3 ms·
Describing itself as a “full-frontal assault on our sacred cows” temporarily took down the film after describing it as “full of misinformation” “trades
by jxramos 7y ago
Describing itself as a “full-frontal assault on our sacred cows”
temporarily took down the film after describing it as “full of misinformation”
“trades in debunked fossil fuel industry talking points” that question the affordability and reliability of solar and wind energy.
the film includes “various distortions, half-truths and lies”
It is written, therefore it must be true. They crossed my accusation threshold, no more thinking required, case closed. But seriously I'd love to see their actual rebuttals to the film. In the meantime I'll check out the free YouTube link they include in the article.
- leephillips 7y ago"I'd love to see their actual rebuttals to the film" Then all you have to do is follow the link in the article to the letter that contains those rebuttals.
- jxramos 7y agoGood eyes, I definitely glossed over the linkage in the parent article. Nice stance they're taking with all the transparency about their decisions. Pretty level headed public response. > Ultimately, we decided to put it back up because we believe media literacy, critique and debate is the best solution to the misinformation in the film. https://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/michael-moore-presents-planet-of-the-humans/ https://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/michael-moore-presents-... I can't tell if that's the climate experts they refer to but these film advocates breath of freshair response is equal to or more newsworthy than the original article. I'm really digging their tone and open invitation.