest that the US is a "despotic country," in fact, I was praising the US for its free-speech. I am a fan of the First Amendment.

Sounds like you need to attend some of Moore's political speeches. It is indeed highly characteristic of a dictatorship to restrict speech, and Moore is also correct that "buying things" so the terrorists don't win while we give up our liberities is completely backwards in fighting a war on terrorism.

As Bush might put it, it is an "absurd insinuation." Don't put words in my mouth.

Europe has some problems to this day with regards to speech, and "official doctrines" in regards to history (again, a totalitarian theme). The problem is that restricting speech often has a way of reaching out - consider the fact that Germany was calling for Nazi swastics to be banned throughout Europe after the Henry incident. Or, it can get more ridiculous as time goes on, using a ban on swasticas to ban the confederate flag and so on.

However, what they lack in free-speech, freedom, they make up for in a more diverse media. So it's not like the US doesn't have its problems either and Moore is a good alternative to the corporate news network.
 
  • #22
OrbitalPower said:
So it's not like the US doesn't have its problems either and Moore is a good alternative to the corporate news network.

Just because every country has its issues doesn't mean we should give credence to a complete nutjob.

If you think Michael Moore is a good alternative then try this:

http://www.prisonplanet.com"

I see no real difference between Moore and Alex Jones.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
I think comparing nazi Germany with the confederacy is a bit off. I'm not a fan of the ban either (certainly not an issue in my European country) but a little understanding of the context makes it a bit more clear.
 
  • #24
Nazism, Confederacy, Fascism, American Libertarianism - it's all totalitarianism to me, Kurdt. I'm like Kierkegaard - I can't stand concentration of power at the expense of the individual.

And blacks were brutally treated in America under slavery; the beatings were severe. The way that the US combined property and capital into a new form of slavery made it one of the worst in history. Hundreds of thousands were killed, and the confederates wanted to fight that. More Americans lost their lives in the confederate war than all other American wars combined.

The government, I think, should do what Rousseau (French philosopher, born in Geneva) said it should - either return to its natural duties, or get out of the way altogether. That's my philsoophy as well.

See, Moore can get people talking.
 
  • #25
OrbitalPower said:
Confederacy, American Libertarianism - it's all totalitarianism to me, Kurdt.

Ok, if you want to make up your own definitions for words now then I guess those two are totalitarianism now.

See, Moore can get people talking.

No, Moore can get people paranoid.
 
  • #26
It's not my own definition. Those are all right-wing theories, according to political science; they're also all anti-democratic.
 
  • #27
OrbitalPower said:
It's not my own definition. Those are all right-wing theories, according to political science; they're also all anti-democratic.

They maybe right-wing theories, but that doesn't equate to two of those being totalitarianism.
 
  • #28
Integral said:
In this context... Just Wow.
Please read what I actually said, and not what you think I meant. I said nothing about the message; I was condemning the messenger.

OrbitalPower said:
I didn't say it was wrong because they do it in totalitarian countries. I said trying to censor people is what they do in totalitarian countries, which is true.
What you have tried is, as I've said, "guilt by association" -- you invoke the reader's feelings about totalitarianism and try to use an irrelevant association to get the reader to apply those feelings to the current topic.

In other words, intentional or not, you really did say that it was wrong because they do it in totalitarian countries. :-p (And continue to do so, by your continued insistence of associating censorship with totalitarianism)
 
Last edited:
  • #29
There was no fallacy committed in my post.

And I love getting lectured on "conspiracy theories" by a Libertarian (who, collectively, hold almost no precense in academia outside of economics, and even there they are a small minority), certainly less than social progressives, and a Civil War revisionist.

Ask any historian about the Civil War, they'll give you the standard line about Lincoln, the slaves, the other factors, and so on, they won't give you Thomas delorenzo conspiracy theories.

Students make the college atmosphere their own. There are some things I don't like about the atmosphere, the incessant partying for instance. I hate going to parties. I hate drinking beer.

But, I do love the social progressive atmosphere of college campuses, and this even in true in my case and I go to a conservative University. It's not so much that it's progressive, and the student body are reactionary, right-wing Christians, but we allow Ralph Nader, Jello Biafra, and other progressives to come and speak at our University and I have attended both lectures.

And, of course, the cuckcoos that modern conservatives and libertarians like I'm sure have their say too.
 
  • #30
Hurkyl said:
Please read what I actually said, and not what you think I meant. I said nothing about the message; I was condemning the messenger.What you have tried is, as I've said, "guilt by association" -- you invoke the reader's feelings about totalitarianism and try to use an irrelevant association to get the reader to apply those feelings to the current topic.

In other words, intentional or not, you really did say that it was wrong because they do it in totalitarian countries. :-p (And continue to do so, by your continued insistence of associating censorship with totalitarianism)

I agree with Hurkyl here - only this is maybe too "logical Mr. Spock" to be understood while under the influence of the emotional tone of the messages :wink:

The logical fallacy that Hurkyl pointed out is that because Hitler also went to the loo, going to the loo is now a fascist practice.

It is not because in totalitarian countries, censorship is applied, that censorship by itself is bad. If you have arguments to say why sensorship is bad, it certainly isn't because they also do it in totalitarian countries.
 

Similar threads

News Michael Moore - Minister of Disinformation?
  • · Replies 90 ·
4
Replies
90
Views
17K