Wing-Nuts and their Unhinged Hatred of Michael Moore

Michael Moore, the entertainer/documentarian/satirist like him or not has apparently touched a nerve among the fascist-lite crowd, how else could one explain the lengths that they have gone to, to try and discredit him. One blogger even went to the trouble of inventing 59 Deceits that Moore was supposedly guilty of. While I’m not especially a fan of Moore’s I do find the stereotpying of him as some far left nut not substantiated by the facts. During the Democratic primaries, who did he endorse, another target of the fanatical right, Howard Dean ? No. He endorsed retired General Wesley Clark. Clark would hardly be the choice of the far left. I won’t get into listing the so-called lies that Moore has been accused of in his quasi-documentary Fahrenheit 911 because this series of articles at Daily Kos saves me the trouble and debunks them.

Debunking the 59 Deceits: Deceits 1-2 and here Deceits 3-7, and Moore does a fair job of defending himself and the facts presented in Fahrenheit 9/11 here, Factual Back-Up For Fahrenheit 9/11: Section One
Liking people or not liking them should never blind someone to facts, if the facts don’t support one’s dislike for a person that’s still OK, just chalk it up to personalities, but one shouldn’t extend that dislike to demonizing someone based on distortions and one’s own fears and insecurities. Found this at Main and Central, Framing For Tomorrow

Using M.R.I. scanners, neuroscientists have now tracked what happens in the politically partisan brain when it tries to digest damning facts about favored candidates or criticisms of them. The process is almost entirely emotional and unconscious, the researchers report, and there are flares of activity in the brain’s pleasure centers when unwelcome information is being rejected.

Everything we know about cognition suggests that, when faced with a contradiction, we use the rational regions of our brain to think about it, but that was not the case here,” said Dr. Drew Westen, a psychologist at Emory and lead author of the study, to be presented Saturday at meetings of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology in Palm Springs, Calif.

Lots of us liberals and progressives stubbornly believe that if you present people with the facts, they will make the right decision — do the right thing. But Lakoff has argued, and not always getting a receptive audience, that that notion is false.”It’s in our inheritance from the enlightenment. Where, in the enlightenment that everybody is a rational person, all you have to do is just tell them the facts, they’ll reason to the right conclusion.” But that is wrong.

I think most of us have had those conversations where the person spreading the false information does not want to be bothered with facts, they’re the modern day equivalent of the flat earthers.