S21.E04: Malcolm Nance; Kristen Soltis Anderson; Paul Begala

[tessaray]

Air Date:  February 10, 2023

Bill’s guests are Malcolm Nance, Kristen Soltis Anderson, and Paul Begala.

[realityplease]

I thought these three guests did well - they showed some wit - no one faltered or talked over each other - there was no clash of egos to get in the last word - no chips on shoulders - each was articulate & put forth their points with clarity.  Whether others agreed or disagreed with their points, they didn't take it personally.  Finally, some adults in the room.  Bill was true to himself, did well moderating, & the show was paced well.  It was very entertaining - at least to me - and I thought a good job was done by all.      

[RealHousewife]

I thought it was refreshing that the episode wasn't all about cancel culture. 

[tessaray]

Bill's rant about smartphones killing romance sounded so weird to me, coming from someone who never married or had a long-term partner (that I know of). Also considering his history of hanging out at the Playboy Mansion. 

I could be misremembering but over the years Bill was never puritanical about porn. But now it's the worst evil? Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely not a fan of online porn but listening to Bill Maher preach against it is odd. 

[ApocalypseThen]

I enjoyed the episode as well, even though I'm skeptical about Malcolm Nance's portrayal of himself as some kind of middle-aged Rambo in Ukraine. Nance is the typical MSNBC war hawk who's always spewing jingoistic nonsense. If he did fight with Ukrainians in the front lines then credit to him, but I'd be inclined to believe he just had a desk job.

Although the conversations in this episode were interesting, I feel Bill keeps missing out on some of the most interesting stories out there each week. This would have been a good week to invite someone like Matt Taibbi, given the Seymour Hersh story about the US and the Norwegians teaming up to destroy the Nord Stream pipeline. Most of the mainstream media isn't touching that story with a ten-foot pole. 

Finally, I find it hard to believe that Bill has completely flipped on DeSantis running for president. He's ALWAYS advocated for candidates to run whenever they're popular since they never know if they'll truly have a good chance in the future. He often gives the Obama example for that and juxtaposes it with Chris Christie not running in 2012. 

[ApocalypseThen]

1 hour ago, tessaray said:

Bill's rant about smartphones killing romance sounded so weird to me, coming from someone who never married or had a long-term partner (that I know of). Also considering his history of hanging out at the Playboy Mansion. 

I could be misremembering but over the years Bill was never puritanical about porn. But now it's the worst evil? Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of online porn but listening to Bill Maher preaching against it is the definition of cognitive dissonance. 

To be fair to Bill, he's made this point more clearly in the past. This time it seems he rushed through it. From what I remember, Bill has mentioned that modern porn is much more "rapey" in nature, as it contains a lot more choking, violence, etc. He's probably right about that, though I haven't seen any authoritative studies about its impact on people. 

Regarding dating apps, I think he definitely goes overboard there. I know a lot of married couples who initially matched on a dating app. There are people who actually use those apps as a dating tool to meet people since they don't have the energy to "go hunting" in clubs or approach so many women in public places to ask them for their phone number. Of course, you have people who just use it for hookups, cat fishing scams, grooming, etc. But that's something that is difficult to avoid and at least when it comes to consensual hookups, I don't think anyone should be passing moral judgments. Especially Bill lol. 

[RealHousewife]

43 minutes ago, ApocalypseThen said:

Regarding dating apps, I think he definitely goes overboard there. I know a lot of married couples who initially matched on a dating app. There are people who actually use those apps as a dating tool to meet people since they don't have the energy to "go hunting" in clubs or approach so many women in public places to ask them for their phone number. Of course, you have people who just use it for hookups, cat fishing scams, grooming, etc. But that's something that is difficult to avoid and at least when it comes to consensual hookups, I don't think anyone should be passing moral judgments. Especially Bill lol. 

The dating apps are not my favorite. I like to feel someone's energy in person, don't go by looks as much, don't find apps romantic, etc. All that said, I agree with all your points, and I know a lot of couples who are happily married and met through apps, even Tinder. There are so many people who wouldn't feel comfortable asking out/being asked out by a stranger, believe you shouldn't "dip your pen in the company ink," that bars/clubs aren't where you find love, if you even like to go out to drink or dance in the first place. It's like, what's left, especially after your college days? I absolutely get why people use apps, especially if they're really busy and don't have a lot of time (or money) for hobbies, or their interests are full of the sex they're not attracted to. I posted on here that I thought the gym might be a nice place to meet attractive singles, and some people think that's a terrible idea too. A dating app is probably the one way a man express interest in a woman where she won't feel like gee, I just want to work, or work out, or dance, etc. 

 

[UnknownK]

The problem with dating apps is that all women tend to think 80% of men are ugly and end up fighting over the other 20% who can be picky and non committal because they have endless choices. Men are much less picky in dating (especially status) and tend to marry those in front of them when they feel it's time to start a family.

Porn and politics are kind of the same because they tend to get crazier every year trying to get attention. All you hear about in the media are the 5% far far right and far far left viewpoints and not the people in the middle most people agree with. You have to outdo yourself with more crazy ideas just to be heard.

[TakomaSnark]

10 hours ago, ApocalypseThen said:

This would have been a good week to invite someone like Matt Taibbi

I mean sure, if Bill wants to leave no doubt that he's after the Fox News 'conspiracies... conspiracies against us EVERYWHERE' crowd, invite Taibbi.

 

Quote

The problem with dating apps is that all women tend to think 80% of men are ugly and end up fighting over the other 20% who can be picky and non committal because they have endless choices. Men are much less picky in dating (especially status) and tend to marry those in front of them when they feel it's time to start a family.

Citation needed. My experience is the exact opposite. Men expect women to be model-perfect. Women cut men a lot of slack on the physical side in return for being more interested in their personality.

Edited February 12, 2023 by TakomaSnark

[realityplease]

4 hours ago, TakomaSnark said:

I mean sure, if Bill wants to leave no doubt that he's after the Fox News 'conspiracies... conspiracies against us EVERYWHERE' crowd, invite Taibbi.

Citation needed. My experience is the exact opposite. Men expect women to be model-perfect. Women cut men a lot of slack on the physical side in return for being more interested in their personality.

I agree. Taibbi annoys/bores me.  And gotta say to an earlier poster, I might read about the Nord Stream pipeline - but for a panel discussion - snooze! This show is supposed to be somewhat comedic.  Nothing funny about that pipeline.

As for dating, apps have their place. Yes, successful relationships have started there. Many duds too.  4-5-6's men looking for 8-9-10's (the "trophy") or their age cut in half plus 7.  Or women looking for a meal-ticket. Or men looking for "a nurse with a purse." But this happens - in person or on-line.  Women do seem more forgiving but maybe that's because the pool of eligible men is smaller or they're not as picky about looks if the guy has other attributes (solvent, employed, kind, funny, etc.)

Bill isn't against apps or porn per se nor went "overboard" or "puritanical" as others claim. He merely pointed out that after making a connection (and this could apply however the initial connection is made), women crave romance to form a greater bond or to move the relationship forward. 

He picked on apps, because for the swipe-happy, it can become a constant prowl for the "next better thing" due to a wealth of immediately accessible profiles. And not great to equate or learn about sex from porn which is becoming more violent or "rapey" -- again, to his point, because that eliminates the romance women crave.  But he didn't seek to ban apps or porn.  Each has it's place - but if the goal is a relationship - after making the connection - women want romance or someone showing interest in them.  That's all - really simple.

Apps are really no more or less - a blind date. (Without a mutual friend's glowing description of the prospective date - & also without the after-date "what were they thinking!" moment.)  Profiles can be honest & revealing or self-deluded lies. Just like people in "real life." A date can be "good on paper" or have a great text followup or phone voice - but a dud in person. Or not a dud, but it just doesn't click.  It's what happens AFTER the selection is made - is it a 1 a.m. "what's up" (unless that's what you want) or can you talk/share & build a relationship in person? And all Bill is saying is that romance is more likely to get you a relationship -if that's what you want - so make an effort.  Thank you Bill!  Happy Valentine's Day.

 

Edited February 12, 2023 by realityplease

[RealHousewife]

6 hours ago, TakomaSnark said:

Citation needed. My experience is the exact opposite. Men expect women to be model-perfect. Women cut men a lot of slack on the physical side in return for being more interested in their personality.

That's my experience too. Lots of men say oh we're not that picky, and their idea of not being that picky is not expecting us to look like IG models. Older, overweight men will still shoot their shot at women who are pretty, in good shape, oftentimes younger, etc and turn their noses up at women their own age and older unless they're like stunning. So many women (myself included) have no problem finding men we find attractive and genuinely don't need abs and pretty boys. We appreciate things like respect, humor, a work ethic, etc. 

Now are we pickier about other things than men are? Absolutely. Men don't care as much what what a woman does for a living. If she's hot enough, she could have no job, no place of her own, and men will still be interested. 

8 hours ago, UnknownK said:

The problem with dating apps is that all women tend to think 80% of men are ugly and end up fighting over the other 20% who can be picky and non committal because they have endless choices. Men are much less picky in dating (especially status) and tend to marry those in front of them when they feel it's time to start a family.

Porn and politics are kind of the same because they tend to get crazier every year trying to get attention. All you hear about in the media are the 5% far far right and far far left viewpoints and not the people in the middle most people agree with. You have to outdo yourself with more crazy ideas just to be heard.

I agree with you about status and that's an interesting comparison. 

I've asked women who really have a problem with their partner looking at porn why that is, and what I've been told is in the past men would be thrilled to have regular sex with a regular woman. When they've seen so much porn, they expect women with flawless bodies willing to do anything and everything. It makes sense. A lot of women aren't even comfortable having the lights on during sex. Even Pamela Anderson said she thought the porn industry has done a lot of damage. 

Edited February 12, 2023 by RealHousewife

[ShadowKnight2]

Looking to Bill Maher for romantic advice is like looking to a razorback hog for table manners. What would a single, never wants to marry, sexist, misanthrope like him know about romance and what women want? Hysterical!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[RealHousewife]

2 minutes ago, ShadowKnight2 said:

Looking to Bill Maher for romantic advice is like looking to a razorback hog for table manners. What would a single, never wants to marry, sexist, misanthrope like him know about romance and what women want? Hysterical!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

I'd like to think what Bill said to Rose McGowan was him at his worst and not how he'd usually approach a woman, but I think the idea of men even being leery of approaching women in real life hasn't dawned on him since he has it in him to just say whatever. A lot of men don't want to make women uncomfortable by hitting on her at work, the gym, grocery store, etc. 

[Mr. R0b0t]

18 hours ago, ApocalypseThen said:

1.  I enjoyed the episode as well, even though I'm skeptical about Malcolm Nance's portrayal of himself as some kind of middle-aged Rambo in Ukraine. Nance is the typical MSNBC war hawk who's always spewing jingoistic nonsense. If he did fight with Ukrainians in the front lines then credit to him, but I'd be inclined to believe he just had a desk job.

2.  Although the conversations in this episode were interesting, I feel Bill keeps missing out on some of the most interesting stories out there each week. This would have been a good week to invite someone like Matt Taibbi, given the Seymour Hersh story about the US and the Norwegians teaming up to destroy the Nord Stream pipeline. Most of the mainstream media isn't touching that story with a ten-foot pole. 

3.  Finally, I find it hard to believe that Bill has completely flipped on DeSantis running for president. He's ALWAYS advocated for candidates to run whenever they're popular since they never know if they'll truly have a good chance in the future. He often gives the Obama example for that and juxtaposes it with Chris Christie not running in 2012. 

1.  Where are you getting this characterization of Nance as a war-hawk from?  I've seen multiple tv appearances/interviews by him and read one of his books and while he is certainly pro-USA and pro-military intelligence, he has never come across as a war hawk.

2.  Bless your heart.

3. Bill's take is more of a mathematical decision than a political one.  If DS lets Trump go out there and lose another election, then odds are enough Republicans would be ready to move on from him for good....and given present status who would they logically move on to?  You cannot compare the era of political decorum that Obama and Christie operated in to the present day knife fight. Just because something Bill said in the past was true doesn't make it true forever.

[realityplease]

32 minutes ago, ShadowKnight2 said:

Looking to Bill Maher for romantic advice is like looking to a razorback hog for table manners. What would a single, never wants to marry, sexist, misanthrope like him know about romance and what women want? Hysterical!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

He's single & may never marry - so what? It doesn't mean he's never been romantic, in prior relationships,or in one now.  Also, he can observe - he has eyes, ears & a brain.  You don't have to personally experience everything to know how it feels (like putting your hand in a flame) and it's not a required "ticket" for the ability to opine.  Bill's never seemed to particularly value women - though as he's aged, his attitudes toward women have softened (a bit) or become more inclusive (a bit.)  That doesn't mean he doesn't know what women want - though he might cringe about or refrain from actually doing it himself.

Good advice doesn't have to come only from people with personal experience.  Sometimes impartial objectivity is what's called for.  You don't need to raise children to recognize a child's misbehavior.  (Teachers, school administrators, aunts, uncles & anyone within sound range are entitled to their opinions - and may be right - though they may be childless.)  You don't need to be in a marriage or even value women to know what women want.  Whether you do what they want (or not) is something else.

[ShadowKnight2]

28 minutes ago, realityplease said:

He's single & may never marry - so what? It doesn't mean he's never been romantic, in prior relationships,or in one now.  Also, he can observe - he has eyes, ears & a brain.  You don't have to personally experience everything to know how it feels (like putting your hand in a flame) and it's not a required "ticket" for the ability to opine.  Bill's never seemed to particularly value women - though as he's aged, his attitudes toward women have softened (a bit) or become more inclusive (a bit.)  That doesn't mean he doesn't know what women want - though he might cringe about or refrain from actually doing it himself.

Good advice doesn't have to come only from people with personal experience.  Sometimes impartial objectivity is what's called for.  You don't need to raise children to recognize a child's misbehavior.  (Teachers, school administrators, aunts, uncles & anyone within sound range are entitled to their opinions - and may be right - though they may be childless.)  You don't need to be in a marriage or even value women to know what women want.  Whether you do what they want (or not) is something else.

Except Bill Maher's history around women doesn't make for a Hallmark movie. The women he has dated have had some very nasty things to say about him, especially black women. And his behavior at one of those Playboy mansion parties have left plenty of Playmates royally pissed at him. And he thinks all women just love the 50 Shades Of Grey series, when the vast majority of them find it to be rancid tripe. If I had to ask someone what it is a woman wants in a man, I sure as fuck wouldn't ask a sexist, misogynistic, narcissistic fuckstick like Bill Maher for it. If he didn't luck out in being a celebrity, he'd be the world's oldest incel.

[realityplease]

1 hour ago, ShadowKnight2 said:

Except Bill Maher's history around women doesn't make for a Hallmark movie. The women he has dated have had some very nasty things to say about him, especially black women. And his behavior at one of those Playboy mansion parties have left plenty of Playmates royally pissed at him. And he thinks all women just love the 50 Shades Of Grey series, when the vast majority of them find it to be rancid tripe. If I had to ask someone what it is a woman wants in a man, I sure as fuck wouldn't ask a sexist, misogynistic, narcissistic fuckstick like Bill Maher for it. If he didn't luck out in being a celebrity, he'd be the world's oldest incel.

I admit to knowing NOTHING about Bill's history. You may be right but the behavior described seems like very old history (weren't those Playboy parties decades ago?) I assume he's learned something in the past decades or been curtailed when certain boorish (or much more) behaviors became verboten.  Maybe he's a changed man or he mellowed with advanced age. Maybe not. The 50 Shades folks were wildly enthused at the time & the books best-sellers.  No one I knew (& I'm betting most men) gave a whit about them AT ALL.  So he was wrong that ALL women loved them.  But again, so what? He gave advice - he didn't say he follows it  & he even paused after setting out what to do romantically & said, "Yeah, it's a nightmare!"

His premise was simple - if you want more than a booty call - maybe show some interest in the woman's day or be complimentary.  Whether that advice came from Jack the Ripper or someone married 70 years or some dip-shit, the advice is no less valid or valuable.  Judge the advice, not the person mouthing it.  You wouldn't ask him for advice - but he (& his writers) gave it.  If you don't value it or him - don't heed it. Or don't watch him.  Or hate-watch.  But don't mix up the merit of the advice with the advisor.  Some know what to do BECAUSE they're complete f**k-ups at doing it.

 

Edited February 13, 2023 by realityplease

[ShadowKnight2]

36 minutes ago, realityplease said:

His premise was simple - if you want more than a booty call - maybe show some interest in the woman's day or be complimentary.  Whether that advice came from Jack the Ripper or someone married 70 years or some dip-shit, the advice is no less valid or valuable.  Judge the advice, not the person mouthing it.  You wouldn't ask him for advice - but he (& his writers) gave it.  If you don't value it or him - don't heed it. Or don't watch him.  Or hate-watch.  But don't mix up the merit of the advice with the advisor.  Some know what to do BECAUSE they're complete f**k-ups at doing it.

 

So by that metric, Tucker Carlson's propagandist spew on everything, from government to race relations, makes him someone who's advice is worth heading. To quote the robot from Lost In Space, "That does not compute!"

Just because people like that give advice doesn't make them valid. If anything, it makes them look absolutely ridiculous and lame. If I were to seek romantic advice, it would certainly NOT come from the likes of a married 70 year old dip-shit, OR Jack the Ripper, OR Bill Maher! In fact, there's not a whole lot out there Maher can claim to be an expert on, except for what strain of cannabis is long lasting!

[realityplease]

57 minutes ago, ShadowKnight2 said:

So by that metric, Tucker Carlson's propagandist spew on everything, from government to race relations, makes him someone who's advice is worth heading. To quote the robot from Lost In Space, "That does not compute!"

Just because people like that give advice doesn't make them valid. If anything, it makes them look absolutely ridiculous and lame. If I were to seek romantic advice, it would certainly NOT come from the likes of a married 70 year old dip-shit, OR Jack the Ripper, OR Bill Maher! In fact, there's not a whole lot out there Maher can claim to be an expert on, except for what strain of cannabis is long lasting!

Look, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.  I detest Tucker Carlson & don't watch him. But IF his advice were ever to make sense - even though HE is abhorrent to me - I would try to be open-minded & not flat-out ignore the advice. There's always a possibility, however slim, that he might make a sensible comment on some topic at sometime - and to my great surprise, I might agree.  (Call it monkey luck - even a chimp wildly throwing things might hit on the right answer.)  Highly unlikely, but possible. For you, Bill is so abhorrent that you'll throw out WHATEVER he says.  But I adhere to the old warning not to throw out the baby with the bathwater -- keep what's valuable, toss the rest.

Here, I think Bill's advice was helpful - not "ridiculous" or "lame."  I don't have to like or admire him to agree with the advice that it doesn't take much to make most women happy: a little romance, a heart-felt compliment, some attention. And that this is getting lost among the dating app/porno driven because they never learned (or forgotten) how to talk - in person - to make a relationship happen after the initial connection.  Good advice - whether from Bill or not.  It's an age-old story - long before dating apps came into being.  Give a listen to "Try A Little Tenderness" (or maybe there's a better oldie song example that's not immediately coming to mind.) 

I don't judge Bill's private life - I don't know about (or frankly care about) his private life.  Sometimes I agree with what he says - and sometimes says humorously.  Sometimes I don't.  (I've had enough of his smug fat-shaming, his mask disdain, disdain for anything that whiffs of "woke" - & thank goodness he finally got that damn solar grid & shut up about it.)  I didn't say his advice is worth heeding because of who he is  - I said his recent advice was worth heeding because it was good advice no matter who he is. 

Edited February 13, 2023 by realityplease

[ShadowKnight2]

56 minutes ago, realityplease said:

Look, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.  I detest Tucker Carlson & don't watch him. But IF his advice were ever to make sense - even though HE is abhorrent to me - I would try to be open-minded & not flat-out ignore the advice. There's always a possibility, however slim, that he might make a sensible comment on some topic at sometime - and to my great surprise, I might agree.  (Call it monkey luck - even a chimp wildly throwing things might hit on the right answer.)  Highly unlikely, but possible. For you, Bill is so abhorrent that you'll throw out WHATEVER he says.  But I adhere to the old warning not to throw out the baby with the bathwater -- keep what's valuable, toss the rest.

Here, I think Bill's advice was helpful - not "ridiculous" or "lame."  I don't have to like or admire him to agree with the advice that it doesn't take much to make most women happy: a little romance, a heart-felt compliment, some attention. And that this is getting lost among the dating app/porno driven because they never learned (or forgotten) how to talk - in person - to make a relationship happen after the initial connection.  Good advice - whether from Bill or not.  It's an age-old story - long before dating apps came into being.  Give a listen to "Try A Little Tenderness" (or maybe there's a better oldie song example that's not immediately coming to mind.) 

I don't judge Bill's private life - I don't know about (or frankly care about) his private life.  Sometimes I agree with what he says - and sometimes says humorously.  Sometimes I don't.  (I've had enough of his smug fat-shaming, his mask disdain, disdain for anything that whiffs of "woke" - & thank goodness he finally got that damn solar grid & shut up about it.)  I didn't say his advice is worth heeding because of who he is  - I said his recent advice was worth heeding because it was good advice no matter who he is. 

So you'd expect me to seriously take the advice of a know propogandist and race baiter like Tucker Carlson because it may be good and useful advice? Sorry, but when it's the singular goal of an individual to spread misinformation and divisiveness, then that person automatically ceases to be taken seriously, no matter WHAT comes out of its mouth.

And NOBODY should take seriously anyone who has never went through any singular kind of experience that they can just give their opinion on it. I don't have children of my own, and probably won't have any. But if I told my sister how to raise her two boys, she would rightfully tear several strips off of me. If Bill Maher tried to give her his advice on child rearing, which would be mild Dickensian brutality, then my sister would physically have him cancelled for good!

[realityplease]

1 hour ago, ShadowKnight2 said:

So you'd expect me to seriously take the advice of a know propogandist and race baiter like Tucker Carlson because it may be good and useful advice? Sorry, but when it's the singular goal of an individual to spread misinformation and divisiveness, then that person automatically ceases to be taken seriously, no matter WHAT comes out of its mouth.

And NOBODY should take seriously anyone who has never went through any singular kind of experience that they can just give their opinion on it. I don't have children of my own, and probably won't have any. But if I told my sister how to raise her two boys, she would rightfully tear several strips off of me. If Bill Maher tried to give her his advice on child rearing, which would be mild Dickensian brutality, then my sister would physically have him cancelled for good!

No one is telling you to blindly take Carlson's advice - or Bill's - or anyone's.  To me - anyone is entitled to opine about anything. Free speech in America, you know?

Yes, in some instances, the opinion might not be very persuasive absent personal experience - it which case it can be ignored or discounted.  But I strongly disagree that in ALL situations, "NOBODY should take seriously anyone who has never went (sic) through that singular experience."  In some situations, personal experience might be impossible or not matter a whit. 

For example: I don't need to have been personally subject to police brutality to know it's wrong & have opinions about it.  I don't need to personally experience a hate crime - but have opinions about those.  I've never personally gone to the moon - but opinions about spending for space exploration.  Even if never married, divorced, or currently in, or currently not in, a relationship, I have opinions on relationships.  I can be on a jury & form an opinion about guilt or liability without personally experiencing that type of crime or type of contract. You live in the world.  You see human nature.  You experience things. You have opinions. And filters by which to judge those opinions.  And free to accept - or reject opinions - based on whatever filters used.  If nothing but personal experience is the standard in order to be permitted to have an opinion -- that rules out way too much.  No one is NEVER or ALWAYS right or wrong. (Though some pretty darn consistently one or the other.)

Everyone gets a brain - they get to objectively analyze any advice they are given.  I look at the advice - try to verify it - & look at it in relation to my own experience.  The person spouting it?  Matters not as much to me -- though it can sway me or cause me to reject it out of hand.  I'm not likely to hear Carlson's advice because I rarely listen to him - and when I do am capable of rejecting outlandish or foolish notions.  And may not agree with Bill's opinions on lots of things - but am capable of agreeing when he's not outlandish or foolish. 

Bill's not giving anyone, much less your sister, specific child rearing opinions.  He's made it clear that HE doesn't want to rear kids.  He views them as feral. (It's a joke - get it?) But he shares a world with them.  He's entitled to his opinions on the behavior he sees or hears displayed in public (or if with friends' kids, in private.)  They are likely NOT stated directly to the parent (because he seems smart enough not to meddle with a parents right to raise their kids as they see fit) but he's still entitled to his opinion.  He's entitled to general opinions about education because whether living with any kids or not, all homeowners get taxed plenty to pay for public education. And he's entitled to opine on how he thinks rearing trends are changing society.  Your sister, like anyone, is free to ignore his opinions.   

Edited February 13, 2023 by realityplease

[TakomaSnark]

Quote

Bill's not giving anyone, much less your sister, specific child rearing opinions.

Really? He whines all the time about Millennials and Gen Z needing to 'toughen up.' It's part and parcel of his endless droning on about 'wokeness,' since younger generations are turning out to be more attuned and sensitive to others and their own entitlements. Bill absolutely is not just giving advice, he's demanding that young people stop being concerned with the welfare and sensitivities of others.

And raising one's children - or teaching them in school - to see the world through the eyes and experiences of others is most certainly part of child rearing. So he is absolutely giving child rearing advice, whether or not he prefaces it so explicitly. 

Edited February 13, 2023 by TakomaSnark

[realityplease]

On 2/12/2023 at 9:20 PM, TakomaSnark said:

Really? He whines all the time about Millennials and Gen Z needing to 'toughen up.' It's part and parcel of his endless droning on about 'wokeness,' since younger generations are turning out to be more attuned and sensitive to others and their own entitlements. Bill absolutely is not just giving advice, he's demanding that young people stop being concerned with the welfare and sensitivities of others.

And raising one's children - or teaching them in school - to see the world through the eyes and experiences of others is most certainly part of child rearing.

You took me a little out of context.  Bill DOES complain often about the "special snowflakes" that abound. But ShadowKnight2's starting point was that Bill's not entitled to that opinion or to be taken seriously because nobody should be listened to unless they have that singular experience. And Bill does not have children.  

And I'm saying Bill is entitled to his opinion whether he has children or not. He's a part of society, and all society is affected by the next generations and as such, entitled to their say.  I don't really see him making a "demand" that young people stop being concerned about the welfare & sensitivities of others - but more a complaint that Gen Z (& he wrongly lumps together & calls ANYONE a "Millennial" who is younger than he) is too concerned about their own sensitivities & entitlement.

You, his sister, or anyone, are free to ignore his opinion. But he gets to have one - whether childless or not. 

Edited February 18, 2023 by realityplease

[TakomaSnark]

22 minutes ago, realityplease said:

But ShadowKnight2's starting point was that Bill's not entitled to that opinion or to be taken seriously because nobody should be listened to unless they have that singular experience. And Bill does not have children.  

 

And it's my opinion that @ShadowKnight2 is correct. You are free to ignore our opinion but we also get to have them.

[tessaray]

My problem with Bill's advice is the way he presents it. People can't relate to each other because smartphones are the root of all evil. Well, maybe, maybe not. But this is simplistic and more importantly, it isn't the least bit humorous or entertaining.  

IMO, YMMV and all that. 

Eta: Bill used to be wickedly snarky about kids (and their clueless parents). He could make me laugh and I have kids and grandkids.  Now it feels like he just whines about Gen Z most of the time.

[realityplease]

44 minutes ago, TakomaSnark said:

And it's my opinion that @ShadowKnight2 is correct. You are free to ignore our opinion but we also get to have them.

Of course you get to have them!  But if I follow ShadowKnight2's arguments (& your agreement to it) then nobody should be listened to unless they have that singular experience.  If so, then in order to consider & be free to agree to or ignore your opinion/advice, I'd need to know YOUR singular experience with regard to raising Gen Z, dating apps, porn or relationships.  And I really don't think that's necessary.  I think you made my point.

25 minutes ago, tessaray said:

My problem with Bill's advice is the way he presents it. People can't relate to each other because smartphones are the root of all evil. Well, maybe, maybe not. But this is simplistic and more importantly, it isn't the least bit humorous or entertaining.  

I don't think he said or meant that smartphones are the "root of all evil."  I think his point was that the phones, & dating apps on them, are overused & not a good replacement for in-person human interaction.  That quick swipes & interactions like "what's up" cannot replace the need for romance or in-person relationship-building (the talking, complimenting, showing interest in her day.)

Maybe I'm just a luddite or because my ox wasn't gored - but I thought the bit WAS humorous & entertaining.  I don't always agree with Bill, but I thought he & his writers did a good job with this episode.  And despite some comments here that called back to his past Gen Z gripes (& weren't part of THIS show), I think he avoided some of his more tedious rants this week.  

Edited February 13, 2023 by realityplease

[tessaray]

4 minutes ago, realityplease said:

don't think he said or meant that smartphones are the "root of all evil."  I think he said or heavily implied that the phones, & dating apps on them, are overused & not a good replacement for in-person human interaction.  That quick swipes & interactions like "what's up" cannot replace the need for romance or in-person relationship-building (the talking, complimenting, showing interest in her day.)

That was this week. Most shows have some bit on how obnoxious he finds younger people and their phones. It bugs me. 

[realityplease]

10 minutes ago, tessaray said:

That was this week. Most shows have some bit on how obnoxious he finds younger people and their phones. It bugs me. 

Me too!  And that IS his bit on many shows - but that wasn't the point this week.  Bill's the stereotypical elderly geezer who loves to rag on the young.  But this week, it was about phones as a replacement for human in-person interaction.  That's not necessarily only directed to the young given the loads of dating apps directed to the seniors - tho I can betcha there aren't too many 1 a.m. "what's up" messages on those.      

Edited February 13, 2023 by realityplease

[ShadowKnight2]

8 hours ago, realityplease said:

You, his sister, or anyone, are free to ignore his opinion. But he gets to have one - whether childless or not. 

And I and anyone else have the right to tell Bill Maher to shut his ugly face up about things he doesn't know about because he's never experienced them and has no interest in ever doing so! If he had ever told my sister how to raise her sons, in the way he often does when he gets into his child rearing modes, I'd gladly be holding him down while she beats the living shit out of him.

Free speech is a two way street. Something Bill Maher fails to grasp a lot!

[UnknownK]

On 2/12/2023 at 10:25 AM, TakomaSnark said:

I mean sure, if Bill wants to leave no doubt that he's after the Fox News 'conspiracies... conspiracies against us EVERYWHERE' crowd, invite Taibbi.

 

Citation needed. My experience is the exact opposite. Men expect women to be model-perfect. Women cut men a lot of slack on the physical side in return for being more interested in their personality.

We are talking dating apps not real life interaction. If you don't look 6 foot tall AND dress like you are rich and influential women (younger ones at least) will not give you a second look. When women get 35-40+ years old their options are much smaller and they either get less picky or quit looking. 

Men will not date a woman they don't find attractive period. But what men find attractive is a very very broad range and even if they find faults in some areas, they do not seem to be a deal breaker most of the time. Having said that if you are a man with crazy money and fame you tend to be VERY picky about women's look and age because of the selection you tend to have.

 

[realityplease]

6 hours ago, UnknownK said:

We are talking dating apps not real life interaction. If you don't look 6 foot tall AND dress like you are rich and influential women (younger ones at least) will not give you a second look. When women get 35-40+ years old their options are much smaller and they either get less picky or quit looking. 

Men will not date a woman they don't find attractive period. But what men find attractive is a very very broad range and even if they find faults in some areas, they do not seem to be a deal breaker most of the time. Having said that if you are a man with crazy money and fame you tend to be VERY picky about women's look and age because of the selection you tend to have.

 

Hard to make generalities as exceptions abound. My impressions about dating apps come from friends/acquaintances - ages 28-65. Most on the shorter side - 5'5 & under.  I don't know what you mean by "influential" women, but some employed in high-power jobs, some not.  They don't give a whit about height.  Some want the guy to be taller than they are - but since shorter themselves, not hard to find.  Some don't even want a 6-footer to hulk over them.  They seek attributes other than height. Personality, smarts, being funny, kind or looking for a romantic spark. That trumps things like height - that one has no control over. 

The height thing seems more of a guy's locker room contest.  To most women - not so important.  (But always an exception: Olivia on Southern Charm wanted a tall guy & dated a superficial doofus just because he was tall. They didn't click. No surprise. She might reject a short guy. But there's plenty of other fish. . .no loss.)

Most will not care that a guy dresses "like he is rich." Sure, they don't want a slob. Looking presentable is good. Looking upwardly mobile is fine if it fits your work situation. But not required. Peacock metro-sexuals or designer-pimps are not coveted. Who wants someone who takes longer to get ready or looks in the mirror more than you do?

There's always gonna be gold-diggers. But if the guy is rich, doesn't mean he's gonna be generous.  If a guy can pay his rent & necessities without borrowing from you because he's always "cash short," or doesn't live with his parents, or has a compatible mindset about money & a work ethic & can save a bit & has goals -- Much better than a rich boy on the dole from mommy & daddy.  

I don't know how you'd know any of this from a picture though. That's why Bill pushed for in-person romantic gestures & attention.

Attractiveness is subjective.  Amazing how many couples look like each other - or a person's parent.  Men will deem someone attractive if the woman has a great body even if a "butter-face." Women will think a guy is handsome if they like him - even if he's not. Some people are more appearance-oriented than others.  Men with "crazy money & fame" usually don't need apps.

Edited February 14, 2023 by realityplease

[TakomaSnark]

10 hours ago, UnknownK said:

But what men find attractive is a very very broad range and even if they find faults in some areas, they do not seem to be a deal breaker most of the time.

 

Again, these words do not ring true as a woman. I had plenty of first dates with guys who were intimidated by my looks, money and job titles. They were expecting someone they could push around and/or to whom *they'd* have the upper hand. 

Please don't dismiss the actual experiences of women. Certain types of men absolutely have expectations of their role in relation to their partners (being superior to them, that is) and Bill Maher absolutely smacks of that kind of man. He can keep his dating advice to himself.

[AgentRXS]

Please remember that while it is ok to have different opinions,  that the Golden Rule of this site is to Be Civil with your fellow posters. Some posts were recently removed as they were getting a little too personal. Please agree to disagree and move on. If you have any questions, please PM @AgentRXS. Thanks.

[Hedgehog2022]

On 2/11/2023 at 10:30 PM, tessaray said:

Bill's rant about smartphones killing romance sounded so weird to me, coming from someone who never married or had a long-term partner (that I know of). Also considering his history of hanging out at the Playboy Mansion. 

I could be misremembering but over the years Bill was never puritanical about porn. But now it's the worst evil? Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely not a fan of online porn but listening to Bill Maher preach against it is odd. 

Right??? This guy was a regular at the Playboy Mansion and good friends with Hef...he also frequents swinger clubs! All of this has been documented. Now he's Mr. Puritanical??? I guess he's looking to win over the Fox News watcher by railing against porn...too funny.

[Hanahope]

The deep fake videos and websites are scary with so many people who will believe anything (on both sides).  
 

I also agree that it sucks we are likely stuck with the same presidential candidates.  I’d wager we would not if one certain likely candidate would check his ego (or criminal indictment chances) and let it go.