Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Real Time with Bill Maher in the Media

Maherjunkie
  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

RealHousewife

RealHousewife

5 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

He also said a lot of people that got severe cases had pre existing conditions too.

I know he can beat on the issue too hard and can be smug about it, but I never really had a problem with the stance that we don't eat healthy enough. Sure, he can be more diplomatic about the topic, and not every person who is obese is eating chips for breakfast. But obesity is a root cause for a lot of health issues. And he was right - my doctor never brought up nutrition. I broached the topic to talk about it. 

If anything him getting the virus (if it's not false positive) is even more reason to make sure everyone get vaccinated and tries to maintain good health.

Exactly. It's not "haha Bill thought being a healthy weight would prevent him from ever getting covid! He's even vaccinated, joke's on him!" It's "Bill got covid and is asymptomatic because he's healthy and vaccinated. The story is often different for men his age when they're unvaccinated, obese junk food junkies."

I know Bill's delivery could be nicer and I'm against fat shaming, but he hasn't been proven wrong getting covid. 

  • LOL 1
  • Love 2
  • Replies 393
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

wknt3
wknt3

New Rule: Bill Maher Should Look in the Mirror TLDR - he says the same thing a lot of us have said in the comment threads, only more cogently and he brought receipts.

DollEyes
DollEyes

James Morrison, aka Bill Buchanan from 24: Original Recipe, put Bill Maher and Rick Santorum on blast on Twitter for their condescending response to the racist/sexist treatment of journalist April Rya

Victor the Crab
Victor the Crab

But, but...I was told only fat lazy slobs would get hit with Covid, while healthy people with great immune systems, like Bill's, would survive. That's what Bill kept saying, and Bill is never wrong. J

heatherchandler

heatherchandler

On 8/29/2021 at 2:01 PM, littlepaw said:

This encapsulates quite a lot of what myself & others feel about BM's shows now. 

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/8/21/2047330/-Real-Time-with-Bill-Maher-has-become-unwatchable?detail=emaildkbow

This guy is saying that colleges are not woke, because they are not woke enough for him...  So he is using this article to virtue signal.

sistermagpie

sistermagpie

4 hours ago, heatherchandler said:

This guy is saying that colleges are not woke, because they are not woke enough for him...  So he is using this article to virtue signal.

I don't know how I feel about the whole article, but I don't know any definition of woke that *wouldn't* cover the specifics he mentioned. Those things were conservative, not just not woke enough for somebody. Not sure where he was supposed to be virtually signalling.

heatherchandler

heatherchandler

(edited)
38 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

I don't know how I feel about the whole article, but I don't know any definition of woke that *wouldn't* cover the specifics he mentioned. Those things were conservative, not just not woke enough for somebody. Not sure where he was supposed to be virtually signalling.

I think he’s saying, “you think these colleges are woke? I’m way more woke than they are..  I am the most woke, I talk about CLIMATE CHANGE!”

Hence the virtue signal.

Edited by heatherchandler
sistermagpie

sistermagpie

2 minutes ago, heatherchandler said:

I think he’s saying, “you think these colleges are woke? I’m way more woke than they are..  I am the most woke, I talk about CLIMATE CHANGE!”

Hence the virtue signal.

Ah, I see. I thought it was almost the opposite, that he was laughing at Bill describing colleges as having all these superwoke gatekeepers when colleges were telling him even preemptively to avoid something like climate change that you have to be really conservative to consider controversial, much less woke. And just pointing out that that's not woke gatekeeping.

DoctorAtomic

DoctorAtomic

I think the article was poorly written and lacked a clear point. There are in fact colleges that have 'woke' students in the way Bill describes. They're in the news, and Bill talks about them on the show all the time. 

I don't know if any of you know this, but he was going to speak at a graduation at Berkeley and they 'canceled' him. That is kind of 'too woke', to be fair. Especially after he gave a four minute monologue on why he wasn't planning to do his act, but give a humorous speech with some things he's learned about life. He did that on the show. It was actually a very reasonable response. 

However, there aren't nearly as many 'woke' colleges as Bill thinks there is. 

Similarly, sure, there's colleges so conservative that mentioning 'freedom fries' and 'climate change' triggers them that they walk out. The author was calling particular attention to the students walking out that I can understand why 'virtue signaling' was pointed out. To the point where he seemed to know what to say to cause that reaction. 

The author also pointed out he talked at more colleges than Bill, and implied as a result he knows more about colleges. Bill's been working the circuit for a very long time, so I'd like to see some numbers to back that up. 

But the overall point that Bill and this author were actually making and which they're both kind of missing is that both sides have people that get overwrought about whatever. I also can speak from vast experience at many and current universities that both have zero idea about what goes on at all. 

Now, certainly, I can see why some college students might walk out of a talk; there's many legitimate reasons. I don't think they're talking about that. 

 

  • Love 1
heatherchandler

heatherchandler

17 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

Ah, I see. I thought it was almost the opposite, that he was laughing at Bill describing colleges as having all these superwoke gatekeepers when colleges were telling him even preemptively to avoid something like climate change that you have to be really conservative to consider controversial, much less woke. And just pointing out that that's not woke gatekeeping.

As @DoctorAtomic pointed out, the article is poorly written.  And I wonder why he thinks he has been to more colleges than Bill.  I have no idea who he is.

But I think we agree that Bill is saying "these colleges are super woke" and the author is like, "you think that's woke, you don't even know woke but I do because I am extra-super-woke!"

sistermagpie

sistermagpie

7 minutes ago, heatherchandler said:

But I think we agree that Bill is saying "these colleges are super woke" and the author is like, "you think that's woke, you don't even know woke but I do because I am extra-super-woke!"

No, that doesn't at all seem to be what he's saying to me.  Some of the not-radical-at-all things he mentioned weren't even things that he said, but things that he was warned he wasn't allowed to talk about beforehand that were obviously there to cater to sensibilities on the right rather than the left. If he wasn't invited back b/c the college received complaints about his talking about climate change, that makes him the non-radical one in the story. 

  • Love 3
Victor the Crab

Victor the Crab

"CANCEL CULTURE AND WOKENESS IS RUNNING OUT OF CONTROL!!!"

PETA Wants MLB to Start Calling the 'Bullpen' an 'Arm Barn' over Treatment of Cows

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10016466-peta-wants-mlb-to-start-calling-the-bullpen-an-arm-barn-over-treatment-of-cows

Will Bill try to hummina-hummina this as "they're one of the good ones", seeing as he's on PETA's board of directors?

Hanahope

Hanahope

20 hours ago, wknt3 said:

New Rule: Bill Maher Should Look in the Mirror


TLDR - he says the same thing a lot of us have said in the comment threads, only more cogently and he brought receipts.

Good article.  Maher is sometimes guilty of the "many people say" crap without having to document who these people actually are.  

  • Love 6
aghst

aghst

LA Times columnist measures the state of the pandemic vs. the proclamations that Bari Weiss and Bill Maher made on Real Time over 3 weeks ago.

Quote

More than 66,000 Americans have died of COVID-19 in the last 30 days. That exceeds the number of Americans who died or went missing while fighting in the Vietnam War.

Here's another way to look at it: So far in February, the U.S. is averaging more than 2,300 COVID-19 deaths per day. That’s roughly the equivalent of lives lost in the attack on Pearl Harbor — every single day this month.

So how can anyone honestly say the COVID-19 crisis is over?

This is the question posed by my colleague Michael Hiltzik in a column inspired by statements like this one from pundit Bari Weiss:

“I’m done with COVID, I’m done,” Weiss said on a recent episode of HBO's talk show "Real Time With Bill Maher." “I went so hard on COVID — I sprayed the Pringles cans that I bought at the grocery store, stripped my clothes off because I thought COVID would be on my clothes, I did it all. And then we were told, you get the vaccine, and you get back to normal ... and we haven’t got back to normal. ... It’s not real anymore.”

Read in Los Angeles Times: https://apple.news/AOZJQl3AQT7O_QlGz0ezk1g

 

  • Love 4
aghst

aghst

Bill Maher does a long sit down interview with Adam Carolla on the latter's podcasts.

Two guys with anti-covid and anti California regulations kissing each other's butts.

Adam has been thirsty for years about getting back on Bill's show.

 

Apparently Bill is touting Club Random, his podcasts where he has long interviews.  Apparently he sat down with Ben Shapiro to talk up fat people dying of covid.

Victor the Crab

Victor the Crab

5 hours ago, aghst said:

Bill Maher does a long sit down interview with Adam Carolla on the latter's podcasts.

Two guys with anti-covid and anti California regulations kissing each other's butts.

Adam has been thirsty for years about getting back on Bill's show.

 

Apparently Bill is touting Club Random, his podcasts where he has long interviews.  Apparently he sat down with Ben Shapiro to talk up fat people dying of covid.

That's what Bill's been reduced to now. No more guest spots on first rate talk shows and news programs for him. Now, it's just one on ones with fellow losers Carolla and Shapiro!

  • LOL 2
Makai

Makai

(edited)

Quoted from the latest episode thread. 
 

22 hours ago, TakomaSnark said:

Source? According to Flix Patrol, out of thirty-six shows on HBO, Real Time is presently #34. Ahead of The Big Bang Theory and The Winchesters.

https://ustvdb.com/networks/hbo/shows/real-time-bill-maher/

I think these are the ratings being referenced. When The Last of Us was against the Super Bowl it had a huge drop in the same day cable ratings and Real Time easily took first on the network. The Last of Us retook first with last Sunday’s episode. 

Edited by Makai
  • Like 1
Makai

Makai

3 hours ago, aghst said:

TLOU released on Saturday that week, IIRC.

In any event, a lot of these big shows like House of Dragon get a lot of views throughout the week in between new episodes.

Also a lot of viewing through streaming, not just linear HBO channels.

That makes sense. I watch on HBO Max so don’t pay attention to air date.

I agree. Same day live ratings don’t mean a lot for premium cable. If anything streaming has become more significant since HBO actually gets some ad revenue from it. The Last of Us and House of Dragon are bringing in huge numbers. 

I didn’t realize the Real Time did so much better live than streaming. Although I guess that makes sense with less binging. 

realityplease

realityplease

(edited)
5 hours ago, RealHousewife said:

Great video David Pakman did on Bill.

The Pakman video is misleading & an unfairly edited excerpt of a long segment.  Pakman's excerpt didn't include Bill, clearly & precisely, giving Jake Tapper a definition of woke as "alert to injustice."  Not a "word salad" by any means. 

I saw the interview a week ago.  I'm certain of that definition because I've struggled to define woke & jotted it down.  At for the rest of Bill's comments, I'd have to re-watch, but I believe Maher also said that he was initially in favor of woke (i.e., being alert to injustice) until certain groups (right & left) politicized or strained it's use. He differentiated "liberal" from what the term "woke" has turned into. 

Maher gave examples. Like saying "Congratulations on the birth of your baby boy." And getting a response, "Not so fast - yes it seems that it's a boy, it has a penis, but who knows what the future may bring?" It was a joke. His point being that there's such a thing as being "too woke" when it goes too far & upends basic matters on which we should be able to rely. (Though exceptions may arise or exist - aren't there always some exceptions to everything?) Before telling the joke, Bill also commented that he believed that Trans individuals should be afforded all rights & considerations that any individual should be entitled to have.

I get that Pakman wants to be provocative - as does Bill.  And I agree there's little movement, major or otherwise, to ban Lincoln statutes or rename Lincoln schools (an example Bill gave & Pakman disputed as actual.) But failing to get a Lincoln school (& others) re-named (as tried in San Francisco & failed) is NOT the same as it never being raised or attempted at all.  

Pakman would have been more persuasive if he hadn't been disingenuous in choosing his excerpt & clutching his pearls.

Edited by realityplease
  • Like 1
  • LOL 1
heatherchandler

heatherchandler

17 hours ago, realityplease said:

The Pakman video is misleading & an unfairly edited excerpt of a long segment.  Pakman's excerpt didn't include Bill, clearly & precisely, giving Jake Tapper a definition of woke as "alert to injustice."  Not a "word salad" by any means. 

I saw the interview a week ago.  I'm certain of that definition because I've struggled to define woke & jotted it down.  At for the rest of Bill's comments, I'd have to re-watch, but I believe Maher also said that he was initially in favor of woke (i.e., being alert to injustice) until certain groups (right & left) politicized or strained it's use. He differentiated "liberal" from what the term "woke" has turned into. 

Maher gave examples. Like saying "Congratulations on the birth of your baby boy." And getting a response, "Not so fast - yes it seems that it's a boy, it has a penis, but who knows what the future may bring?" It was a joke. His point being that there's such a thing as being "too woke" when it goes too far & upends basic matters on which we should be able to rely. (Though exceptions may arise or exist - aren't there always some exceptions to everything?) Before telling the joke, Bill also commented that he believed that Trans individuals should be afforded all rights & considerations that any individual should be entitled to have.

I get that Pakman wants to be provocative - as does Bill.  And I agree there's little movement, major or otherwise, to ban Lincoln statutes or rename Lincoln schools (an example Bill gave & Pakman disputed as actual.) But failing to get a Lincoln school (& others) re-named (as tried in San Francisco & failed) is NOT the same as it never being raised or attempted at all.  

Pakman would have been more persuasive if he hadn't been disingenuous in choosing his excerpt & clutching his pearls.

If you have to take out all nuance and context, as Pakman did, then you wonder what the goal is in putting out this misleading video.  

  • Like 1
  • LOL 1
RealHousewife

RealHousewife

On 3/5/2023 at 4:26 PM, realityplease said:

The Pakman video is misleading & an unfairly edited excerpt of a long segment.  Pakman's excerpt didn't include Bill, clearly & precisely, giving Jake Tapper a definition of woke as "alert to injustice."  Not a "word salad" by any means. 

I saw the interview a week ago.  I'm certain of that definition because I've struggled to define woke & jotted it down.  At for the rest of Bill's comments, I'd have to re-watch, but I believe Maher also said that he was initially in favor of woke (i.e., being alert to injustice) until certain groups (right & left) politicized or strained it's use. He differentiated "liberal" from what the term "woke" has turned into. 

Maher gave examples. Like saying "Congratulations on the birth of your baby boy." And getting a response, "Not so fast - yes it seems that it's a boy, it has a penis, but who knows what the future may bring?" It was a joke. His point being that there's such a thing as being "too woke" when it goes too far & upends basic matters on which we should be able to rely. (Though exceptions may arise or exist - aren't there always some exceptions to everything?) Before telling the joke, Bill also commented that he believed that Trans individuals should be afforded all rights & considerations that any individual should be entitled to have.

I get that Pakman wants to be provocative - as does Bill.  And I agree there's little movement, major or otherwise, to ban Lincoln statutes or rename Lincoln schools (an example Bill gave & Pakman disputed as actual.) But failing to get a Lincoln school (& others) re-named (as tried in San Francisco & failed) is NOT the same as it never being raised or attempted at all.  

Pakman would have been more persuasive if he hadn't been disingenuous in choosing his excerpt & clutching his pearls.

I found the clip where Bill defined woke on YouTube, but I still think his obsession over the woke topic is nonsensical. Parkman's video may not have included that Bill is aware of what woke means, but imo he's not wrong that Bill often has his manties in a bunch over a whole lot of nothing. There are so many issues in this country and abroad. At the top of my head, thousands of school girls were just poisoned in Iran, and five women are suing the state of Texas because despite threats to their lives, they could not get abortions. I want to hear more discussion about serious issues. To be clear I get that Bill's a comedian, and I still enjoy his New Rules segment. I think he has talent to entertain and moderate. It's just the one-note thing I don't care for. 

I was about to say it's like Bill's goal each week is to get his audience to avoid social justice warriors like the plague, but he wasn't a fraction as concerned with the plague.

  • Like 2
realityplease

realityplease

(edited)
1 hour ago, RealHousewife said:

I found the clip where Bill defined woke on YouTube, but I still think his obsession over the woke topic is nonsensical. Parkman's video may not have included that Bill is aware of what woke means, but imo he's not wrong that Bill often has his manties in a bunch over a whole lot of nothing. There are so many issues in this country and abroad. At the top of my head, thousands of school girls were just poisoned in Iran, and five women are suing the state of Texas because despite threats to their lives, they could not get abortions. I want to hear more discussion about serious issues. To be clear I get that Bill's a comedian, and I still enjoy his New Rules segment. I think he has talent to entertain and moderate. It's just the one-note thing I don't care for. 

I was about to say it's like Bill's goal each week is to get his audience to avoid social justice warriors like the plague, but he wasn't a fraction as concerned with the plague.

But the Pakman clip & diatribe wasn't taken from Bill's show.  It arose from Jake Tapper's interview of Bill that aired as a special on CNN.  Tapper didn't ask Bill about the school girls in Iran or the suits in Texas about abortions.  Tapper chose the topics & questions - Bill responded. 

To be frank, I agree with Bill that there's a segment of society that strives to be so politically correct or alert to injustice ("woke" if you will) that they take it too far - & respond to various issues in ways that over-react, repress, restrict, infringe or trample on the rights of many - just to appease a few who can be accommodated in other ways.

I agree with you that the topics on Bill's shows can be repetitive & one-note & could be more expansive given all the things going on in this country & abroad.  But the Pakman clip wasn't taken from Bill's show & Bill wasn't the one formulating the topics. If it was one-note, that's on Tapper.

Edited by realityplease
RealHousewife

RealHousewife

12 hours ago, realityplease said:

But the Pakman clip & diatribe wasn't taken from Bill's show.  It arose from Jake Tapper's interview of Bill that aired as a special on CNN.  Tapper didn't ask Bill about the school girls in Iran or the suits in Texas about abortions.  Tapper chose the topics & questions - Bill responded. 

To be frank, I agree with Bill that there's a segment of society that strives to be so politically correct or alert to injustice ("woke" if you will) that they take it too far - & respond to various issues in ways that over-react, repress, restrict, infringe or trample on the rights of many - just to appease a few who can be accommodated in other ways.

I agree with you that the topics on Bill's shows can be repetitive & one-note & could be more expansive given all the things going on in this country & abroad.  But the Pakman clip wasn't taken from Bill's show & Bill wasn't the one formulating the topics. If it was one-note, that's on Tapper.

It’s Bill’s own show I’m judging him by. I did not jump to the conclusion he’s obsessed with wokeness based on the Tapper interview or Palma ‘s video, but from watching Real Time. Imo he’s a smart enough guy who can do much more than anti-woke rants. I don’t remember him being one-note back in the day. 

  • Like 1
sistermagpie

sistermagpie

(edited)
14 hours ago, realityplease said:

To be frank, I agree with Bill that there's a segment of society that strives to be so politically correct or alert to injustice ("woke" if you will) that they take it too far - & respond to various issues in ways that over-react, repress, restrict, infringe or trample on the rights of many - just to appease a few who can be accommodated in other ways.

 

I'm genuinely don't understand who's rights are being trampled and infringed etc. on by super woke people given the examples of legislation actually going on right now in the name of anti-wokeness and it doesn't seem like Bill ever comes up with examples of any.

Edited by sistermagpie
  • Like 4
realityplease

realityplease

35 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

I'm genuinely don't understand who's rights are being trampled and infringed etc. on by super woke people given the examples of legislation actually going on right now in the name of anti-wokeness and it doesn't seem like Bill ever comes up with examples of any.

Seems to me that the restriction & repression mentioned in my post cuts both ways.  It includes both the woke & anti-woke movements.  Each side trying to restrict or repress the other side - and going too far.  

Bill's given examples of each. These include (and this is not an exhaustive list, just what I can dredge quickly from memory) the banning of campus speakers by the woke, the banning of books in schools & libraries by the anti-woke, the attempted re-naming of schools by the woke, transgender issues by both woke & anti-woke, & any number of things that educators (& just people in general) find themselves walking on eggshells about either because one side goes too far to accommodate the concerns of the woke - or the other side goes too far in pushing anti-woke concerns.   

That's really all I can say about it.  I understand there's a world of people who have no use for Bill's ideas, or dismiss him as old & childless, & therefore, unworthy to put forth his views (& wonder why they even watch him - except maybe to hate watch.) Then there's a world of people who agree with Bill's viewpoint.  Then yet another world who agrees sometimes & disagrees with him sometimes. To each his own.

 

  • Like 1
sistermagpie

sistermagpie

42 minutes ago, realityplease said:

find themselves walking on eggshells about either because one side goes too far to accommodate the concerns of the woke - or the other side goes too far in pushing anti-woke concerns.   

That seems like my point though, which is that "going too far" means something very different on one side than the other--and Bill spends all his time worrying about the side where it means renaming things named after slaveowners or not being invited to speak on a campus.

  • Like 3
realityplease

realityplease

5 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

That seems like my point though, which is that "going too far" means something very different on one side than the other--and Bill spends all his time worrying about the side where it means renaming things named after slaveowners or not being invited to speak on a campus.

I agree with you that "going too far" means something different to each side. Each side or person also sets priorities about what issues are more important or less important to them. If I follow you, renaming buildings or not being invited to speak are minor compared to bigger issues.  I see it somewhat differently.

Taking only one example, I think free speech and lst Amendment rights, whether on campus or any public arena, are very important & worthy of the highest protection. Who is or isn't allowed to speak on campus - & what topics they can speak about - is important & can be a slippery slope to a college's over-control of the students' access to a free market of ideas & free speech. Then there's the issue of WHO decides who can speak & who can't & about what.

If not permitted to hear from certain speakers or speakers on certain issues, how does one decide whether to accept or reject those ideas or people? College students are an important sector to reach. They may be unexposed, newly exposed to, or undecided about a host of issues & viewpoints. If we permit educators, leaders, politicians, officials, newspapers, etc. to "sanitize" what we hear or who we hear it from - what happens to free speech?

But I get it.  Some don't see Bill as defending free speech or speaking out against cancel culture. To them, he's just pissy that he was dis-invited to speak at some school & his invite cancellation is no big deal.  They prioritize other issues more highly. That's their right. There's a bigger issue at stake - but I get that his repetition annoys, that dislike of Bill's "delivery" obscures the message for some, or some minimize the importance of what he discusses because they don't like the messenger. Again, that's their right. 

If he uses his show to point out how silly or time-or money wasting, or yes, even dangerous to our democracy, certain things are on either side, well, it's his opinion & he's entitled to it. I'll listen & then make up my mind about it when I hear it.  

  • Applause 1
sistermagpie

sistermagpie

10 hours ago, realityplease said:

But I get it.  Some don't see Bill as defending free speech or speaking out against cancel culture.

I don't see him doing that, but not because I think he's pissy, but because he's he's genuinely dedicated to defending and normalizing people who are not actually about free speech at all, but use it as a cover to push right wing ideas. Like how parents who support anti-trans stuff are "concerned parents" while parents who support trans kids are "activists." Who gets to speak at colleges, who Bill invites on his show and what things are named after does say something--and a lot of people don't have any opportunity to say what they think about it except by protesting about it locally.

At some point you have to just admit that arguments about statues and campus speakers *are* arguments about the values they're representing and pushing for people to be exposed to an idea means you think that idea is worth considering. Not all ideas are worth exposing college students do just because they exist.

 

  • Like 2
realityplease

realityplease

(edited)
8 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

. . .and pushing for people to be exposed to an idea means you think that idea is worth considering. Not all ideas are worth exposing college students do just because they exist.

 

I don't think that just because one is "exposed to an idea means the idea is worth considering" or endorsed.  People should be exposed to many ideas & many viewpoints in order to give them a basis to CHOOSE OR REJECT those ideas or points of view.  After exposure, each person decides whether the idea is "worth considering" - or not. 

How can you accept or reject an idea or viewpoint if you don't know it exists.  How can you do that if someone or some entity protectively decides (for you) that its not "worth" exposing you to it?

For example, long ago the Court upheld the Nazis' FIrst Amendment right to march in Skokie (primarily a Jewish suburb then) though some residents could be upset.  Never at any time did I think Nazi ideas "worth considering" though the Court upheld their right to air them - just as I had a right to reject them.  But how could I reject the Nazi's ideas unless I'd first known something about what they were & stood for? 

Moreover, WHO is to decide what ideas are "worth" exposing college students to & which are not?  (In the case of the Nazis, defended by the ACLU no less, the Supreme Court decided.) In the case of trans rights too, those issues may end up in the courts. 

I reject the notion that colleges need to decide the "worth" of ideas for their students - except as it relates to control over what courses of study are offered & the classes made available to meet the requirements for that study.  And though understanding it might be subject to court scrutiny, to eliminate course material contrary to law (recognizing that this is hard decide or define.) As for outside speakers, unless extreme (again, hard to define) or likely to incite a riot, it's not for the college to decide what's "worthy" or not. The extender or non-extender of the invitation should get to decide who gets an invite (or not), and once invited, the student gets to decide whether to attend (or not).

Bill's just one voice. He rails against cancel culture where he deems it unjustified, supports free speech, brings up trans rights issues & book banning.  I think he decides situation by situation.  You see him using this as a "cover to push right wing ideas."  But whatever WE may think, it's his show. He get to pick topics & guests.  We, on the other hand, can exercise out right to turn off the TV when we don't like his choices.  Or get to hate-watch or complain as we see fit.  The beauty of this forum!

Edited by realityplease
  • Like 1
sistermagpie

sistermagpie

20 hours ago, realityplease said:

How can you accept or reject an idea or viewpoint if you don't know it exists.  How can you do that if someone or some entity protectively decides (for you) that its not "worth" exposing you to it?

 

There's millions of ideas nobody's being exposed to all the time. The relatively tiny amount of people who are invited to speak at colleges or on Real Time isn't a free speech issue. None of these people are being silenced or put in jail for what they're saying. Inviting a Nazi to speak at your college isn't a way of protecting their free speech, it's saying their ideas that some people are less deserving of rights are something that should be considered seriously and debated, though after WWII people seemed to think it was just fine to consider the matter somewhat settled and teach it as such. The students protesting these things are also using their free speech. And it's not even that big of a deal, since there's not that many lefty student attempts to cancel speaking. If people threatening to silence others were the real concern here, you'd think the focus would be more on white supremist groups threatening drag shows.

Pointing out that names and statues are superficial things that don't fix the problem is a good thing to do, but telling people to shut up about re-naming things doesn't mean you're doing much to fix the problem yourself. And suggesting that the people leaping to the defense of names and statues aren't just as passionate about the issue for the same reason is weighing in on their side. 

  • Like 3
ShadowKnight2

ShadowKnight2

😠Anyone still think Bill Maher is a liberal icon?

He'll invite this ratfucking anti-vax loon, and others like him, on to confirm his own ignorant biases and praise them for that, but refuses to have on Anthony Fauci and Peter Hotez to interview, because Bill Maher is a fucking chickenshit coward who does not want his dangerous and ignorant opinions challenged and questioned by real experts who know what the fuck they're talking about.

And this fucking piece of shit has the unmitigated gall of spittle screaming at Democrats for not going on Fox News to be interviewed. Bill Maher does NOT deserve to be taken seriously, for his views and his lazy assed style of humor that shrieks out self entitlement.

  • Like 4
  • Applause 3
heatherchandler

heatherchandler

26 minutes ago, ShadowKnight2 said:

😠Anyone still think Bill Maher is a liberal icon?

He'll invite this ratfucking anti-vax loon, and others like him, on to confirm his own ignorant biases and praise them for that, but refuses to have on Anthony Fauci and Peter Hotez to interview, because Bill Maher is a fucking chickenshit coward who does not want his dangerous and ignorant opinions challenged and questioned by real experts who know what the fuck they're talking about.

And this fucking piece of shit has the unmitigated gall of spittle screaming at Democrats for not going on Fox News to be interviewed. Bill Maher does NOT deserve to be taken seriously, for his views and his lazy assed style of humor that shrieks out self entitlement.

RFK Jr is a democrat.  I don’t think a differing view is dangerous.  Someone can listen and then decide for themselves. 

  • Like 2
ShadowKnight2

ShadowKnight2

2 hours ago, heatherchandler said:

RFK Jr is a democrat.  I don’t think a differing view is dangerous.  Someone can listen and then decide for themselves. 

A "Democrat" who is being backed by Steve Bannon and Roger Stone. RFK Jr. is as much a serious Democrat as Bill Maher is a smart and funny comedian. Which is to say, the fuck he is!

  • Like 7

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...