I’m a little confused as to why so many Moore fans email me virtually the same thing. Each letter, regardless of length can be boiled down to one or more of the following:
1. Moore tells the truth so you should shut up.
2. Why do you hate Moore?
3. You’re a (Bush lover, Fox News watcher, O’Reilly fan, rethuglican, Nazi, neocon, fascist, take your pick).
4. You want poor Americans to die in the streets.
5. Give back the money
6. You should stop criticizing Moore because he gave you money.
7. You never thanked him, you __fill in nasty name here__.
8. You’re a __fill in nasty name here__ (nothing else. Just name calling).
9. Your wife’s a whore and I hope either or both of you die.
Luckily #9 is becoming more rare. So...why the repetition? Even the giant graphic at the top of the page that points people to my explanations isn’t getting through. What possesses people to write enormous, lengthy, nasty emails to someone without doing even the smallest amount of checking?
Also, how is it that I’m Moore’s equal now? Meaning, I’m a private citizen with a stupid blog. Moore’s an internationally famous filmmaker who is actively trying to get people to vote the way he tells them to. Somehow, that makes us equals in the eyes of his die-hard fans. We’re on the same level, publicly, so I deserve the hate and invective because I dare question him.
Anyone care to take a stab and some armchair psychology here?
Try to follow me here (I’m a scatter brain). Do you know how guys get violent around homosexuals, even if the gay person doesn’t ever talk to them? Many have said that they react like that because they don’t understand. So if we apply the same in your situation, they are like the guys that gay bash. You don’t spoon feed rhetoric, you mythodically deconstruct Moore’s lies, and it upsets them because your bending the spoon.
As for making you an equal, perhaps you gained that because you have created an actual source of dissent against Moore. Which means.... you’re the biggest threat to Moore’s efforts.
They are such zealous supporters of Moore’s that this sites very existence pisses them off.
These people make so many assumptions, it makes my head hurt.
That is why I came here in the first place. I watched BFC and thought I was being open minded.
I found out I was being led exactly where Moore wanted me to end up.
I don’t assume anything anymore, other than I may be wrong, thanks to coming here.
These people that are big fans of Moore’s assume much, but not that they might be wrong.
That is the difference.
It is also labeled everywhere as a right wing forum. That doesn’t help the arguments of people who assume that.
I think the forums are actually more libertarian sorta with a right wing slant, the blog mostly the same but with a slightly more right wing slant.
Part of the problem is probably that many of the posters are foreigners who have trouble understanding American versions of right wing/left wing or conservative/liberal vs. what they are used to in their home countries. Hopefully CM you will understand this after the time you have spent here. I know it still confuses me sometimes when we are talking European/Australian/Kiwi politics. They are just different, there is some correlation is that really the right word, but they are very different.
But that doesn’t mean people need to be rude, or abusive, or ask dumb questions, or make unfounded accusations.
Agreed, but we are all guilty of this at times.
I think some are just idiots, and some are acting out of a knee jerk reaction.
Doubly agreed.
[edit]
Sometimes reactions are even reactions to perceived “rude, or abusive, or ask dumb questions, or make unfounded accusations”. Even two people speaking “english” can misinterpret the meaning of a phrase, word or sentence.
Anyone care to take a stab and some armchair psychology here?
A: You accidentally stumbled on something. When you criticise someone and they bother to respond to you, you usually do rise up to more their level… thats why a lot of people bait famous people… hoping they respond. Its also one reason people at certain levels hardly ever respond to attacks…
B: A lot of projection. Notice how so many of their claims about you sums them up? You lock step, Bush Rove worshiping bot, and a thug / fascist to boot (as in, would you feel very safe if there were a lot more people like these Moore fans and they had some real power? Ummm, I wouldn’t).
B2: A lot of them probably have schizoid personality disorder. They feel sorta empty and depressed. Moore’s narcissist antics and energy offers them purpose… as followers. Moore has an endless need to feel important or lead, they have an emptiness which creates a desire to follow someone who seems to have a vision. Match made in hell ;). Master and servants.
I’d say that in a classic sense, we’re more right than left? The problem is, everyone measures in absolutes these days. I think that the writers at Moorewatch cover a whole host of positions, some that could be considered left or liberal.
I support unrestricted, unapologetic gay marriage. That is not a right-wing plank in the platform. I oculd go on...I hold a fair amount of “left-wing” views.
The thing of it is, the critics think that if you disagree with Moore, you’re automatically right wing, and extreme to boot.
Yes I take everyone’s point on the fact that calling it “right wing” isn’t accurate. I’m not sure what it is. Libertarian is defnitely in the mix.
I get the impression that supporters of Moore take a sort of ‘voyage’ with him, and it ends up being extremely damaging to those of us who are also concerned about similar things, because those things are left behind. It’s as counter-productive as having anarchists and violent types joining demonstrations. It annoys me that during anti-globolisation marches nobody ever actually discusses the relevant issues, because we all watch people burning stuff instead. Dumb dumb dumb.
So in some ways I think Moore is helpful to those who wish the fundamental issues of contention to remain hidden, as they would rather not debate them.
He certainly seems to piss me off more every year anyway.
Firstly, Jim, I love that your posts say _insert nasty word here_ but your Avatar says “Shut the Fuck Up”. Typical right-wing hypocrit (just kidding)
I think this site is more right than left, at least the way most people define it, but there are people here who give it a bit of variety. Not just that, but there are different types of people on the right - some are conservative, while others veer more towards libertarian values. They all add to the colour.
Regarding the original question - why are some people rude? Because it’s the Internet. It’s easy to be rude and anonymous on the Internet. Who knows, maybe all these people who are being rude to you anonymously will revealed their true identities in an upcoming documentary feature… But I doubt it.
Why the repetition? Maybe Michael Moore invested $12,000 in a form e-mail.
I will say this though, Jim. Although you aren’t the equal of MM in magnitude, in principle what you are doing is not that different. You are creating public discourse. That makes you a public figure (in a modest way) and thereby open to counter criticism. (I know that the Internet blurs the lines between the public sphere and the private sphere. It would be interesting to know how the law would define your blog.)
Of course, none of that justifies hatred and invective, but I guess it goes with the territory of your new found fame. Best to just laugh it off.
....
I will say this though, Jim. Although you aren’t the equal of MM in magnitude, in principle what you are doing is not that different. You are creating public discourse. That makes you a public figure (in a modest way) and thereby open to counter criticism. (I know that the Internet blurs the lines between the public sphere and the private sphere. It would be interesting to know how the law would define your blog.)
Of course, none of that justifies hatred and invective, but I guess it goes with the territory of your new found fame. Best to just laugh it off.
It’s a lot different . If you don’t think so, go to Moore’s forum and post something. :)
Discourse happens because people question Moore’s beliefs. This is partly because of fame, but also because he is manipulating his viewers into believing only one thing. People ask why, and a sight like this gets started.
The hatred is, IMO, as sl0re said. Their projection of their feeling towards you as your degree of hatred for Moore.
It could be a sort of feedback loop of the more they dislike JimK, the more he dislikes Moore, and so on.
It seems to work some people into a real anger sometimes, to the point that they completely ignore facts.
....
I will say this though, Jim. Although you aren’t the equal of MM in magnitude, in principle what you are doing is not that different. You are creating public discourse. That makes you a public figure (in a modest way) and thereby open to counter criticism. (I know that the Internet blurs the lines between the public sphere and the private sphere. It would be interesting to know how the law would define your blog.)
Of course, none of that justifies hatred and invective, but I guess it goes with the territory of your new found fame. Best to just laugh it off.
It’s a lot different . If you don’t think so, go to Moore’s forum and post something. :)
Discourse happens because people question Moore’s beliefs. This is partly because of fame, but also because he is manipulating his viewers into believing only one thing. People ask why, and a sight like this gets started.
The hatred is, IMO, as sl0re said. Their projection of their feeling towards you as your degree of hatred for Moore.
It could be a sort of feedback loop of the more they dislike JimK, the more he dislikes Moore, and so on.
It seems to work some people into a real anger sometimes, to the point that they completely ignore facts.
I’m not sure I follow the first line. Moore’s site is still discourse, regardless of the quality. The exact nature of the forums both here and there is a different matter I guess, more in the private sphere.
All I’m saying is that hatred and invective is unnecessary on its own terms, not because Jim is somehow qualitatively different than Moore, because I’m not sure he is. It doesn’t matter whether Jim is smarter, more moral, or better looking. It’s really hard to say that hatred aimed at Moore is OK, but not Jim, because they are somehow different by really hard to define and subjective criteria.
I agree about the feedback loop though. It’s the cycle of violence, man.
I’d say that in a classic sense, we’re more right than left? The problem is, everyone measures in absolutes these days. I think that the writers at Moorewatch cover a whole host of positions, some that could be considered left or liberal.
Were the classical liberals on the right or left side of that table in France? Anyway, my father is from Europe and I have family over there and have known a fair share of actual Euro right wingers… they’re kinda hard to tell from left wingers actually. Anti Capitalist anti Libertarian / anti classical liberal collectivists… They quote from the same ‘neocon’ script as the left (re: see Dr Gonzo). The ones who have moved to the US read Chomsky and listen to Pacifica radio… This makes me roll my eyes when leftists call you and me ‘right wing’… The real right wingers agree with them on 80% of things…
But to try to be more specific… No, we are not more right than left. Because in Europe they have more than left and right. You’ve got left, right, and liberal… a triangle.. and we are the liberals. Our US ‘liberals’ are just left…
I think the reason it is confusing is because the left has written all the history and material on the subject… and they put themselves at the center and claim that everything good is them / done by them… good narrative history.. and good revisionism… they push the notion of only left and right… and that they are liberals and heirs of the enlightenment and reason… while their enemey, ‘the right’ is all about tradition… which is bunk… the liberal revolutions were heirs of the enlightenment too… and more reasonable (than the socialists and Marxists with their ridiculous theories… that didn’t work)… and not right wing… and they are the people US ‘conservatives’ say are their heros…
I support unrestricted, unapologetic gay marriage. That is not a right-wing plank in the platform. I oculd go on...I hold a fair amount of “left-wing” views.
Bush supports civil unions. Most republicans do. I think the hang up is on the word marriage which they take to be a religious sacrament and not open to being defined by a vote / what the majority thinks (especially not anti religious leftists). Its for the religious to define. And hence the conflict… Darn right wingers with their wedge issues. :)
Anyway, I could go on too. But the point is, just because the left supports something this instant doesnt really make it a left wing issue. They have flipped flopped plenty so its hard to actually say what is left… 100 years ago socialists might have more likely supported sterilising gays and locking them in mental instiutions (and banning all marriage btw). Now they blame the [now seen to be] bad stuff on ‘conservatives’… Even though we can see how leftist in say… Cuba… still treat gays…
The thing of it is, the critics think that if you disagree with Moore, you’re automatically right wing, and extreme to boot.
Of course. That’s my point. They created the left right [re: only left right] political spectrum (and pervert it on a regular basis) and they coined the term conservative too (translation: not progressive). If anything, conservative has the same history as the term ‘queer’. It started as insult but was adopted by those who were labeled as such.
I’m not sure I follow the first line. Moore’s site is still discourse, regardless of the quality. The exact nature of the forums both here and there is a different matter I guess, more in the private sphere.
They have no forums or comments. Which I think was his point.
Moore’s site may qualify as a form of discourse (but that debatable btw), but it allows no discourse.
I’m not sure I follow the first line. Moore’s site is still discourse, regardless of the quality. The exact nature of the forums both here and there is a different matter I guess, more in the private sphere.
They have no forums or comments. Which I think was his point.
Moore’s site may qualify as a form of discourse (but that debatable btw), but it allows no discourse.
