Progressive film-maker says he’s more optimistic than he’s ever been since Trump announced first run eight years ago

  • themachine@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    3 months ago

    Read the article hoping Moore elaborated the quote in the headline. It’s not there and I wanted to know what “do weird and cringe until the debate, then nail him” means specifically from his perspective.

    Anyone have a guess?

    • snooggums@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      3 months ago

      I don’t think it is anything specific, just support for the current approach the Harris/Walz campaign tactics and then to take it more seriously at the debate. Which is probably the plan already.

    • TechAnon@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      My guess: Harris/Walz should continue to play up the weird and cringe because it’s effective. This frames everything Trump will say during the debate as weird and he will constantly be fighting not to be weird the entire time. He probably will say many weird things due to this (and let’s face it, he does say some weird shit anyway), so Harris can “nail” him by simply calling it out and asking for details on any weird response. This will cause things to not only get heated but act as a multiplier on the weird content since it’s common for Trump to double down. 🍿🍿🍿

    • lettruthout@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      I too was wondering about that line.
      At first I thought he was suggesting Harris/Walz should be weird and cringy. I only just realized he’s suggesting that they keep referring to Trump/Vance as being weird and cringy - to keep pointing out the those two are not normal.

      That line would have been clearer if written…

      …do ‘weird’ and “cringe” until the debate…

  • MehBlah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    How my parents hated Michael Moore. He reminded them of a guy who they felt always got the best of them. There was a resemblance. The person in question was well educated and pretty smart. He could see my parents manipulation of events and always got ahead of them. He wasn’t a bad person. He wasn’t religious but donated 100 grand to a church that was rebuilding from a fire because most of his employee’s attended it. My parents tried to make the donation a bad thing. My parents also died maga chumps.

    • the_crotch
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      I also hate Michael Moore. I was all about him during the Bush admin. He spoke out against the Patriot act, the wars, the torture, the drone strikes. He made talk show appearances, wrote books, filmed movies. Then Obama got elected and did the same exact shit for another 8 years and suddenly Michael Moore had nothing to say, complete radio silence. Fuck that guy.

      • MJKee9@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I don’t understand your hate. You hate him because his message has been consistent for 25 years?

        Edit: full disclosure. I met Mr. Moore in 1998. He generously gave his time to speak to everyone that wanted to speak with him. He gave out personal contact information to some community organizers, and really seemed interested in helping a bunch of us kids who were trying to change the world. I really respect him a lot.

        • the_crotch
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          No. I hate him because suddenly all the things he’d been rallying against during the Bush years weren’t problems anymore when Obama was doing it. It was never about the crimes against humanity, it was about who was committing them. That’s not ideological consistency, it’s quite the opposite.

            • the_crotch
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              He didn’t have to start them, they were already ongoing. He continued them, escalated them, expanded them into Syria, renewed the patriot act, didn’t shut down gitmo, didn’t ban torture, didn’t do any of the things he implied he’d do with his “hope and change” slogan. Obama didn’t change shit. We might as well have had 2 more terms of Bush. But, strangely, Michael Moore had nothing to say about that.

  • rickdg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    There’s gonna be a debate? I would probably enjoy a VP debate the most.

    • Cadeillac@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Walz has already agreed to one on I believe October 1st. CBS maybe? Just waiting on Weird couch fucking, cross dressing Vance

    • el_bhm@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Cool collected old neighbour schooling and ridiculing the weird asshole?

      Yeah, this might be delicious. But it is seriously worrying that this is supposed to be a debate and a political reality.

      • rickdg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        No debates can also make sense. No maga-brained person is flipping their vote because of a debate.

  • Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    3 months ago

    Tell Michael Moore to join Neil deGrasse Tyson in the “We don’t want to hear from you anymore” line.

      • pyre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Maher is a straight up conservative hack though, not in the same category.

        • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Are we to begin classifying narcissists using criteria lists like we do for planets?

          “Yes, but is he a major non-shill narcissist (smart or stupid) if he just has a podcast and hasn’t been on Sesame Street in its first 37 seasons? I think not. Out, Sorbo!”

    • Sheridan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      3 months ago

      How is he comparable to Neil? I’ve been listening to Michael Moore’s podcast off and on since 2020 and he’s only come across as humble and empathetic to me which is not how I’d characterize Neil.

    • Cadeillac@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I honestly don’t know who he is off the top of my head. I’m glad more people are sick of NDT though. He just seems like a conceited ass that refuses to be wrong

        • Cadeillac@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          3 months ago

          Was Bill Nye really as bad as people acted upon his return? I feel like he just took off the child gloves and talked to his audience as adults. Unfortunately, he failed to realize a large majority of the population is childlike in mentality

          • Juniper (she/her) 🫐@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            The people who hated on Bill Nye were conservatives, and they did so because he explained concepts like Gender which they did not appreciate (i.e. does not fit into their reductionist misogynistic harmful ideology). Bill Nye is great.

            • Cadeillac@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              3 months ago

              Yeah, my partner explained it to me a bit. Go Bill! I think my point stands though. He tried to talk to them like adults. They are fucking children

          • Confused_Emus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            3 months ago

            Ah, good point! That’s also the impression I get from his work. His Netflix series was pretty much written for adults who watched him on PBS as kids.

            • Peppycito
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              It was very much a “hello fellow kids” type vibe for me. He was desperately trying to make it hip to be square. I found it utterly unwatchable and only made it through half of the second episode. I appreciated the attempt but the result was embarrassing.

        • Hadriscus@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Isn’t NDT a great science communicator ? I’ve seen some of his lives and I think he does a great job

          • Confused_Emus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            I think NDT is a good science communicator, he just lacks the personable quality that laypeople generally prefer when having something explained to them. Personally, I like NDT. He’s knowledgeable in his field, and when he really gets into talking about stuff you can tell he has a sense of awe and wonder about the universe. But, I think he also suffers a bit from that issue of really intelligent people just not grasping that there’s a lot of their niche knowledge that is not common knowledge. It’s not at all uncommon for NDT to put off a, “You really didn’t already know that?” vibe. I don’t at all think it’s malicious, it’s just when you reach a certain level of knowledge on a topic, it’s easy to forget how much you yourself had to learn.

            TL;DR: NDT is a great science communicator if you already know enough of the basics to follow what he’s saying. Carl Sagan was an even greater communicator because he could break down subjects to explain them to people whether they were a 5 year old with a budding interest in astronomy, or a college grad studying more advanced topics.

        • Agent641@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          We just need Carl Sagan, Fred Rodgers, Bob Ross, and Harambe back, and then everything will be okay again.

      • 5in1k@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        If I said the shit he says on a regular basis people would straight up say “ okay stoner” and laugh at me. Dude thinks he’s so fucking profound.

    • Ulvain
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Shit, am I OOTL? i like NDGT, but should i not? Did he do something shitty?

      • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        He’s conceited and refuses to admit that he could be wrong because his views are based on science, ignoring that they’re just his interpretations of it. This is a good example:

        (He did apologize for this)

        But to tweet something with the connotation of “gun violence isn’t that bad” while ignoring half of the gun violence stats in your own list, and ignoring that there can be multiple problems that can be solved at once (guns, mental health, car dependency, etc.) isn’t the best. I don’t think he’s like objectively a bad person, he’s just overconfident and IMO annoying. He does communicate science though, so props for that.

      • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Conservatives got mad that a black man was publicly pro-vaccination, started a smear campaign, and anti-intellectualism took over from there for the brainless masses.

      • Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        He was also key to demoting Pluto from It’s status as a planet, even though Pluto was

        • predicted and then searched for
        • found orbiting where they expected it
        • and then found to have a moon
        • and then found to have an atmosphere

        What the Lowell Observatory says…

        But hey, NdGT didn’t like it. So we all changed.

        • pyre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Pluto was always bullshit. it was clearly an outsider, and it’s shares characteristics with tons of other bodies in the system. so is Pluto is a planet then the solar system has numerous planets and there’s barely any point in knowing about them at that point.

          tbh i think the only reason it was even “important” was because it was the only one discovered by an American. also it was predicted because of a faulty calculation of mass of Neptune, so it was a lucky guess more than an actual informed prediction.

            • TheHiddenCatboy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Planets in general must be spherical objects (which excludes asteroids as they are too small to form spheres) that orbit a star (which excludes moons which orbit planets). The problem with this definition is it becomes hairy quickly. Buried in the asteroid belt is a large asteroid that meets that definition: Ceres. Ceres is round. It orbits the Sun. By that definition, it qualifies as a planet. Likewise, Pluto has several counterparts in its area of space that are round and orbit the Sun: Haumea, Makemake, and Eris come to mind. Remember that old saying “My very educated mother just served us nine pizzas”? Well, they lampshaded a big problem with that definition with the new pneumonic: “My very educated mother can’t (Ceres) just serve us nine pizzas; Hundreds may eat.”

              Astronomers, seeing the problem with that definition, decided we needed to exclude all these new worlds. This would unfortunately exclude Pluto, but many astronomers were thinking that Pluto should have never made the cut in the first place. Pluto is weird. Unlike every other major planet in the Solar System, Pluto orbits outside the ecliptic. Its orbit doesn’t align with the other planets, and for parts of Pluto’s year, it’s closer to the sun than Neptune. While Neptune’s and Pluto’s orbits don’t intersect (if they did, Neptune would either fling Pluto out of the solar system or capture it, and we think Neptune has already captured another Pluto-like object in the form of Triton), Pluto does cross the sphere at Neptune’s distance from the sun and orbits inside Neptune’s distance for part of its orbit. And its orbit and characteristics matched other so-called Trans-Neptunian Objects pretty darn closely, and we’d already found something out there heavier than Pluto in similar situations (Eris). Any definition that includes Pluto would include potentially dozens or even HUNDREDS of other TNOs, and couldn’t exclude Ceres.

              So they made a definition for major planets which would cover the classical planets plus Uranus and Neptune. It wasn’t enough that you be spherical. You ALSO had to have cleared your orbital. This covers the Major Eight clearly, while excluding a population of tiny worlds that could grow gargantuan if we allowed them to. While Pluto is still a planet, it’s no longer a major planet like the classical 5 plus Uranus and Neptune. And excluding it makes it easier for us to keep up with.

              But don’t expect this is settled! We have some indications that there may be something out in the Outer Solar System that might set the debate again. There are several Kuiper Belt Objects that have orbits that suggest there’s something out there ‘shepparding’ them and forcing them to assume set orbits that they’d not be in otherwise. Simulations suggest the possibility of a super-Earth or mini-Neptune (things not found in our Solar System but observed in others) orbiting the sun in a distant orbit. This silent, cold traveller would have a mass of between 5 and 10 Earth masses, and would be moving so slowly that it can’t possibly clear its orbit like Earth or Jupiter can. Still, something between Earth’s and Uranus’s mass should probably be a bit more special than Pluto, so I suspect the definition will change again when and if we find this hypothetical large body in the outer solar system.

            • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              3 months ago
              • Orbits a star
              • Is big enough to become a spheroid
              • Big enough to clear any other objects of similar size from its orbit

              Pluto fails the last test. That’s why it’s a dwarf planet along with Eris, Haumea, Makemake, and Ceres, among many other possible ones

              • Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                I’m willing to continue.

                When were these tests instituted? Was it the IAU?

                Is the last test referencing a specific size?

                Does Pluto have anything else in it’s orbit? The other objects of similar size… What would cause a “planet” to clear it vs. a non-planet?

                For example, suddenly there is another Saturn-sized object in Saturn’s orbit. What guarantee is there that Saturn would clear it? Might it not clear Saturn??? After all, it’s of similar size. Does this mean Saturn is not a planet?

                Real questions.

        • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          Either Pluto is not a planet, or we live in a solar system with 200-1000 planets.

          So either 8 or +200, but it will never be 9 again.

          • Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Pick a size. Get away from judgement calls. This big or bigger is a planet. Smaller is not. Done.

            No weird rules. Make it a diameter of 2000 km. That’s no more random than anything else. So we’d have 10 planets, with Eris and Pluto being the new ones. NO BIG DEAL. It’s measurable. We see something new, we know what to do with it. None of this dwarf planet thing, which isn’t a thing btw. We already had planetoids. Renaming for renaming’s sake. It even sounds like the IAU isn’t sure or unified about this.

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          I just wish people would stop talking about Pluto like it fucking matters, or they care at all, what it’s labeled as. I’m so sick of people pretending to be (or even worse, actually being) upset that they changed its classification.

          It has to be one of the most irritating memes and it will just never die.

          “Hurr durr, I was taught one thing in science class 25 years ago, so that means it is and will always be true.” Clearly they missed the entire point of science.

          Why the fuck would you get “nostalgic” for something so meaningless and banal? Do people think this is some kind of rare occurrence in science? Because I’ve got some news for you…

    • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Could they at least format the stats correctly? “-” and “:” don’t have a defined hierarchy and it makes reading the important part hard, after you have to unhide it. Just make it a bulleted list. And why even hide it? The comment takes up space anyways, let us see the important part!