A Lesson from Michael Moore

The Missing Link · 10-17-2004, 02:07 PM

I have decided that this will be my only public political rant this season. Those that are willing to talk about it with me may do so with the forewarning that they know I will be voting for Bush on 2 November. However, this rant has been rated N, for neutral.

Also, before anyone assumes that I have seen Fahrenheit 9/11, no, I haven't. For those of you who have seen it and will "justifiably" criticise me for having not done so, I say no one has a case against me unless they have also seen Fahrenhype 9/11 (which I have also not seen), the point-counterpoint to the former movie. (Yes, Republican as I am, I spend equally no time on the Moore/anti-Moore polarisation.

)

===

With all this talk of how Bush would be better than Kerry or Kerry would be better than Bush, I'm reminded of the paradigm in computer science and abstract mathematics of the idea of "better". The notion of "better" could be said to be something akin to the greater-than symbol, namely ">". It's logical that Bush > Kerry if and only if Bush is "better" than Kerry, whereas Kerry > Bush if and only if Kerry is "better" than Bush.

The problem, as stemming from abstract math, is that "greater than" can always be given a new, arbitrary definition, and life is more rich because of it. I will always remember seeing written on the board the equation 5 = 0 in class because we were dealing in a different number system -- a different train of thought. In result, computer science in languages such as C++ and Standard ML actually allows programmers to override the "classical" definition of > with whatever definition needed for the circumstance.

So it's no surprise, given that the foundations of this premise are embedded in abstract logic, that everyone's "greater-than" function is... bound to be very different.

What one would list as reasons to show that Kerry > Bush might very well be the exact set of reasons that another would use to show Bush > Kerry. It revolves around political, religious, moral, societal, and fiscal ideals that they have either grown up with or decided upon over time, and as people grow older, I'm firmly convinced that people will only change such ideals on their own minds and agendas, not the minds and agendas of their friends and colleagues.

Someone I know (on the opposite side of the political spectrum) was notably correct in something she had said -- Republican does not always mean conservative and Democrat does not always mean liberal. However, to imply in the same breath that the Kerry-Bush race is prime proof of such I believe is incorrect. I've learned, with great frustration, that what APPEARS to be the truth, however wrong and truth-deviant it may be, is more important to most people than what the ACTUAL truth is. If anyone has watched the debates, has anyone actually kept track of the statistics, "facts", and figures being tossed around? Is it $120 billion or $200 billion that we've spent on Iraq? Is it 90% or 50% of the casualties we've suffered in Iraq? Is the economy getting better or getting worse? Are jobs being created or being lost? We've heard every side of every issue so much that everything now appears like the bottom of the ocean when all of the sand gets scattered into a big cloud; we don't know what to believe anymore, and so whichever appears to be the truth is what we go with. This is why how every four years both the candidates from the Democratic and Republican parties try to APPEAR (in most cases) to be neither liberal nor conservative but rather moderates, fiscally and conservatively. (It is undeniable that Bush APPEARS more conservative than Kerry, and so the system maintains itself as this "polarised" view of American politics. Go fig.)

This is, of course, generally a bad way to view (and therefore vote upon) the race for a leader of a country, although it is consistent with the Wizard's First Rule. If you've never read the Sword of Truth series, I at least recommend reading the first book because, though a fantasy fiction, it gives so much insight into the actual dealings of real life. That said, here is what the book as to say:

"It was Rahl's own men who [attacked and razed one of their own towns], by [Rahl's own] command."
"That does not make any sense," Kahlan said. "The town was loyal to [Rahl's empire]. There were forces of [Rahl's] Army there, and they were killed to a man."
"That's the very reason he did it."
[Richard and Kahlan] both gave him puzzled looks. "That doesn't make any sense," Kahlan said.
"Wizard's First Rule."
Richard frowned. "What?"
"Wizard's First Rule: people are stupid . . .. People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People's heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool.
". . . Rahl knows the Wizard's Rules. He is using the first one. People need an enemy to feel a sense of purpose. It's easy to lead people when they have a sense of purpose. Sense of purpose is more important by far than the truth. In fact, truth has no bearing in this. Darken Rahl is providing them with an enemy, other than himself, a sense of purpose. People are stupid; they want to believe, so they do."
"But they were his own people," Kahlan protested. "He was killing his supporters."
"You will notice not all the people were killed; some were . . . left alive to flee, to spread the news. You will also note how none of the soldiers were left alive to dispute the story. That it isn't the truth doesn't matter, and the ones hearing the story will believe it because it provides them with a sense of purpose, an enemy to rally against. . . . Truth is hard to sell; it gives no sense of purpose. It is simply truth."

Sound familiar? Republicans and Democrats alike are quite guilty of this rule, and so many people will associate Darken Rahl in the above passage to George W. Bush, John Kerry, Michael Moore, **** Cheney, or any other number of public officials affecting this year's political debate. (In turn, the razed town could be said to be terrorism, Bush, Republicans, and Edwards, respectively.) Who those people happen to be, however, are controlled by our own predisposed biases. Whichever way we look, we've been suckered into believing one or a multiple of them, and as such we do not agree with our own beliefs but rather whoever's rhetoric that most closely happens to match our beliefs. We do not always hear the truth; anyone remember the Iraqi Information Minister? Or to hit more close to home, anyone stop to wonder why would FOX News air a different set of stories than the mainstream media?

The question we never get to in America (and elsewhere) is, sadly, the most important and relevant question. Which spin is the closest to the truth? Is FOX News or Dan Rather closer to the truth? How about Bush or Kerry? We've seen stories aired and debunked, statements made and recanted, blah blah blah blah blah. Are we any closer to arriving at the truth?

And then the $64,000 question: Are your beliefs the truthful (and therefore, right) ones?

Anyone whose reading this (myself included) is bound to have a very similar reaction to mine. We will immediately thrust our hand up into the air to yell a big "yes" to the camera, but then just like that Sure deodorant commercial, our hands will waver a bit, and our arms will shrink back, making us unsure once again. Let's face it; we like to be right. We like to think that we are infallible, untouchable, invincible. But when there are as many unique opinions out there as there are individuals, can anyone tell anyone with utmost certainty that he or she is "more right" than another person? Can the plurality of people tell the non-plurality they are "more right"? The majority and the minority? Is 99% enough? Everybody but one person?

To question another's beliefs in the very premise for debate in this country, protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, and we should relish this right to do so, but comparatively how often do we question our own beliefs? To question our own beliefs is not the foundation of debate but is the foundation of thinking.

Michael Moore has presented us with a unique perspective into the whole thought process if only we are able to view it as such. I don't care if Fahrenheit 9/11 is the temperature at which the mainstream truth burns or the temperature at which his own movie reels begin to burn. They both, obviously, can't be right to a hilt. Although Moore would obviously disagree with me on this, but perhaps the lesson to be learned from his influence isn't whether or not Bush told the truth, but rather if any of us are telling the truth.

I urge you all to question everything and not take in anything with a grain of salt, and then for those of us in America -- Republicans and Democrats alike, I urge us to take some time for self-reflection prior to 2 November, for only then can we be more confident that we have made the best decision in our own hearts.

Wing Zero · 10-17-2004, 07:41 PM

I'd listen to you, but you're voting for bush. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

You get what I mean

Damon King · 10-17-2004, 07:52 PM

*Goes to look on other candidates*

This is my first time voting....

The Missing Link · 10-17-2004, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wing Zero:
I'd listen to you, but you're voting for bush. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

You get what I mean

Then get the heck out of my topic?

And you know I say that with all the compassionate conservatism in my heart.

Bomby · 10-18-2004, 09:59 PM

4 Moore years.

**Booyakasha** · 10-19-2004, 08:31 AM

Michael Moore is a thoroughly loathesome individual.

TML, you rock. And roll. All night long. Sweet Susie.

The Missing Link · 10-19-2004, 07:39 PM

http://www.mudora.com/tml/approval.jpg

Thank you, Boo, and I shower you with many compliments as well. You have been promoted to the Awesome category in my Rolodex.

***ZeldaGirl*** · 10-21-2004, 05:37 PM

TML, I agree with Boo, you rock (and I'm not just saying it so that you will "shower" me with compliments... maybe). Seriously though, we all love ya, TML!

imported_ · 10-21-2004, 08:58 PM

Oh my god it's him! Becky oh my ****ing god it's TML! Oh my ****ing god, dude you ****ing rock! Please, TML, let me suck ya **** !

PS Bush is gay

Erdawn Il Deus · 10-21-2004, 10:00 PM

...You do that.

And regardless of what people mouth off, Terry Goodkind's First and Second books kicked ass.

**Prince Toad** · 10-21-2004, 10:10 PM

^It was a good series, but he had too much... you know.

OcarinaMan · 10-21-2004, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shaw's Ghoti:
PS Bush is gay

Your mom is gay. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

The Missing Link · 10-21-2004, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Erdawn Il Duce:
And regardless of what people mouth off, Terry Goodkind's First and Second books kicked ass.

Quite.

imported_ · 10-22-2004, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Obi-two Kenobi:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Shaw's Ghoti:
PS Bush is gay

Your mom is gay. [img]tongue.gif[/img] </font>[/quote]DAMNATION! BESTED!

***ZeldaGirl*** · 10-23-2004, 01:47 AM

^ [img]graemlins/lol.gif[/img]

Erdawn Il Deus · 10-24-2004, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Prince Toad:
^It was a good series, but he had too much... you know.

I;m going to assume I know what you mean and simply state: How could he have "too much of"...?

**Prince Toad** · 10-24-2004, 10:57 AM

Dunno, it was... unnecessarily descriptive, plus I was pretty young when I read it. If I wanted to read that kind of stuff (which I don't) I'd... uh... I don't know, whatever people do. Look online or something. I wouldn't read a fantasy series.

Song of Ice and Fire had some too, but that series was so awesome it didn't matter.

10-17-2004, 02:07 PM	#1
The Missing Link Professional Lurker Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: New Hyrule, Washington, US Gender: Posts: 15,684 Thanks: 83 Thanked 294 Times in 201 Posts Points: 11,564.15 Bank: 82,215.45 Total Points: 93,779.60 Donate	I have decided that this will be my only public political rant this season. Those that are willing to talk about it with me may do so with the forewarning that they know I will be voting for Bush on 2 November. However, this rant has been rated N, for neutral. Also, before anyone assumes that I have seen Fahrenheit 9/11, no, I haven't. For those of you who have seen it and will "justifiably" criticise me for having not done so, I say no one has a case against me unless they have also seen Fahrenhype 9/11 (which I have also not seen), the point-counterpoint to the former movie. (Yes, Republican as I am, I spend equally no time on the Moore/anti-Moore polarisation. ) === With all this talk of how Bush would be better than Kerry or Kerry would be better than Bush, I'm reminded of the paradigm in computer science and abstract mathematics of the idea of "better". The notion of "better" could be said to be something akin to the greater-than symbol, namely ">". It's logical that Bush > Kerry if and only if Bush is "better" than Kerry, whereas Kerry > Bush if and only if Kerry is "better" than Bush. The problem, as stemming from abstract math, is that "greater than" can always be given a new, arbitrary definition, and life is more rich because of it. I will always remember seeing written on the board the equation 5 = 0 in class because we were dealing in a different number system -- a different train of thought. In result, computer science in languages such as C++ and Standard ML actually allows programmers to override the "classical" definition of > with whatever definition needed for the circumstance. So it's no surprise, given that the foundations of this premise are embedded in abstract logic, that everyone's "greater-than" function is... bound to be very different. What one would list as reasons to show that Kerry > Bush might very well be the exact set of reasons that another would use to show Bush > Kerry. It revolves around political, religious, moral, societal, and fiscal ideals that they have either grown up with or decided upon over time, and as people grow older, I'm firmly convinced that people will only change such ideals on their own minds and agendas, not the minds and agendas of their friends and colleagues. Someone I know (on the opposite side of the political spectrum) was notably correct in something she had said -- Republican does not always mean conservative and Democrat does not always mean liberal. However, to imply in the same breath that the Kerry-Bush race is prime proof of such I believe is incorrect. I've learned, with great frustration, that what APPEARS to be the truth, however wrong and truth-deviant it may be, is more important to most people than what the ACTUAL truth is. If anyone has watched the debates, has anyone actually kept track of the statistics, "facts", and figures being tossed around? Is it $120 billion or $200 billion that we've spent on Iraq? Is it 90% or 50% of the casualties we've suffered in Iraq? Is the economy getting better or getting worse? Are jobs being created or being lost? We've heard every side of every issue so much that everything now appears like the bottom of the ocean when all of the sand gets scattered into a big cloud; we don't know what to believe anymore, and so whichever appears to be the truth is what we go with. This is why how every four years both the candidates from the Democratic and Republican parties try to APPEAR (in most cases) to be neither liberal nor conservative but rather moderates, fiscally and conservatively. (It is undeniable that Bush APPEARS more conservative than Kerry, and so the system maintains itself as this "polarised" view of American politics. Go fig.) This is, of course, generally a bad way to view (and therefore vote upon) the race for a leader of a country, although it is consistent with the Wizard's First Rule. If you've never read the Sword of Truth series, I at least recommend reading the first book because, though a fantasy fiction, it gives so much insight into the actual dealings of real life. That said, here is what the book as to say: "It was Rahl's own men who [attacked and razed one of their own towns], by [Rahl's own] command." "That does not make any sense," Kahlan said. "The town was loyal to [Rahl's empire]. There were forces of [Rahl's] Army there, and they were killed to a man." "That's the very reason he did it." [Richard and Kahlan] both gave him puzzled looks. "That doesn't make any sense," Kahlan said. "Wizard's First Rule." Richard frowned. "What?" "Wizard's First Rule: people are stupid . . .. People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People's heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool. ". . . Rahl knows the Wizard's Rules. He is using the first one. People need an enemy to feel a sense of purpose. It's easy to lead people when they have a sense of purpose. Sense of purpose is more important by far than the truth. In fact, truth has no bearing in this. Darken Rahl is providing them with an enemy, other than himself, a sense of purpose. People are stupid; they want to believe, so they do." "But they were his own people," Kahlan protested. "He was killing his supporters." "You will notice not all the people were killed; some were . . . left alive to flee, to spread the news. You will also note how none of the soldiers were left alive to dispute the story. That it isn't the truth doesn't matter, and the ones hearing the story will believe it because it provides them with a sense of purpose, an enemy to rally against. . . . Truth is hard to sell; it gives no sense of purpose. It is simply truth." Sound familiar? Republicans and Democrats alike are quite guilty of this rule, and so many people will associate Darken Rahl in the above passage to George W. Bush, John Kerry, Michael Moore, **** Cheney, or any other number of public officials affecting this year's political debate. (In turn, the razed town could be said to be terrorism, Bush, Republicans, and Edwards, respectively.) Who those people happen to be, however, are controlled by our own predisposed biases. Whichever way we look, we've been suckered into believing one or a multiple of them, and as such we do not agree with our own beliefs but rather whoever's rhetoric that most closely happens to match our beliefs. We do not always hear the truth; anyone remember the Iraqi Information Minister? Or to hit more close to home, anyone stop to wonder why would FOX News air a different set of stories than the mainstream media? The question we never get to in America (and elsewhere) is, sadly, the most important and relevant question. Which spin is the closest to the truth? Is FOX News or Dan Rather closer to the truth? How about Bush or Kerry? We've seen stories aired and debunked, statements made and recanted, blah blah blah blah blah. Are we any closer to arriving at the truth? And then the $64,000 question: Are your beliefs the truthful (and therefore, right) ones? Anyone whose reading this (myself included) is bound to have a very similar reaction to mine. We will immediately thrust our hand up into the air to yell a big "yes" to the camera, but then just like that Sure deodorant commercial, our hands will waver a bit, and our arms will shrink back, making us unsure once again. Let's face it; we like to be right. We like to think that we are infallible, untouchable, invincible. But when there are as many unique opinions out there as there are individuals, can anyone tell anyone with utmost certainty that he or she is "more right" than another person? Can the plurality of people tell the non-plurality they are "more right"? The majority and the minority? Is 99% enough? Everybody but one person? To question another's beliefs in the very premise for debate in this country, protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, and we should relish this right to do so, but comparatively how often do we question our own beliefs? To question our own beliefs is not the foundation of debate but is the foundation of thinking. Michael Moore has presented us with a unique perspective into the whole thought process if only we are able to view it as such. I don't care if Fahrenheit 9/11 is the temperature at which the mainstream truth burns or the temperature at which his own movie reels begin to burn. They both, obviously, can't be right to a hilt. Although Moore would obviously disagree with me on this, but perhaps the lesson to be learned from his influence isn't whether or not Bush told the truth, but rather if any of us are telling the truth. I urge you all to question everything and not take in anything with a grain of salt, and then for those of us in America -- Republicans and Democrats alike, I urge us to take some time for self-reflection prior to 2 November, for only then can we be more confident that we have made the best decision in our own hearts.

10-17-2004, 07:41 PM	#2
Wing Zero Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Posts: 9,595 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 1,399.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 1,899.00 Donate	I'd listen to you, but you're voting for bush. [img]tongue.gif[/img] You get what I mean

10-17-2004, 07:52 PM	#3
Damon King Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: US Posts: 862 Thanks: 2 Thanked 6 Times in 3 Posts Points: 8,192.89 Bank: 0.00 Total Points: 8,192.89 Donate	Goes to look on other candidates This is my first time voting....

10-18-2004, 09:59 PM	#5
Bomby The Man Who Sold the World Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Off the coast and I'm headed nowhere Gender: Posts: 15,265 Thanks: 215 Thanked 629 Times in 409 Posts Blog Entries: 4 Points: 13,008.37 Bank: 2,822,947.69 Total Points: 2,835,956.06 Donate	4 Moore years.

10-19-2004, 08:31 AM	#6
Booyakasha Mod of War Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Wisconsinland Gender: Posts: 6,921 Thanks: 78 Thanked 381 Times in 240 Posts Points: 12,500.96 Bank: 28,896.88 Total Points: 41,397.84 Donate	Michael Moore is a thoroughly loathesome individual. TML, you rock. And roll. All night long. Sweet Susie.

10-19-2004, 07:39 PM	#7
The Missing Link Professional Lurker Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: New Hyrule, Washington, US Gender: Posts: 15,684 Thanks: 83 Thanked 294 Times in 201 Posts Points: 11,564.15 Bank: 82,215.45 Total Points: 93,779.60 Donate	http://www.mudora.com/tml/approval.jpg Thank you, Boo, and I shower you with many compliments as well. You have been promoted to the Awesome category in my Rolodex.

10-21-2004, 05:37 PM	#8
*ZeldaGirl* Venting SuperMod Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Why do YOU want to know...? Gender: Posts: 12,071 Thanks: 514 Thanked 853 Times in 582 Posts Points: 29,133.04 Bank: 463,808.78 Total Points: 492,941.81 Donate	TML, I agree with Boo, you rock (and I'm not just saying it so that you will "shower" me with compliments... maybe). Seriously though, we all love ya, TML!

10-21-2004, 08:58 PM	#9
imported_ Banned Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 0 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 4,464.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 4,964.00 Donate	Oh my god it's him! Becky oh my **ing god it's TML! Oh my ing god, dude you ing rock! Please, TML, let me suck ya ** ! PS Bush is gay

10-21-2004, 10:00 PM	#10
Erdawn Il Deus Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Threading the jeweled thrones of earth under my sandalled feet Gender: Posts: 2,985 Thanks: 4 Thanked 45 Times in 39 Posts Points: 23,157.27 Bank: 757.83 Total Points: 23,915.10 Donate	...You do that. And regardless of what people mouth off, Terry Goodkind's First and Second books kicked ass.

10-21-2004, 10:10 PM	#11
Prince Toad PC Mod Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Rookery Gender: Posts: 11,421 Thanks: 43 Thanked 56 Times in 47 Posts Points: 44,909.34 Bank: 23,214.76 Total Points: 68,124.10 Donate	^It was a good series, but he had too much... you know.

10-23-2004, 01:47 AM	#15
*ZeldaGirl* Venting SuperMod Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Why do YOU want to know...? Gender: Posts: 12,071 Thanks: 514 Thanked 853 Times in 582 Posts Points: 29,133.04 Bank: 463,808.78 Total Points: 492,941.81 Donate	^ [img]graemlins/lol.gif[/img]

10-24-2004, 10:57 AM	#17
Prince Toad PC Mod Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Rookery Gender: Posts: 11,421 Thanks: 43 Thanked 56 Times in 47 Posts Points: 44,909.34 Bank: 23,214.76 Total Points: 68,124.10 Donate	Dunno, it was... unnecessarily descriptive, plus I was pretty young when I read it. If I wanted to read that kind of stuff (which I don't) I'd... uh... I don't know, whatever people do. Look online or something. I wouldn't read a fantasy series. Song of Ice and Fire had some too, but that series was so awesome it didn't matter.