This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Sines: The reply to Zeitgest...
- What was your favorite part of Zeitgeist: The Movie? The part where Peter Joseph lies about religion, the part where Peter Joseph lies about 9/11, or the part where Peter Joseph lies about everything else?
- My favorite part was the second movie's explanation of the fractional reserve system and US politics in the third world countries. Which pretty much corresponds to any other source that doesn't position these as an eternal bliss for all mankind.
Doesn't make any sense. Can someone clarify what they were saying, or remove it if it is nonsense.
Pannic: I have no idea. I added the example of Zeitgeist to the list, as it's a load of crap. Then this comes up. Seems like it's defending the movie, or something.
Doctor Worm: Can we get some examples? I understand the trope, but I can't think of any good examples. I guess I don't watch the HitlerHistory Channel enough.
Mr Death: Why does the main page say not to put Michael Moore on? If enough people have tried to put it on that there needs to be a note not to, why's it say 99% of the wiki will disagree? It sounds more like one person (or a few people) disagrees with the majority here.
Rewichan: Agreed with Mr Death. Moore's "documentaries" are amusing, to be certain, and he's a funny man even if you disagree with him, but any reasonable person who's done more research than simply watching Moore's take on the subject disagrees with him. I know five people in the medical field, and watching Sicko with them was a harrowing experience. Why let overdefensive fanboys run this aspect of the wiki if we won't tolerate them elsewhere?
Yoshi348: I think the 99% was referring to the similar language in the Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgement. In any case, I'm not sure about the thought process of that guy, but now I'm wondering whether or not there's a substantial difference between "politically slanted" and "outright lies". Certainly there's some high profile overlap. But the outright lies of course goes also with non-politically motivated UFO stories, and at the same time there's got to be quieter documentaries that try to push a political viewpoint but don't nessecairly go for outright ludicrious falsehoods, even if they don't treat the subject completely balanced. Basically what I'm thinking is that should there be a trope entry for Political Documentary, where a documentary is forthright about trying to make a point about a certain issue (which doesn't nessecarily have to be a standard liberal vs. conservative issue), as opposed to the "standard" documentary where the documentarian tries to portray its subject as objectively as possible?
Phartman: Changed it because A) saying that 99% of the users here agree with Michael Moore is the most ridiculous bet-hedging I've ever seen, and B) it doesn't matter how many people do or don't agree; the fact that there's a disagreement at all is reason enough to let sleeping dogs lie.
And for what it's worth, any persuasive documentary -left or right- is going to have to either tell lies or withhold truths (the differences are minute) to deliver its message. If Ken Burns didn't make it, approach with caution.
Rewichan: Alright. I think we can agree that the current phrasing is fair enough; much improved over the previous "99%" garbage.
Lord Seth: I have to ask: Is Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed really that different than a Michael Moore documentary? It seems to be the same tactics, just on the right wing end of the scale instead of the left wing end.
Phartman: Of course it is, but that doesn't make either of them any less full of shit.
Shrikesnest: Yah, but this is bullshit. Expelled is on the list unqualified while Michael Moore's entire body of work is only mentioned in a, "Most of the wiki disagrees" way. This isn't a matter of opinion, guys. Whether you agree with Michael Moore and like his movies or not, he used the exact same tactics that Expelled did. Lying in defense of a cause you think is just is still lying. I'm changing the Moore entry. Reverse me if you feel I'm unjustified.
Mr Wednesday: Yup. There's no reason at all for Moore not to be shown in the same light as everyone else on this page. I've changed it again.
High Five: Hm. We were shown Loose Change in our Media Studies class, and were told in all seriousness that it was an excellent documentary. I'm glad I'm not the only one who didn't like it, as it seemed that I was an anomaly in the class (especially when I expressed a criticism, and was promptly shot down by a believer). What's weird is that our class is Canadian.
Anyway, just a little Troper Tale.
Phartman: I'm lost here; Canadians are supposed be smarter than us by a huge margin*, and yet most of your class thought Loose Change was a great documentary?
- source: Canadians
Air Of Mystery: Wait, Scientologists don't believe in projection?! As in...they don't believe that it's possible to project images onto a screen?
Matthew The Raven: No, the psychological defense mechanism of projecting your faults onto others.
Sines: But I bet they think cathod ray tubes are part of a psychiatrical conspiracy though.
