Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › Michael Moore’s new film getting bashed by libs
- This topic has 21 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 5 months ago by
nittany ram.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 28, 2020 at 6:43 pm #114361
wvParticipantI’m in the process of watching the Michael Moore film on youtube. Its getting some nasty criticism from liberals.
I’ve only watched about five minutes of it, but I’m guessing the film goes after capitalist-solutions to climate change. But, i dunno.
April 28, 2020 at 6:50 pm #114362wvParticipantApril 28, 2020 at 7:37 pm #114364wvParticipantCheck out the Krystal Ball question at the 11 minute mark. And the Michael Moore answer. The dynamic applies to more than just the environmental movement. You see this problem all over the place.
w
vApril 29, 2020 at 12:32 pm #114375
waterfieldParticipantCheck out the Krystal Ball question at the 11 minute mark. And the Michael Moore answer. The dynamic applies to more than just the environmental movement. You see this problem all over the place.
w
vI think what your referring to is Ball’s question about the issue of environment being so big it simply causes people to think nothing can be done about it. Moore challenges that by essentially saying we have no choice but to take it on. On this one I’m on the side of Moore. However, isn’t the cynicism expressed by Ball’s question prominent on this very board and among many across the political spectrum: “its too big, Capitalism has doomed us, we can’t change a thing, we’re all fucked, there is no hope, blah, blah, blah.”
April 29, 2020 at 3:13 pm #114383
znModeratorHowever, isn’t the cynicism expressed by Ball’s question prominent on this very board and among many across the political spectrum: “its too big, Capitalism has doomed us, we can’t change a thing, we’re all fucked, there is no hope, blah, blah, blah.”
I don’t know anyone who says those things, let alone anyone here who says those things.
April 29, 2020 at 4:21 pm #114384
Billy_TParticipantI haven’t seen the film, and won’t judge it until I do. But, apparently, environmentalists have issues with it too.
Climate experts call for ‘dangerous’ Michael Moore film to be taken down
Planet of the Humans, which takes aim at the green movement, is ‘full of misinformation’, says one online library
. . .
A letter written by Josh Fox, who made the documentary Gasland, and signed by various scientists and activists, has urged the removal of “shockingly misleading and absurd” film for making false claims about renewable energy. Planet of the Humans “trades in debunked fossil fuel industry talking points” that question the affordability and reliability of solar and wind energy, the letter states, pointing out that these alternatives are now cheaper to run than fossil fuels such as coal.
Michael Mann, a climate scientist and signatory to Fox’s letter, said the film includes “various distortions, half-truths and lies” and that the filmmakers “have done a grave disservice to us and the planet by promoting climate change inactivist tropes and talking points.” The film’s makers did not respond to questions over whether it will be pulled down.
April 29, 2020 at 4:42 pm #114389Billy_TParticipantAgain, won’t judge it until I see it. But I can judge some of the judging without seeing that. Please don’t judge me too harshly for my own hypocrisies. At least I cop to ’em.
;>)
IMO, we leftists have a tendency to eat our own (or those relatively nearby), and it really, when all is said and done, aids and abets the enemy. They (righties) love it. Which is why they often fund it, via . . . wait for it . . . their corporations. IMNSHO, Ball is an obvious example of this, working as she does for a Trump-supporting, right-wing political power-broker (owner of The Hill). Given that she spends pretty much all of her time tearing into the Dems for being “corporatists,” and barely says a word about the far, far worse GOP and their corporatists, this leftist no longer cares what she has to say. Nor do I care any more what others like her say . . . . the Mates, the Greenwalds, the Dores, et al.
My POV basically boils down to this: Calling someone a “corporatist” when that’s all there is in DC, with rare, rare exception, is pretty much a waste of time. And when all of the criticism is directed at just one wing of the Money Party, it actually skews reality to a potentially dangerous degree. OTOH, a critique of the entire system, its movers and shakers, its power dynamic, its effects . . . which is something that used to be what leftists did best . . . that’s truly necessary, especially now.
In short, if the choice is between an AOC* and a Clinton, give me a 100 AOCs and no Clintons. But if the choice is between a Clinton and a McConnell — which is what we’re usually stuck with — give me a 100 Clintons and no McConnells. Aspirational versus existing. We leftists need to do a much, much better job dealing with the given, so we can get to the aspirational.
*I’d go further than AOC, of course. Would prefer something like a 21st century Kropotkin, if I had my druthers.
April 29, 2020 at 4:48 pm #114391wvParticipantCheck out the Krystal Ball question at the 11 minute mark. And the Michael Moore answer. The dynamic applies to more than just the environmental movement. You see this problem all over the place.
w
vI think what your referring to is Ball’s question about the issue of environment being so big it simply causes people to think nothing can be done about it. Moore challenges that by essentially saying we have no choice but to take it on. On this one I’m on the side of Moore. However, isn’t the cynicism expressed by Ball’s question prominent on this very board and among many across the political spectrum: “its too big, Capitalism has doomed us, we can’t change a thing, we’re all fucked, there is no hope, blah, blah, blah.”
===================
Well, i dont think Krystal Ball’s question is at all ‘cynical.’ I dunno why you think her question is cynical. I think her question is a really good one, and its one that a lot of far-leftists ask everyday, in many political contexts.
I liked Michael Moore’s answer and I liked her question.At any rate, if you think Corporate-Capitalism is Fueling the ‘Climate Emergency’ (as Moore calls it)and fueling Deforestation, Mass Extinctions, War, Imperialism, Poverty, etc — then yes, it is truly hard to be optimistic. Far-leftists often battle with thoughts of doom-and-gloom. So do scientists, these days. There’s articles about that. About how SCIENTISTS are having trouble coping with what they are finding out.
Centrists have lots of hope, I know. Just beat Trump, and the DNC will build a shining city on a hill.
w
vApril 29, 2020 at 4:57 pm #114393wvParticipantIMNSHO, Ball is an obvious example of this, working as she does for a Trump-supporting, right-wing political power-broker (owner of The Hill). Given that she spends pretty much all of her time tearing into the Dems for being “corporatists,” and barely says a word about the far, far worse GOP and their corporatists, this leftist no longer cares what she has to say. Nor do I care any more what others like her say . . . . the Mates, the Greenwalds, the Dores, et al. .
==================
Well, as you know, I agree with the Mates, Greenwalds, Dores, and Krystal Balls, so we just disagree. At least no-one can call leftist ‘monolithic’ 🙂
The film is an awful ‘film.’ I agree with the film’s message, but its just a disjointed, amateurish film. And whats weird is the film points to the problem of Corporate-Capitalism. It points right at it. But it never comes out and names the problem. The C Word is absent. I thought that was a strange choice by the director.
Also, the point the film is making is pretty mundane for Leftists. I mean, we constantly talk about how the system commodifies EVERYTHING, and how the system domesticates-tames all serious dissent. It turns Che into a T-shirt, in other words. So naturally it does that to the ‘Environmental Movement.’ I mean, why wouldnt it. Duh.
So yeah, a lot of ‘environmentalism’ is really just corporate-bullshit dressed in Green.
w
vApril 29, 2020 at 4:57 pm #114394Billy_TParticipantAn asterisk to my asterisk. Tried to fit it in on the edit but it failed:
Emma Goldman too. And not just cuz of this quote:
If there won’t be dancing at the revolution, I’m not coming.
We need to take the whole damn thing down, non-violently, democratically. Capitalism — globalist or nationalist. The whole enchilada. Left, center or right versions. Doesn’t matter. All of it needs to go. I just don’t see the point in narrowing things down to food fights within one party, and that’s too much of what niche media gives us, from what I’ve seen. They see fixated on that, even in the midst of the Trump horror show.
It all has to go, to be replaced with economic democracy, in real terms. The real thing. Not theoretical.
April 29, 2020 at 5:05 pm #114396Billy_TParticipantZN,
Looks like I got stuck in purgatorio again. Included a link to a truthout article about green capitalism, the god that failed. So it wouldn’t post. Thought it was relevant.
And I said some nice things about WV. Perhaps too sentimental? Is there a censor for mushy stuff?
;>)
April 29, 2020 at 6:11 pm #114395Billy_TParticipantIMNSHO, Ball is an obvious example of this, working as she does for a Trump-supporting, right-wing political power-broker (owner of The Hill). Given that she spends pretty much all of her time tearing into the Dems for being “corporatists,” and barely says a word about the far, far worse GOP and their corporatists, this leftist no longer cares what she has to say. Nor do I care any more what others like her say . . . . the Mates, the Greenwalds, the Dores, et al. .
==================
Well, as you know, I agree with the Mates, Greenwalds, Dores, and Krystal Balls, so we just disagree. At least no-one can call leftist ‘monolithic’ 🙂
The film is an awful ‘film.’ I agree with the film’s message, but its just a disjointed, amateurish film. And whats weird is the film points to the problem of Corporate-Capitalism. It points right at it. But it never comes out and names the problem. The C Word is absent. I thought that was a strange choice by the director.
Also, the point the film is making is pretty mundane for Leftists. I mean, we constantly talk about how the system commodifies EVERYTHING, and how the system domesticates-tames all serious dissent. It turns Che into a T-shirt, in other words. So naturally it does that to the ‘Environmental Movement.’ I mean, why wouldnt it. Duh.
So yeah, a lot of ‘environmentalism’ is really just corporate-bullshit dressed in Green.
w
vWV,
As always, I appreciate your civility, your take, your great points. Che and the T-Shirt is perfect. Kinda says it all, right?
And thanks for your own review . . . I sincerely respect that and wish you’d post more.
If Moore’s film is along these lines . . . then its message is needed:
April 29, 2020 at 10:09 pm #114406waterfieldParticipantCheck out the Krystal Ball question at the 11 minute mark. And the Michael Moore answer. The dynamic applies to more than just the environmental movement. You see this problem all over the place.
w
vI think what your referring to is Ball’s question about the issue of environment being so big it simply causes people to think nothing can be done about it. Moore challenges that by essentially saying we have no choice but to take it on. On this one I’m on the side of Moore. However, isn’t the cynicism expressed by Ball’s question prominent on this very board and among many across the political spectrum: “its too big, Capitalism has doomed us, we can’t change a thing, we’re all fucked, there is no hope, blah, blah, blah.”
===================
Well, i dont think Krystal Ball’s question is at all ‘cynical.’ I dunno why you think her question is cynical. I think her question is a really good one, and its one that a lot of far-leftists ask everyday, in many political contexts.
I liked Michael Moore’s answer and I liked her question.At any rate, if you think Corporate-Capitalism is Fueling the ‘Climate Emergency’ (as Moore calls it)and fueling Deforestation, Mass Extinctions, War, Imperialism, Poverty, etc — then yes, it is truly hard to be optimistic. Far-leftists often battle with thoughts of doom-and-gloom. So do scientists, these days. There’s articles about that. About how SCIENTISTS are having trouble coping with what they are finding out.
Centrists have lots of hope, I know. Just beat Trump, and the DNC will build a shining city on a hill.
w
“Cynicism: an inclination to believe that people are motivated purely by self-interest; skepticism.”
That is everywhere on this board ! Centrist democrats are motivated only by “self interest”. Republicans are interested only by self interest. Progressives are not motivated by “self-interest” and do not harbor “skepticism”. (LOL).
Aside from that, Ball’s question at its core is ” because the issue is so big isn’t it impossible to address it”? To me that is cynical in that it is doom and gloom and nothing can be done about it.
April 30, 2020 at 10:32 am #114414nittany ramModeratorwv’s video
Overpopulation.
The simple fact is there’s way too many people. There are over 7 billion hairless monkeys flinging feces out there today, and there’ll be 10.5 billion by 2050.
Just about every environmental issue we are dealing with including climate change is rooted in overpopulation, but that isn’t being talked about any more as the video points out.
Until we face that issue, all the environmental ‘fixes’ being discussed now are only addressing the symptoms, not the cause, and are therefore inherently limited and ultimately doomed to fail.
-
This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by nittany ram.
April 30, 2020 at 10:38 am #114416wvParticipant“Cynicism: an inclination to believe that people are motivated purely by self-interest; skepticism.”
That is everywhere on this board ! Centrist democrats are motivated only by “self interest”. Republicans are interested only by self interest. Progressives are not motivated by “self-interest” and do not harbor “skepticism”. (LOL).
Aside from that, Ball’s question at its core is ” because the issue is so big isn’t it impossible to address it”? To me that is cynical in that it is doom and gloom and nothing can be done about it.
=========================
Well, if we were on the Titanic, I would indeed say, “hey this is REALLY bad.”
Would that be ‘cynical’ ? Is it ‘cynical’ to call a disaster a disaster?
Michael Moore called one issue the “Climate Emergency.” I agree with that characterization. And thats just ONE environmental issue.Leftists are used to being called ‘cynical’ by centrists. Centrists pick on Reps. Leftists pick on the System.
I dont really know what you mean when you say that Leftists say the Reps and Dems are ‘motivated by self-interest’ and the leftists dont see themselves as ‘skeptical.’ I dont really know how to untangle all that.
I dont think i ever use the term ‘self-interest.’ It’s kindof a vague, catch-all term that could apply to every human on earth.
I pick on Corporate-Capitalism, W. Thats what i pick on. Thats what i blame.
Mostly.I dont ‘necessarily‘ blame it for the loss to the Patriots 🙂
w
vApril 30, 2020 at 11:08 am #114420Billy_TParticipantwv’s video
Overpopulation.
The simple fact is there’s way too many people. There are over 7 billion hairless monkeys flinging feces out there today, and there’ll be 10.5 billion by 2050.
Just about every environmental issue we are dealing with including climate change is rooted in overpopulation, but that isn’t being talked about any more as the video points out.
Until we face that issue, all the environmental ‘fixes’ being discussed now are only addressing the symptoms, not the cause, and are therefore inherently limited and ultimately doomed to fail.
I don’t know, Nittany. We’ve had billions of humans on the planet for some time now. But in just the last 25 years, we doubled the amount of emissions in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. And just since 1970, we’ve wiped out half of all wildlife.
If overpopulation were the reason, and not our particular mode of production, wouldn’t there be a more gradual trend of destruction and pollution? Wouldn’t it track population growth more closely?
April 30, 2020 at 1:23 pm #114429nittany ramModeratorwv’s video
Overpopulation.
The simple fact is there’s way too many people. There are over 7 billion hairless monkeys flinging feces out there today, and there’ll be 10.5 billion by 2050.
Just about every environmental issue we are dealing with including climate change is rooted in overpopulation, but that isn’t being talked about any more as the video points out.
Until we face that issue, all the environmental ‘fixes’ being discussed now are only addressing the symptoms, not the cause, and are therefore inherently limited and ultimately doomed to fail.
I don’t know, Nittany. We’ve had billions of humans on the planet for some time now. But in just the last 25 years, we doubled the amount of emissions in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. And just since 1970, we’ve wiped out half of all wildlife.
If overpopulation were the reason, and not our particular mode of production, wouldn’t there be a more gradual trend of destruction and pollution? Wouldn’t it track population growth more closely?
The human population has doubled since 1970, the period of time over which wildlife populations have been reduced by half. It took humans 200,000 yrs to reach a population of 1 billion, and then only 200 years to reach nearly 8 billion. The rate of growth is beginning to slow, and eventually we’ll reach a point where births <= deaths, but living on this planet will be pretty miserable for everyone but a select few by then. Different modes of production would impact the environment to different degrees, and the less damaging ones must be pursued, but wherever humans go, we change the environment. It’s unavoidable. That was true even when our population was limited to small bands of hunter gatherers. If we’re going to really stop the continued degradation of the environment, we need to halt population growth.
April 30, 2020 at 6:18 pm #114437Billy_TParticipantThe human population has doubled since 1970, the period of time over which wildlife populations have been reduced by half. It took humans 200,000 yrs to reach a population of 1 billion, and then only 200 years to reach nearly 8 billion. The rate of growth is beginning to slow, and eventually we’ll reach a point where births <= deaths, but living on this planet will be pretty miserable for everyone but a select few by then. Different modes of production would impact the environment to different degrees, and the less damaging ones must be pursued, but wherever humans go, we change the environment. It’s unavoidable. That was true even when our population was limited to small bands of hunter gatherers. If we’re going to really stop the continued degradation of the environment, we need to halt population growth.
Nittany, I didn’t know the exact numbers regarding population change. Had a rough idea. But didn’t know the escalation was that pronounced. Thanks for posting that. As in, I sit corrected.
How about we do both? Stop growing the population and replace capitalism with economic democracy, in the most eco-friendly mode possible?
Better yet, find a way to reverse some population gains over time, as we shift to that sustainable economic system as rapidly as possible. To the degree possible. Democratically. Non-violently, etc. Minimizing disruption as much as we can.
I won’t live long enough to see any of that. But Millennials and Gen Z better start the process, and soon. From the books I’ve been reading on Climate Change and the Sixth Extinction, etc. etc. . . . if they don’t, Homo Sapiens won’t make it all that far into the 22nd century.
April 30, 2020 at 6:58 pm #114440wvParticipantOverpopulation.
The simple fact is there’s way too many people. There are over 7 billion hairless monkeys flinging feces out there today…
=======================
Look, If you dont like it here….
w
v
April 30, 2020 at 8:43 pm #114444waterfieldParticipantThe human population has doubled since 1970, the period of time over which wildlife populations have been reduced by half. It took humans 200,000 yrs to reach a population of 1 billion, and then only 200 years to reach nearly 8 billion. The rate of growth is beginning to slow, and eventually we’ll reach a point where births <= deaths, but living on this planet will be pretty miserable for everyone but a select few by then. Different modes of production would impact the environment to different degrees, and the less damaging ones must be pursued, but wherever humans go, we change the environment. It’s unavoidable. That was true even when our population was limited to small bands of hunter gatherers. If we’re going to really stop the continued degradation of the environment, we need to halt population growth.
Overpopulation is a core problem. But how do you even begin to control it without measures that resemble China’s one child per family approach-and even that would have to be adopted world wide.
April 30, 2020 at 9:28 pm #114446nittany ramModeratorThe human population has doubled since 1970, the period of time over which wildlife populations have been reduced by half. It took humans 200,000 yrs to reach a population of 1 billion, and then only 200 years to reach nearly 8 billion. The rate of growth is beginning to slow, and eventually we’ll reach a point where births <= deaths, but living on this planet will be pretty miserable for everyone but a select few by then. Different modes of production would impact the environment to different degrees, and the less damaging ones must be pursued, but wherever humans go, we change the environment. It’s unavoidable. That was true even when our population was limited to small bands of hunter gatherers. If we’re going to really stop the continued degradation of the environment, we need to halt population growth.
Overpopulation is a core problem. But how do you even begin to control it without measures that resemble China’s one child per family approach-and even that would have to be adopted world wide.
I don’t know what the answer to that is, W. It’s difficult to overcome the cultural beliefs, and economic/educational inequities that keep this from becoming a priority in the minds of most people. Of course it’s easy to sit on my couch in a country that contains 6% of the world’s population but consumes 25% of its resources and complain about this. People in other parts of the world who lack food security aren’t worried about the world’s dwindling resources due to overpopulation.
I imagine at some point in the future draconian population control measures like China’s will have to be implemented. Hopefully it won’t have to get uglier than that, but I bet it does in some places.
April 30, 2020 at 9:55 pm #114448nittany ramModeratorHow about we do both? Stop growing the population and replace capitalism with economic democracy, in the most eco-friendly mode possible?
Capitalism doesn’t lend itself to concepts like economic democracy or conscientious environmental stewardship, does it?
Whatever system is in place, fossil fuels have to go away. However, people won’t willingly return to the Bronze Age either. We need to immediately convert to renewable energy wherever it’s feasible, and especially increase nuclear energy sources as soon as possible. This will limit the impact a conversion from fossil fuels will have on peoples’ lifestyles. This will be necessary if we want them to continue to support the growth of eco-friendly energy sources.
-
This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
