Bill Maher's Zionism [Archive]

RaÃºl Duke

23rd June 2010, 14:51

I thought most communists loved his man (along with two others who make up the trinity, Dawkins and Hitchens). I mean, communists hate religious superstition and love rationalists, right?

Wrong.

All 3 persons you mentioned are not "loved" by communists due to their other ideas that they hold. Also, many communists do not hold the same anti-religious "fervor" as these 3. For example, I never seen a communist make a documentary bashing religion as Maher has (although I'm not surprised if some have seen it; some people do like to laugh at the darnest things religious people say and do), they don't have a foreign policy based on anti-theism (as Hitchens has vis-a-vis with the "Islamic World"), etc.

And sooner or later, this rationalism will have to justify actions against Palestinians (and Muslims in general), since the latter are considered too religious to be rational. This is how anti-theism works . . . it works against the oppressed since the latter are going to be religious owing to abject material conditions. I notice you added this on later, and all I see is that it makes your post worst.

All I see you doing is trolling and being provocative saying this inane bullshit.

In practice, IRL, leftists tend not to demonstrate in public any anti-religiosity per se. But amongst themselves, leftists value having a very objective and materialist perspective of the world/universe. Marxism itself begs that a Marxist should have a materialist perspective. A religious perspective is idealist...

RedStarOverChina

23rd June 2010, 15:54

I thought most communists loved his man (along with two others who make up the trinity, Dawkins and Hitchens). I mean, communists hate religious superstition and love rationalists, right? And sooner or later, this rationalism will have to justify actions against Palestinians (and Muslims in general), since the latter are considered too religious to be rational. This is how anti-theism works . . . it works against the oppressed since the latter are going to be religious owing to abject material conditions.
I'm anti-religion, but the people you meantioned are mostly douchebags. None of them are the vicars of atheism in its totality. So I don't really give a damn what they think or say.

But thanks for makingup random stuff and pretending it's our belief, anyhow. :rolleyes: This way you'll never lose in a debate.

Only problem is, you'll always be debating with none other than your own imagination.

Dean

23rd June 2010, 16:00

Has anyone noticed that Bill Maher is a Zionist almost to borderline ignorance?

I have picked up on it previously, and it annoyed me. But in the last two episodes of the most recent season he really shows it and it went from my annoyance to me being pissed.

He has contempt for anyone he views as "savage" or "ignorant." His attacks on rural and southern Americans really bring out this culturalism.

His laughable conceptualizations about how religion is fundamentally to blame for any conflict it is present in are shocking in their absurdity. It's basically scaremongering from an elitist liberal position.

I was watching the show once, and a sociologist was discussing obesity in the US and its effect on a possible system of universal health care. the sociologist correctly described institutions and media which serves to encourage obesity; Maher and his "panel" decried this because they preferred to blame the individual obese people.

Truly disgusting shit.

People who don't know who Maher is can download audio and video segments from http://www.hbo.com/podcasts/billmaher/podcast.xml

Can you remember approximately what he said? I don't recall any comments of his that I interpeted as Zionist.

Responding to criticism of Israel during the 2006 war with Lebanon: "It's like the Jews aren't allowed to defend themselves."

Barry Lyndon

23rd June 2010, 16:17

Thank you Propagandhi for this topic! I was wondering when someone would bring this up!

As someone of partly Arab descent, I was probably more sensitive to this then other people. I noticed that his intense hostility towards Arabs/Muslims correlated strongly with his reflexive, unconditional defense of Israel. It's really remarkable, and has only become more obvious over time as Israel's behavior(bombing of Lebanon, Gaza massacres, attack on aid flotilla) has become increasingly indefensible and Maher has either remained silent or has continued singing Israel's praises. John Stewart, by contrast, has criticized Israel and made efforts to present the Palestinian point of view(such as when he had Jewish pro-Palestine activist Anne Balzer and Palestinian official Marwan Barghouti on the Daily Show).

But you would have to be blind to not see Maher's Zionism in 'Religulous'. When he's skewering Judaism, he seeks out an anti-Zionist rabbi to ridicule and portray as a self-hating lunatic(even blatantly splicing and editing what the rabbi is saying in order to make it look like the rabbi approves of Holocaust denial). And when the rabbi refuses to allow Maher to control the discussion, Maher just up and leaves. If Maher really wanted to deal with dangerous religious fanatics, he could have talked to some Jewish settlers in the West Bank. But that wouldn't have served his purpose of whitewashing Israel.

By contrast, his portrayal of Muslims in the same film is downright hateful. The Christian fanatics in the movie are portrayed as kooks, but rarely menacing. Muslims are portrayed as a horde of bloodthirsty fanatics. His response to Muslims religious figures trying to tell him that Islam does not sanction acts like the murder of Theo van Gogh is that 'well, that's what they tell outsiders, not each other'. As if all one billion Muslims are in this nefarious conspiracy to conceal their 'true beliefs', a blatantly paranoid, bigoted and racist notion, implying that Muslims all have a hive mentality. He then goes on to have a friendly interview with an extreme right-wing Dutch parliamentarian who spews all the Islamophobic bile he wants to hear.

Never mind that the enlightened liberal society that Maher loves so much has in the past few years killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims in two major wars of aggression, something that never comes up in his discourse about 'violence'.

Seriously, what is his problem?

A.R.Amistad

23rd June 2010, 16:26

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ipp-l_32M8

I absolutely despise this racist scum

Barry Lyndon

23rd June 2010, 16:37

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ipp-l_32M8

I absolutely despise this racist scum

Yeah, 'we don't threaten'.....we just bomb the shit out of you.

Fucking disgusting, and for him to be churning out this sort of chauvinist neo-colonialist propaganda in wartime is actually criminal, because he's justifying the violence.

A.R.Amistad

23rd June 2010, 16:43

Yeah, 'we don't threaten'.....we just bomb the shit out of you.

Fucking disgusting, and for him to be churning out this sort of chauvinist neo-colonialist propaganda in wartime is actually criminal, because he's justifying the violence.

Has he never heard of Waco, lol? And it is seriously funny that while the 'barbarians' of the middle east where engaging in some of the greatest academia, the west in the middle ages were still trying to figure out if demons lived in shadows and angels in light.

Skooma Addict

23rd June 2010, 18:08

Who is this guys fan base exactly? I was under the impression that leftists loved him but apparently not.

Dean

23rd June 2010, 18:29

Who is this guys fan base exactly? I was under the impression that leftists loved him but apparently not.

I used to like him, until I realize that he was nothing more than a shitty liberal huckster. He panders to elitist liberals, and I'm glad to be way beyond that phase.

GPDP

23rd June 2010, 18:59

I used to like him, until I realize that he was nothing more than a shitty liberal huckster. He panders to elitist liberals, and I'm glad to be way beyond that phase.

Same here. I liked him when I was barely getting into politics and was nothing more than a Democrat-supporting liberal who thought conservatives were dumb. Once I outgrew that bullshit, however, I came to see Maher as nothing more than a snob and a hack with few redeeming qualities outside of taking potshots at the loony right, which is nothing impressive. He embodies the very worst of American liberalism.

Dimentio

23rd June 2010, 19:18

I really hate that chart which "proves" that democrats are smarter by showing that the states which vote republican have a lower general IQ.

IQ is not something which is entirely predetermined, but generated by what education and external impulses a child get during her growth. It is hardly surprising that children in a rural environment doesn't get as many impulses.

If liberals were smarter, they wouldn't show such charts.

mykittyhasaboner

23rd June 2010, 19:57

First of all, I know I should blog more, I don't know why I don't, I beat myself up about it all the time. I should blog first thing right after breakfast. You know, about 1:30.

Anyway, Arianna and I are like an old married couple, except instead of having obligatory sex on our birthdays, we blog or do panel. Happy Birthday, darling, you're not getting older, you're getting closer to your own fuck-you money.

And I hope this doesn't ruin your birthday, but I have to say, watching George Bush talk about Israel the last week has reminded me of a feeling that I hadn't felt in so long I forgot what it felt like: the feeling of pride when your president says what you want your president to say, especially in a matter that chokes you up a bit. I surrender my credentials as Bush exposer - from the very beginning - to no man, but on Israel, I love it that a U.S. president doesn't pretend Arab-Israeli conflict is an even-steven proposition. Lots of ethnic peoples, probably most, have at one time or another lost some territory; nobody's ever completely happy with their borders; people move and get moved, which is why the 20th century saw the movement of tens if not hundreds of millions of refugees in countries around the world. There was no entity of Arabs called "Palestine" before Israel made the desert bloom. If those 600,000 original Palestinian refugees had been handled with maturity by their Arab brethren, who had nothing but space to put them, they could have moved on -- the way Germans, Czechs, Poles, Chinese and everybody else has, including, of course, the Jews.

But I digress. I really wanted to say that, for all those who accuse the likes of myself and the birthday girl of being unpatriotic, or hating America first, the feeling I've had watching Israel defend herself and a US president defend Israel (a country that is held to a standard for "restraint" that no other country ever is asked to meet, but that's another story) just reminds me how wrong that is. I LOVE being on the side of my president, and mouthing "You go, boy" when he gets it right. He just, outside of this, almost never does.

Now can I get a piece of cake?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/i-love-being-on-the-side-_b_25375.html

Bill Maher is a piece of shit.

Robocommie

23rd June 2010, 20:22

Who is this guys fan base exactly? I was under the impression that leftists loved him but apparently not.

I think he's had some libertarian tendencies. I'm not sure. But libertarianism is generally the ideology of choice for people who like their weed and porn but still also want to hate Muslims and poor folks.

#FF0000

23rd June 2010, 21:09

Bill Maher is one of those people who makes me want to abandon all my principles and politics and my reason and just say "let the earth burn" and pray for an apocalypse.

#FF0000

23rd June 2010, 21:21

Who is this guys fan base exactly? I was under the impression that leftists loved him but apparently not.

douchebags

ed miliband

23rd June 2010, 21:35

I think he's had some libertarian tendencies. I'm not sure. But libertarianism is generally the ideology of choice for people who like their weed and porn but still also want to hate Muslims and poor folks.

Yeah, but he mixes his so-called libertarianism with stereotypical, East Coast liberal elitism.

GPDP

23rd June 2010, 21:41

Oh, and has it been mentioned he's a vehement anti-communist? Like, almost on par with Glenn Beck?

Look up the episode with Boots Riley. Maher attacks him relentlessly for being a communist.

Barry Lyndon

23rd June 2010, 21:50

Oh, and has it been mentioned he's a vehement anti-communist? Like, almost on par with Glenn Beck?

Look up the episode with Boots Riley. Maher attacks him relentlessly for being a communist.

Yeah I remember seeing an episode where he was actually defending the Vietnam War on the grounds that it was necessary to defeat communism. My mouth dropped. I thought he would at least pay lip service to the liberal line about the war being a 'mistake'. He literally saw the deaths of millions of people as justified.
Whoopi Goldberg, to my surprise, interjected that communism was really not as bad as US propaganda was making it out to be, citing her experiences living in East Germany:thumbup1:. This was met by howls of derision from Maher and everyone else on the show, who literally drowned her out so that she couldn't finish her heretical thoughts.

ed miliband

23rd June 2010, 22:01

He's also more or less a misogynist. He once made a 'joke' about girls who partake in beauty pageants being stupid and thus conservative, whilst their enlightened liberal sisters go to university. The way he said it was so full of contempt.

Bud Struggle

23rd June 2010, 23:00

He's nothing.

He says what sells the most or shocks the most or whatever gets him a few more dollars. Same with Beck. If Beck could get paid a few dollars more for growing a Stalin mustasche and reading the Communist Manifesto all day on the radio--he'd be doing it.

This what Laissez faire Capitalism looks like on the radio and TV.

RaÃºl Duke

23rd June 2010, 23:04

This thread reminds me of this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yuhwo6wGJ3Y

Obrero Rebelde

23rd June 2010, 23:21

I agree, Bill Maher is a racist. He's made some pretty disgusting jokes at the expense of people of color -- Blacks, Filipinos, Latinos, Middle Easterners.

But the jabs he takes at "The Establishment" are great sometimes.

He's in all that for the money. So he's just another racism pimp.

Conquer or Die

24th June 2010, 09:20

To be honest, I thought Boots Riley had a lot to say but he was constantly interjecting and interrupting to get his point across. He also suggested the "Death Star" thesis of the WTC while nudging towards the conspiracy theory angle on his CD cover. He was given time and respect and instead used it to sound like a college freshman level Marxist who was really out of touch with reality and sophomoric. I don't care about the records you produce, it's all about the content of yourself when under the circumstances that can advance the movement. Instead he looked like an asshole. Sorry, but that's just the case.

Conversely, Christopher Hitchens and Whoopi Goldberg dominated Maher and the conservative panel on Politically Incorrect and made Maher look like an emotional fool. He lost that argument and his head but he managed to insult a conservative who mentioned Hitchen's smoking in a completely ad hominem way. Maher at least had convictions (regardless of whether or not you agree with him on the issue) to call out bullshit when he smelt it.

Bill Maher has been attacked as a racist, anti-communist, zionist, and this and that but he's become increasingly more socialist as time has gone on. He is an elitist bastard and is very critical but his criticisms are usually laced with some comedy and tend to have a ring of truth about them. Please respect what he has to say even if it offends you. When he goes off on Zionist rants, anti religious or anti fat rants it almost becomes combatative but remember that those who fire the first shot or win the first battle don't always win the war. See: American Civil War.

The negative droning about him on this thread that is mostly baseless and adjective laden fluttering doesn't speak well for this forum. So many people get emotional and heated up without taking the time to appreciate individuals on their own merits. Not a single decent criticism has been lobbed in this thread against him. Moreover, people are focusing on "who is who" and "what is what" in terms of placing their ideological blenders on. It's a perverse attack on free thought. It makes you all look stupid.

I say this as a person who has been deeply offended by Bill Maher at one point or another. The point is not to let that image taint your whole perception, the point is to reflect honestly on what he says and then form a rebuttal, synthesis, or actually change your mind. Emotional butthurt is pathetic and easily detected. Nobody likes it's smell.

Edit: And fuck the people who sent death threats to Comedy Central. And fuck the person who killed Theo Van Gogh.

Dimentio

24th June 2010, 12:55

Yes, fuck the person who killed Theo Van Gogh.

But, one thing which is disturbing me with liberal intellectuals, and that accounts for some socialists as well, is their contempt for workers and rural people. That IQ chart is only one of many examples. The problem with the US left (and to some extent with the European left) is that they have been so enclosed in academic environments that they instead of listening to people from working class communities - even if they might have had reactionary or nutty conclusions - are making fun of them.

The democrats are for example generally attacking republican voters, of which a majority happen to be from rural parts of the country with a generally lower medium income, instead of attacking republican politicians.

While the concerns of people might take funny expressions, they need to be addressed in a manner which is more respectful.

I'm really tired of all people who claim that voters don't like their centrist or socialist parties because people are stupid. Stupidity is obviously a human trait existent in all social groups, especially as it is a stupid thing to claim that people who might vote on you are stupid.

Dean

24th June 2010, 13:05

I say this as a person who has been deeply offended by Bill Maher at one point or another. The point is not to let that image taint your whole perception, the point is to reflect honestly on what he says and then form a rebuttal, synthesis, or actually change your mind. Emotional butthurt is pathetic and easily detected. Nobody likes it's smell.

Actually, it has been very specific criticism, for one thing against his ridiculous, emotive manner of discussion, his flagrant elitism and anti-poor, anti-Muslim and pro-Israeli-white nationalism bullshit. One of the best criticisms, however, is how he very rarely makes real arguments. As Bud Struggle pointed out, he's very much like Glenn Beck: A worthless piece of shit when it comes to journalism or media/political analysis.

In fact, your own post has nothing more than a vague admiration of him, and you basically accept (albeit begrudgingly) most of the criticism, without offering any argument in favor of him. What, we need to "respect what he has to say" because you think it has "a ring of truth to it"? Sorry, I've already found sources that have actual truth to them, not petty hyperbole like Maher's show peddles:

http://exiledonline.com/
http://english.aljazeera.net/
http://www.wsws.org/
http://www.alternet.org/
http://ipsnews.net/

And no, none of these sites start their pieces off by calling Republicans "babies" and attacking religious and ethnic groups. I don't "respect" that.

Dimentio

24th June 2010, 13:09

In Sweden, it was actually the other way around. The Swedish conservative party used to have lots and lots of representatives who for example claimed that rural people in general are more stupid than people from Stockholm (because rural people in general vote left). One of the current ministers even said that the people in northern Sweden would run around like dizzed hens if it weren't for the Stockholmers (at the same time, northern Sweden account for about all of Sweden's valuable natural resources).

I think this also is an issue derived from the contempt which urban elites feel for rural inhabitants. In some countries (Thailand) those sentiments are extreme.

Die Rote Fahne

24th June 2010, 18:50

Bud Struggle

24th June 2010, 19:22

^^^I see nothing of any redeeming political or social value in the video above on Bill Maher.

Robocommie

24th June 2010, 19:59

As much as Maher is ignorant, I believe that if he had a sit down, one on one, with Norman Finkelstein he would no longer be a Zionist.

And a sit down with Chomsky would make him understand and be more sympathetic to radical leftism.

If you're right, we should try and lock him in a room with both of those guys, with nothing but a pitcher of water and a notepad and some pens. :lol:

Barry Lyndon

24th June 2010, 20:35

As much as Maher is ignorant, I believe that if he had a sit down, one on one, with Norman Finkelstein he would no longer be a Zionist.

And a sit down with Chomsky would make him understand and be more sympathetic to radical leftism.

His Zionist comments include:

vdaNCjp1ni0

His other comments include him glorifying the IDF and the "heroic actions" of Israel in the likes of Munich, etc. As you can tell, Bill is very ignorant to the facts.

No. He's a racist who does not want to learn, and wants to remain ignorant so he can maintain his smug sense of superiority. He's had Chomsky and others like him on his show and never really processes what they have to say at best, or at worst actively shouts them down or drowns them out.

Bud Struggle

24th June 2010, 20:47

Dean

24th June 2010, 21:12

As much as Maher is ignorant, I believe that if he had a sit down, one on one, with Norman Finkelstein he would no longer be a Zionist.
I highly doubt it. Every time someone dissents from the left, he drowns them out with mainstream conservative talking points, and claims that any contrary evidence is "insane" or whatever hyperbole he is partial to at the time.

He isn't thoughtful. He's primarily an elitist - he likes nothing more than derisive attacks on the unwashed masses. It is for this reason that he loves "civil" Israel and its advanced capitalist regime, and hates the "savage" Palestinians with their Katyusha rockets and closed economy.

And a sit down with Chomsky would make him understand and be more sympathetic to radical leftism.

I'd actually suggest that you email Chomsky about his views on Zionism - they're very interesting and if you ask him any specific questions you're unsure of, he should be very enlightening.

We should take on Chomsky next. :)
Be gentle, though, he's 83.

Imposter Marxist

24th June 2010, 21:27

Has he never heard of Waco, lol? And it is seriously funny that while the 'barbarians' of the middle east where engaging in some of the greatest academia, the west in the middle ages were still trying to figure out if demons lived in shadows and angels in light.

Did you see his comments on the Ruby Ridge Massacre? Fucking disgusting.

mikelepore

24th June 2010, 21:28

Why was it repeatedly said above that Maher is a racist? I know he's ignorant about the economic system, but I haven't heard anything racist.

HEAD ICE

24th June 2010, 23:18

Somebody mentioned when Whoopi and Hitchens were on his show. It was a fucking ownage spree, such a shame what has happened to Hitchens, the man could spit fire.

czu87N2avr4
Edyf7lS9B_E

Conquer or Die

25th June 2010, 01:22

Actually, it has been very specific criticism

like

for one thing against his ridiculous, emotive manner of discussion, his flagrant elitism and anti-poor, anti-Muslim and pro-Israeli-white nationalism bullshit. One of the best criticisms, however, is how he very rarely makes real arguments. As Bud Struggle pointed out, he's very much like Glenn Beck: A worthless piece of shit when it comes to journalism or media/political analysis.

Generic insults without any substantiation. It's especially funny that you mention his pro-Israli-white nationalism without understanding anything that he's ever said, ever, on race. He's consistently Zionist to a bad point, but he's consistently anti-racist in many ways. He criticizes Muslims on a generic basis that he also criticizes Christians and other religions on. This is seen as "not compassionate" when that isn't a fucking argument. It's also stupid to call him a journalist, given that nobody would ever say that about him including himself.

He's also consistently pro working man, and not in the white way. He's merely pissed off that people are fat, lazy, cling to stereotypes, and buy what they are sold without thinking about it. Guess what? He's right to be pissed off.

In fact, your own post has nothing more than a vague admiration of him, and you basically accept (albeit begrudgingly) most of the criticism, without offering any argument in favor of him. What, we need to "respect what he has to say" because you think it has "a ring of truth to it"? Sorry, I've already found sources that have actual truth to them, not petty hyperbole like Maher's show peddles:

http://exiledonline.com/
http://english.aljazeera.net/
http://www.wsws.org/
http://www.alternet.org/
http://ipsnews.net/

And no, none of these sites start their pieces off by calling Republicans "babies" and attacking religious and ethnic groups. I don't "respect" that.

Yeah what a stupid response. AlJazeera is in the pocket of the Saudis and mentioning news services against one social commentator who hosts one commentating TV show is a ridiculous comparison.

You are probably the worst poster on this forum. Your sophistry is cancer.

Conquer or Die

25th June 2010, 01:25

Why was it repeatedly said above that Maher is a racist? I know he's ignorant about the economic system, but I haven't heard anything racist.

I think the close mindedness of the "vanguard" of Revleft has nurtured a habitual sense of entitlement to say whatever string of adjectives that they can spew at the fastest rate.

Bill Maher is not "one" of us, he may become "one" of us and he has some good ideas and bad ideas and he says some things that are wrong and some things that may challenge you.

Good luck getting freedom of thought into this thread though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IuxxtHSmAM

Stop bullshitting yourselves for once.

Robocommie

25th June 2010, 04:07

Conquer or Die

25th June 2010, 05:05

"Whoopi, didn't you find living in East Germany to be living in a horrible, oppressive, gray morbid world?"

Asks the man who had never even been to East Germany and doesn't actually know a fucking thing about day-to-day life in East Germany, to someone who does.

Yeah, watch the abject stupidity of three people who do nothing more than pile on about subjects that are fed to them through the capitalist propaganda machine. Then watch how Bill Maher has enough dignity to call out bullshit when one of the right wing fucks (not the former Kiss guy (Kiss sucks btw)) tries to attack Hitchen's smoking as if it had anything to do with what was being discussed.

I can post a dozen videos where Maher is sympathetic to the working man or where he calls America stupid for judging people based on the Communist or socialist label or where he attacks racist right wing goons. He also has had people who disagree with support for Israel on his show and he has also had Noam Chomsky on his show and almost jerked him off too hard. He has repeatedly demanded Socialized medicine in its most progressive possible form within mainstream public opinion and he has ruthlessly attacked Obama's acquiescence to the right wing.

But no! He is a racist because he calls reactionary muslims for what they are.

NGNM85

25th June 2010, 05:17

I think the close mindedness of the "vanguard" of Revleft has nurtured a habitual sense of entitlement to say whatever string of adjectives that they can spew at the fastest rate.

I second that.

Apparently, we're supposed to accept the thesis at face value because nobody's presented any evidence whatsoever that Bill Maher is a Zionist, (Or a racist, etc.) most likely because it isn't actually true. However, I don't want to to rain on anybody's parade. Let the kangaroo court continue.

Die Rote Fahne

25th June 2010, 05:57

No. He's a racist who does not want to learn, and wants to remain ignorant so he can maintain his smug sense of superiority. He's had Chomsky and others like him on his show and never really processes what they have to say at best, or at worst actively shouts them down or drowns them out.

It's your attitude that allows these types of people to exist. You have to believe he can have his mind changed. That he is ignorant due to lack of education, and not a personality issue that can't change.

Bill is reasonable, he went from a staunch Libertarian to an social and economic liberal (about par with the Canadian liberal party economically).

Yes, Bill can be smug, but he wouldn't be able to do that to Finkelstein or Chomsky.

I recently found a picture I drem when I was maybe 11/12. I was only a kid, but I was already anti-communist and anti-nazi. The picture showed it. I was a pro-american, liberal type. Then I was an America resenting liberal type. Then I became a social dem, then a democratic socialist, and now a communist. I changed due to experience and info.

Die Rote Fahne

25th June 2010, 06:00

I'd actually suggest that you email Chomsky about his views on Zionism - they're very interesting and if you ask him any specific questions you're unsure of, he should be very enlightening.

How would I go about that? I am somewhat familiar with his views, but I would like some clarity on certain things.

Barry Lyndon

25th June 2010, 06:11

But no! He is a racist because he calls reactionary muslims for what they are.

No. In that segment he attacked Muslims, period, as he does repeatedly on his show. He tarred them all with the same brush. He is a racist. And dont give me this 'Islam is not a race' crap, because while its technically true, the popular perception of Muslims is of dark-skinned foreigners, and Maher knows it.

#FF0000

25th June 2010, 06:13

I second that.

Apparently, we're supposed to accept the thesis at face value because nobody's presented any evidence whatsoever that Bill Maher is a Zionist, (Or a racist, etc.) most likely because it isn't actually true. However, I don't want to to rain on anybody's parade. Let the kangaroo court continue.

Uh claiming Israel has a right to exist and defend itself p. much makes someone a Zionist, doesn't it?

NGNM85

25th June 2010, 07:51

Uh claiming Israel has a right to exist and defend itself p. much makes someone a Zionist, doesn't it?

By definition; no, not in the slightest.

NGNM85

25th June 2010, 08:13

No. In that segment he attacked Muslims, period, as he does repeatedly on his show. He tarred them all with the same brush. He is a racist. And dont give me this 'Islam is not a race' crap, because while its technically true, the popular perception of Muslims is of dark-skinned foreigners, and Maher knows it.

I don't know what line you're specifically referring to, but 've been watching his show for years and you're either misconstruing or misunderstanding what he said. Jihadist groups, the Taliban, etc., do not represent the Muslim community, Bill Maher knows this, and if he were to discuss it seriously would be the first to admit that. However, they are ABSOLUTELY representative of Islam. Just as the Crusaders, and the abortion clinic bombers, are ABSOLUTELY representative of Christianity. This always comes up when I get into debates with religious people and they get all offended, but that doesn't make it any less true. What do the books actually say about women's rights, about homosexuals, or heretics? The primary texts of the Abrahamic faiths (As well as a number of other religions.) are brimming over with bigotry and very clear, very explicit exhortations to commit violence. I can assure you beyond a shadow of a doubt that the jihadists, the abortion clinic bombers, the torturers of the Spanish Inquisition, etc., all read their respective texts and could quote chapter and verse; that's where they got the idea in the first place.

You're perfectly right when you say Islam is not a race,this is about the only rational thing you said. Unfortunately, there is a lot of prejudice against Muslims in the US and elsewhere. (Which, again, is bigotry, but not racism.) However, that isn't what Bill Maher is doing or advocating,. As he, himself, likes to say; "I'm not pre-judging, I'm judging." Again, if you look at the core texts of all of the Abrahamic faiths you'll find an overwhelming amount of hateful, primitive bullshit. That is what he's focused on. Moreover, he devotes at least as much, if not more (I'm pretty sure it's more.) time skewering Christianity. These charges of racism and bigotry are baseless slander, nothing more.

#FF0000

25th June 2010, 08:31

By definition; no, not in the slightest.

What's this definition

25th June 2010, 08:36

FWIW, the term you guys are looking for is pro-Zionist. Not 'Zionist'. I thought about saying this in my first (and only other) post in this thread, but I thought it would seem pedantic since, at that point, the only other post in the thread was the OP.
That said, I can't be bothered to go looking for youtube clips of Bill Maher which demonstrate this, nor have I watched any of the clips in this thread, because I frankly don't give enough of a shit about Bill Maher to care.

NGNM85

25th June 2010, 09:05

What's this definition

Well, first we'd have to begin with the fact that words do in fact have meanings, and words matter. It seems there's a number of people who disagree.

Wikipedia is far from perfect, but it offers a pretty decent definition; "Zionism Hebrew (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Hebrew_language): ציונות‎, Tsiyonut) is a nationalist (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Nationalist)[1] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-0) Jewish political movement (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Jewish_political_movement) that, in its broadest sense, calls for the self-determination of the Jewish people and a sovereign, Jewish national homeland.[2] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-1) Since the establishment of the State of Israel (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/State_of_Israel), the Zionist movement continues primarily to support and advocate on behalf of the Jewish state (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Jewish_state)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

Ok, so now we're clear on what Zionism ACTUALLY means. This isn't remotely comperable to what Bill Maher was saying. Simply saying that Israel should not be destroyed, that Israelis have the right to defend themselves, is not Zionist. It's just sane and logical. In 1948 it was perfectly reasonable to be against the creation of Israel, and there was a substantial movement in the Jewish community that was opposed to it. However, it is now 2010. I would say Israel has as much right to exist as any other country at this point, although I'd add a few provisos. Even Hamas and Hezbollah have accepted that, to varying degrees. The bone of contention is primarily the continued criminal occupation of territories belonging to the Palestinians since 1967. (As well as human rights violations, the blockade, etc.) This is a global consensus, the UN, the Arab League, Hamas, etc., are all agreed on this point. The US and Israel are alone against a near-absolute global consensus. Now, I personally don't think we should have nation-states, period. However, Israel has as much right to exist (With the exception of the aforementioned territories.) as the US, or Canada, or Burkina Faso. It also has the right to defend itself, just like everyone else. However, at present, for the most part it's using claims of self defense to justify acts of aggression, as nations generally do. Even the third reich claimed it's intentions were benevolent.

Now, this is not Zionism, by any stretch. Zionism is the belief in the creation of an explicitly Jewish state, which is something else. (This idea is also wrapped up in Abrahamic mythology.) Obviously, one should be against such institutionalized bigotry. There shouldn't be a Jewish state any more than there should be a white state, or a Christian state, especially when a substantial segment of the population, in this case almost half, don't belong to the ruling group. I also think it'd be a good idea to do away with religion and nation-states while we're at it, but that's a much broader project, and a little off-topic.

Bill Maher is most definitely not a Zionist, he was simply saying Israel has the right to defend itself. I think he's a little misguided on the subject, but then again, he is in fact a comedian, and not actually an expert on international relations, although he may know more about the subject than most comedians. There are very few people I agree with completely, I happen to disagree with him on this issue, as well as his ideas on alternative medicine, and maybe a couple of other things. However, he's certainly not a Zionist, or a racist. Such words should not be thrown around so thoughtlessly.

#FF0000

25th June 2010, 09:16

Ok, so now we're clear on what Zionism ACTUALLY means.

I read that same wiki and from it I was able to figure that supporting or defending Israel = Zionism.

This isn't remotely comperable to what Bill Maher was saying. Simply saying that Israel should not be destroyed

But he defends Israel all the time. Back during the war with Lebanon he was whining about how "It's as if the jews aren't allowed to defend themselves" or some nonsense. He supports Israel. He's a zionist. I think that's pretty clear.

Now, this is not Zionism, by any stretch. Zionism is the belief in the creation of an explicitly Jewish state, which is something else. (This idea is also wrapped up in Abrahamic mythology.) Obviously, one should be against such institutionalized bigotry. There shouldn't be a Jewish state any more than there should be a white state, or a Christian state, especially when a substantial segment of the population, in this case almost half, don't belong to the ruling group. I also think it'd be a good idea to do away with religion and nation-states while we're at it, but that's a much broader project, and a little off-topic.

But that's just what Israel is, and that's what Maher defends.

... or a racist. Such words should not be thrown around so thoughtlessly.

Generally when I hear someone say "Our culture is better than theirs", it raises some red flags.

EDIT: 9's probably right. We're probably looking for the word "pro-zionist". w/e

Dean

25th June 2010, 14:30

Generic insults without any substantiation. It's especially funny that you mention his pro-Israli-white nationalism without understanding anything that he's ever said, ever, on race. He's consistently Zionist to a bad point, but he's consistently anti-racist in many ways.
"He supports an ethno-nationalist regime responsible for ethnic cleansing but he's anti- racist!"

Sure, buddy.

He criticizes Muslims on a generic basis that he also criticizes Christians and other religions on. This is seen as "not compassionate" when that isn't a fucking argument. It's also stupid to call him a journalist, given that nobody would ever say that about him including himself.His job amounts to an editorial position, and its basically worthless. C'mon - "we were fighting evil"? What trite trash. Show me an excerpt in which he makes an intelligent, explicit argument, and maybe I'll rethink it. But I watched his show for 2 years and came out rather unimpressed.

He's also consistently pro working man, and not in the white way. He's merely pissed off that people are fat, lazy, cling to stereotypes, and buy what they are sold without thinking about it. Guess what? He's right to be pissed off.
Yeah, pro-working-class via blaming the victim. Nice.

Yeah what a stupid response. AlJazeera is in the pocket of the Saudis and mentioning news services against one social commentator who hosts one commentating TV show is a ridiculous comparison.
Actually, if anything, they're in the pocket of the Qataris. Saudi Arabia has taken serious issue with the channel since they tend to report on issues that may not portray S. Arabia in a positive light.

You are probably the worst poster on this forum. Your sophistry is cancer.
Yeah, and the vile, contemptuous shit that Maher spews is somehow beneficial. He is a hack who literally never researches the shit he discusses. Chritopher Hitchens was about the only person educated on the V. War in the above clips.

You should call up his producer and see if there's a position wiping his ass, since you seem to be so impressed by the feces he gives to HBO as a "social commentary show" (I've gotten more impressive social commentary out of Disney movies).

Dean

25th June 2010, 14:32

How would I go about that? I am somewhat familiar with his views, but I would like some clarity on certain things.

[email protected]

Email him, he'll respond.

Dean

25th June 2010, 15:39

Actually, I'm also singling this gem out because I'd really like you to explore it.

You are probably the worst poster on this forum. Your sophistry is cancer.

Can you give explicit examples of how my posts are the "worst" on the forum? I'm interested.

After 5PM EST, I am going to play poker and reinstall windows, so I won't be back until tomorrow morning at the earliest. This should give you plenty of time to dissect some of my worst posts and explain in no uncertain terms how they're the "worst" (or even worse than Maher's liberal hucksterism).

Barry Lyndon

25th June 2010, 16:05

I don't know what line you're specifically referring to, but 've been watching his show for years and you're either misconstruing or misunderstanding what he said. Jihadist groups, the Taliban, etc., do not represent the Muslim community, Bill Maher knows this, and if he were to discuss it seriously would be the first to admit that. However, they are ABSOLUTELY representative of Islam. Just as the Crusaders, and the abortion clinic bombers, are ABSOLUTELY representative of Christianity. This always comes up when I get into debates with religious people and they get all offended, but that doesn't make it any less true. What do the books actually say about women's rights, about homosexuals, or heretics? The primary texts of the Abrahamic faiths (As well as a number of other religions.) are brimming over with bigotry and very clear, very explicit exhortations to commit violence. I can assure you beyond a shadow of a doubt that the jihadists, the abortion clinic bombers, the torturers of the Spanish Inquisition, etc., all read their respective texts and could quote chapter and verse; that's where they got the idea in the first place.

You're perfectly right when you say Islam is not a race,this is about the only rational thing you said. Unfortunately, there is a lot of prejudice against Muslims in the US and elsewhere. (Which, again, is bigotry, but not racism.) However, that isn't what Bill Maher is doing or advocating,. As he, himself, likes to say; "I'm not pre-judging, I'm judging." Again, if you look at the core texts of all of the Abrahamic faiths you'll find an overwhelming amount of hateful, primitive bullshit. That is what he's focused on. Moreover, he devotes at least as much, if not more (I'm pretty sure it's more.) time skewering Christianity. These charges of racism and bigotry are baseless slander, nothing more.

The difference is that the US government is, as we speak, violently occupying two Muslim countries(Iraq and Afghanistan), has bombed at least two other Muslim countries(Yemen and Pakistan), and is actively backing the occupation of another Muslim country(Palestine). Islamophobia is a prejudice actively propagated by the ruling class in the US, in order to make the mass murder, occupation, humiliation, and torture of millions of Muslims acceptable by painting Muslims collectively as backward, primitive, violent, stupid, and dangerous. Maher plays right along with that. I don't think you notice this, but during his show he repeatedly says "the Muslims", clearly he's not just referring to extremists.
I'm sorry it is just not the same thing as attacking Christian religious kooks. They are not being bombed or persecuted, they are in fact a serious political threat within this country. So the political character of lampooning them is very different.
As a Marxist, I always distinguish between the religion of the oppressed and the religion of the oppressor.

Robocommie

25th June 2010, 17:29

[email protected]

Email him, he'll respond.

Consistently, really?

Can you give explicit examples of how my posts are the "worst" on the forum? I'm interested.

Every time you post, flowers wilt and kittens die. :lol:

Skooma Addict

25th June 2010, 18:16

He's also consistently pro working man, and not in the white way. He's merely pissed off that people are fat, lazy, cling to stereotypes, and buy what they are sold without thinking about it. Guess what? He's right to be pissed off.I am not sure why anyone would get pissed off just because some people are fat and/or lazy. It really is only the fat/lazy persons business. I don't think Maher clings to stereotypes any less than your average person, so he really has no right to be pissed of on that point either. Everyone thinks that they and the people they agree with think through issues carefully, while the rest of the population just accepts things without thinking about them. But most people have brains and think about issues for themselves, and they aren't drones who just eat whatever is given to them. So he has no right to be so pissed off or arrogant really.

By the way, what does it mean to be pro working man in the "white" way?

Conquer or Die

25th June 2010, 18:29

Actually, I'm also singling this gem out because I'd really like you to explore it.

Can you give explicit examples of how my posts are the "worst" on the forum? I'm interested.

After 5PM EST, I am going to play poker and reinstall windows, so I won't be back until tomorrow morning at the earliest. This should give you plenty of time to dissect some of my worst posts and explain in no uncertain terms how they're the "worst" (or even worse than Maher's liberal hucksterism).

This thread is a good example. The thread where you don't understand the American Civil War is another. Point is that I haven't seen you produce anything of any actual value. You also have this obnoxious moral imperative, like in this thread, where you whine and whistle about everything that comes into your path. It'd be different if you could make cogent points and suggest real solutions, but instead you just try to approximate the best generalization of something that you believe you understand about "progressive" politics and spew that forward in the hope that you'll get applause in a safe environment.

Dean

25th June 2010, 18:38

This thread is a good example. The thread where you don't understand the American Civil War is another.
Some of the points I made in that thread were dubious. However, the underlying moralist nonsense which the opposition was spouting - about how it was a moral war, rather than an economic one - simply don't hold up. Which brings me to the next point:

Point is that I haven't seen you produce anything of any actual value. You also have this obnoxious moral imperative, like in this thread, where you whine and whistle about everything that comes into your path.
Wait, so I talk about real economic fact which flies in the faces of Maher's moralism and the established events of things like the civil war, Germany before WWII (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1779086&postcount=5), the economic recession (http://www.revleft.com/vb/2010-economic-downturn-t136202/index.html), and the media (http://www.revleft.com/vb/weeks-fun-fact-t136328/index.html you'll really like this one since I discuss the material interests of AJE) - and you think that Maher's shallow anti-republican, pro-racist hyperbole is "valuable"?

It'd be different if you could make cogent points and suggest real solutions, but instead you just try to approximate the best generalization of something that you believe you understand about "progressive" politics and spew that forward in the hope that you'll get applause in a safe environment.
Read the links, and tell me what about my points are not cogent, and where my proposed solutions "don't exist." I don't post any solutions here because we're discussing a media personality. What innovative idea can I bring forward about Maher besides, "don't take him seriously"?

Dean

25th June 2010, 18:54

Consistently, really?
Seriously. He's pretty cool, you wont be bothering him.

Robocommie

25th June 2010, 18:57

Seriously. He's pretty cool, you wont be bothering him.

That's awesome. I wonder how many other big name academics are like that. Edward Said is dead so I can't e-mail him. :(

Bud Struggle

25th June 2010, 20:48

You are probably the worst poster on this forum. Your sophistry is cancer.

CoD, I can understand--you disagree, that's fair. But no need to be rude.

This thread is about Bill Maher not about trying to be like Bill Maher.

mikelepore

25th June 2010, 21:31

Dean

25th June 2010, 22:02

I asked what he said that was racist. Racism is opposition to some people because of some genetic biological characteristic that is visible at the surface of the human body, such as skin color, hair color, or eye color. Has Maher ever done this? Denouncing people because of their interpretations of religious scripture, or because of their membership in religious associations, isn't racism, because such interpretations and memberships are not biological characteristics. An affiliation that you can choose to join or to quit isn't a race.

In a strict sense, you're right.

However, he supports a white nationalist regime in the former Palestinian mandate. Typically, those who support ethnic cleansing are considered racists.

His opposition to Muslims is xenophobia, which is mostly analogous to racism, though not explicitly a race issue. Maher may not be a racist in the most explicit sense, but he supports racist policies and xenophobia - the former of which is certainly much worse than simple abstract racism.

mikelepore

25th June 2010, 23:24

Bill Maher's comments about Muslims are explained by the way he ridicules and denounces anything that has to do with religion. If someone believes in the Book of Genesis he says something like, "How you be so stupid as to believe a story about a talking snake?" He speaks of any people who believes that there could be a "Son of God" as being completely out of their minds. That's his way of talking about any religious idea. He does the same thing when talking about Muslims, to the limited extent that he knows very few facts about them that he is able to mention. Actually I'm surprised that he doesn't criticize Muslims worse than he does. If he knew that they believe that an angel dictated an entire book to the prophet, he would probably write a whole comedy routine about that.

When he says "our system is better", the comment seems suspicious until he goes on to explain what he means by it. In country A, a lot of people claim to believe in a word-for-word interpretation of a holy book, but then when that book tells them to stone someone to death, they ignore that part, never explaining the inconsistency of why they didn't do it and yet they go on saying that their belief in the book is word-for-word. In country B, when a holy book tells them to stone somebody there are some people who actually want to do it. Compared to situation B, he says that situation A is "a better system" or "a superior system." His choice of words wouldn't be my choice of words.

When he speaks disproportionately of some groups, making it sound as though all Christians hope only for the imminent end of the world so they can float up in the sky to heaven, or as though all Muslims are fanatics, he is trying to be a certain kind of comedian. There is a genre of comic entertainment in the U.S. that is based on trying to say offensive things about anybody. His audience buys tickets to hear him do that.

When he was on that show entitled "Politically Incorrect" on the ABC television network (the video posted above with Whoopi Goldberg), he wasn't working for the ABC News Division, he was working for ABC Entertainment Division, so anything that he said isn't presumed to be accurate. The only criterion was that the audience would laugh. Moreso for his newer program "Real Time" on HBO, a network that doesn't hire any news analysts or journalists at all.

Bud Struggle

25th June 2010, 23:35

You people are WAY over thinking this guy.

This is what the guy does to make a million dollers or so a year.

Bill Maher, comedian and actor, was born on January 20, 1956 in New York City and has a net worth of $13 million. He began his career as a stand up comedian in the late 70s, and began to appear on the Johnny Carson and David Letterman show in 1982. Maher then hosted the show Politically Incorrect, which aired on Comedy Central and later ABC, but was cancelled in 2002 after a controversial remark in relation to September 11th in 2001.

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/richest-comedians/bill-maher-net-worth/

NGNM85

26th June 2010, 01:18

I read that same wiki and from it I was able to figure that supporting or defending Israel = Zionism.

No, it isn't. Zionism necessitates endorsing the establishment of a Jewish state. Bill Maher is opposed to all religion, so he can't, and doesn't endorse a Jewish state. This is not the same as saying Israel has the right to exist as a country, or has the right to defend itself.

But he defends Israel all the time. Back during the war with Lebanon he was whining about how "It's as if the jews aren't allowed to defend themselves" or some nonsense. He supports Israel. He's a zionist. I think that's pretty clear.

Again, supporting Israel's right to defend itself, in general, is not Zionist, in-itself. He apparently has bought into the slanted perspective of the conflict propogated by the US media. That's too bad. I happen to disagree with him on this particular issue. However, it doesn't make him a Zionist, and I still enjoy his show.

But that's just what Israel is, and that's what Maher defends.

He's defending some the Israeli governments' actions, not the idea of a Jewish state, which he's obviously against.

Generally when I hear someone say "Our culture is better than theirs", it raises some red flags.

If you completely remove the context and hear absolutely nothing else, than, yes. I mean, this is almost like finding the words "I", "Hate", and "Jews" in a book and then saying so-and-so says "I... hate... Jews.." Context is sort of important. What he was saying, that compared to theocratic police states where people are beheaded, where women are chattel, Western civilization is better. It may not be the nicest way to say it, it might not be 'politically correct', but it also has the virtue of being true.

EDIT: 9's probably right. We're probably looking for the word "pro-zionist". w/e

That's only slightly less inaccurate. You should ditch the word altogether, because it doesn't apply in this case.

NGNM85

26th June 2010, 01:49

The difference is that the US government is, as we speak, violently occupying two Muslim countries(Iraq and Afghanistan), has bombed at least two other Muslim countries(Yemen and Pakistan), and is actively backing the occupation of another Muslim country(Palestine).

But not because they're Muslims.

Islamophobia is a prejudice actively propagated by the ruling class in the US,

That's an oversimplification, and a little paranoid.

in order to make the mass murder, occupation, humiliation, and torture of millions of Muslims acceptable by painting Muslims collectively as backward, primitive, violent, stupid, and dangerous.

Muslims are not all backward, primitive, violent, stupid, and dangerous. (Let's face it, some are.) However Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, is
backward, primitive, violent, stupid, and dangerous.

Maher plays right along with that.

No, he doesn't.

I don't think you notice this, but during his show he repeatedly says "the Muslims", clearly he's not just referring to extremists.

You're hearing what you want to hear. If you watch on any consistent basis, if you actually listen, he isn't at all prejudiced against Muslims, in general, he's talking about Islam. As I said, there's a difference. Furthermore, denying that there is a problem within the Muslim community, particularly in the Middle East, is just ignoring reality. Look at how women are treated, or homosexuals, honor killings, terrorist martyrs, etc. There IS a very serious problem. According to the rules of 'political correctness' you can't criticize religion, you also aren't allowed to say that some religions are worse than others. Bill Maher does not follow these rules, nor do I, nor should any sensible person. If you can't differentiate between Bill Maher talking about Muslims, or Islam, and when Rush Limbaugh, or Ann Coulter talk about it, you're not really listening, or you're not understanding.

I'm sorry it is just not the same thing as attacking Christian religious kooks.

That would be meaningful if that's all he did. However, most of Maher's attacks are against Christianity, itself. Which is taboo in this country. Maher, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris are at the barricades of this front of the culture war.

They are not being bombed or persecuted, they are in fact a serious political threat within this country. So the political character of lampooning them is very different.
As a Marxist, I always distinguish between the religion of the oppressed and the religion of the oppressor.

It shouldn't be different if one is criticizing those elements which deserve criticism. Also, if, as I was saying, what one is critisizing is the faith itself, there shouldn't be any difference at all. This reminds me of how anyone who criticizes the Israeli governments' policies gets slandered as an anti-semite.

In much of the Middle East, Islam is the religion of the oppressor. Moreover, virtually all religion, especially the Abrahamic faiths are inherently authoritarian, as well as a number of other unpleasant things.

#FF0000

26th June 2010, 01:52

words

Israel is a jewish state. He is defending Israel and he is supportive of Israel. He explicitly said "It is as if jews aren't allowed to defend themselves". Whether he hates religion or not the guy is defending a religious state's right to exist.

Being pedantic isn't the same as being logical, bro.

NGNM85

26th June 2010, 02:28

Israel is a jewish state. He is defending Israel and he is supportive of Israel. He explicitly said "It is as if jews aren't allowed to defend themselves". Whether he hates religion or not the guy is defending a religious state's right to exist.

Saying that Israel has the right to exist is not the same as saying that Israel should be a Jewish state. I would say, and I don't think any sane logical person could say otherwise, that Israel has as much right to exist as any other country. (As long as we're going to continue having nations which we'd be better off without.) However, I do not support this proposition that Israel should continue to be a Jewish state, especially as it is disregarding and disenfranchising nearly half of the population. Bill Maher defends Israel, and he's got a blind spot on this issue, however, that does not make him a Zionist, any more than I am a Zionist, which is to say, not at all.

Being pedantic isn't the same as being logical, bro.

No, I'm not being nitpicky here. Look, again, we're going to have to start from the issue of whether or not words actually have meanings at all, and if that matters. If you accept both those propositions then it's being horribly misused. This isn't interchangeable, we're not talking about two things that are essentially the same. To call Bill Maher a Zionist is factually incorrect, it is not true. I don't know how else to explain it.

#FF0000

26th June 2010, 02:47

Klaatu

26th June 2010, 03:14

Maher is anti-religion

Beck is anti-progressive

The KKK is anti-black

The Muslims are anti-Jew

Conservatives are anti-communist

Give me a break; can't we all just get along and not impose our ideas upon others?

"Nobody's right, if everybody's wrong..."

“For What It's Worth”
Buffalo Springfield

NGNM85

26th June 2010, 03:56

Has he ever said Israel should not be a Jewish state? Has he ever said "Israel should exist but not as a Jewish state"? Has he ever made the distinction? Because if not, then you're just sort of assuming.

That's exactly what you're doing. It's important to remember the burden of proof rests on the prosecution. Even a very casual survey of Maher's political statements should reveal he is not a Zionist, and cannot be. "Religilous" alone makes his perspective on religion totally clear.

#FF0000

26th June 2010, 03:59

Then he's either ignorant or inconsistent. Israel is officially a Jewish state, and he defends it. Whether or not he's aware of it, defending Israel is a pro-Zionist position.

And to be honest, I think he is aware, because he explicitly referred to Israelis as Jews in the past.

NGNM85

26th June 2010, 04:06

Then he's either ignorant or inconsistent. Israel is officially a Jewish state, and he defends it. Whether or not he's aware of it, defending Israel is a pro-Zionist position.

No, it isn't. Again, I totally believe Israel has the right to defend itself from harm, from genuine danger. However, I'm completely against the policy of Israel being a 'Jewish state.' There is no internal contradiction between these two ideas, as much as you might wish it to be so.

And to be honest, I think he is aware, because he explicitly referred to Israelis as Jews in the past.

I think it's infinitely more likely he was just being a little careless with terminology. And no, this is not the same as what you and others on this thread have been doing, foremost because you are accusing someone, , and that obligates you to uphold a higher standard. Again, you're hearing what you want to hear.

Mahatma Gandhi

26th June 2010, 04:35

Bill Maher's comments about Muslims are explained by the way he ridicules and denounces anything that has to do with religion.

Under the pretext of ridiculing religion, people can always attack the members of that religion with various stereotypes. That's racism, although in new clothes.

mikelepore

26th June 2010, 18:26

The words and actions of people are the most perfect thing to form a stereotype about, because it doesn't attack them as human beings. There is no claim there that people are born inferior. It's just an attitude that people must be unreasonable if they believe in a heaven or holy water or a voice heard in a burning bush or something.

Religious people, by their own actions, create many of the stereotypes that others have of them. Did you ever hear George Carlin's comedy routine about the rules for wearing hats in a house of worship? (He says, "Catholics: women - hats, men - no hats, Jews: women - no hats, men - hats.") The best thing to ridicule about people is their learned habits and behaviors, because, for once, no one is saying anything uncompassionate about the inherent human beings. Note that bigotry against women, blacks, gays, Asians, Latinos, is directed at intrinsic human traits. Please, hate me because of my religion, because at least that's something that I chose to say and do, and I could also quit it at any time.

People can also say something to counteract the stereotypes that others have of them. For example, southern Americans who feel that that the hillbilly redneck stereotype is unfair have often said so. So, where are all the Muslims who are coming out to say that everyone has the right to draw cartoons of Muhammed if they choose to? I hope we will be hearing from them soon.

I also don't accept the conclusions throughout this thread that, just because Maher he made a quick comment about a particular news report about a particular event, and the response that came out of his mouth was "... as if the Jews don't have the right to defend themselves...." --- that this is equivalent to announcing that he holds a thought-out conclusion that there should be an expulsion or oppression of the Palestinians, or an exclusive political state. Maher isn't smart enough for us to deduce his actual beliefs from one of his comments. He glances at news wire feeds and makes somewhat random comments that he assumes no one will remember a minute later. His comments are based more on his search for a witty simile or onomatopoeia than a search for reasonable social policy.

Barry Lyndon

26th June 2010, 18:54

But not because they're Muslims.

That's an oversimplification, and a little paranoid.

Muslims are not all backward, primitive, violent, stupid, and dangerous. (Let's face it, some are.) However Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, is
backward, primitive, violent, stupid, and dangerous.

No, he doesn't.

You're hearing what you want to hear. If you watch on any consistent basis, if you actually listen, he isn't at all prejudiced against Muslims, in general, he's talking about Islam. As I said, there's a difference. Furthermore, denying that there is a problem within the Muslim community, particularly in the Middle East, is just ignoring reality. Look at how women are treated, or homosexuals, honor killings, terrorist martyrs, etc. There IS a very serious problem. According to the rules of 'political correctness' you can't criticize religion, you also aren't allowed to say that some religions are worse than others. Bill Maher does not follow these rules, nor do I, nor should any sensible person. If you can't differentiate between Bill Maher talking about Muslims, or Islam, and when Rush Limbaugh, or Ann Coulter talk about it, you're not really listening, or you're not understanding.

That would be meaningful if that's all he did. However, most of Maher's attacks are against Christianity, itself. Which is taboo in this country. Maher, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris are at the barricades of this front of the culture war.

It shouldn't be different if one is criticizing those elements which deserve criticism. Also, if, as I was saying, what one is critisizing is the faith itself, there shouldn't be any difference at all. This reminds me of how anyone who criticizes the Israeli governments' policies gets slandered as an anti-semite.

In much of the Middle East, Islam is the religion of the oppressor. Moreover, virtually all religion, especially the Abrahamic faiths are inherently authoritarian, as well as a number of other unpleasant things.

Yeah, I'm paranoid. Iv'e been taken aside, interrogated, and searched in an airport because I have an Arab middle name, I'm sure that's just paranoid. God, your whiteness shines through the fucking screen. I guess blacks and Hispanics are also just whiney and paranoid and should get with the program in our wonderful color-blind society.

And yes, I totally agree that many things about Islam are very repressive. That is one of many reasons why I am secular. But Maher(and many other people) is totally ignorant of the fact that US imperialism in the Middle East and other parts of the Muslim world have strengthened the most reactionary and backwards Islamic fundamentalists. Only a few decades ago the Middle East and Indonesia(the largest Muslim nation in the world), was politically dominated by secular nationalists, socialists, and Communists. But in the context of the Cold War, US imperialism conspired to wipe these political forces out, and largely succeeded. Into the vacuum stepped the Islamic fundamentalists.

Maher is so ignorant and ahistorical he assumes that 'religion' and religious extremism just exists in this vacuum and creates the regions current problems on their own, devoid of any economic, political, social, or historical context. And that the Muslims are just these underdeveloped primitives who are responsible for their own backwardness, rather then the fact that this backwardness was largely created by imperialism.

Yeah, Sam Harris, what a great secularist. A man who in his book advocates a nuclear first strike on the Arab world and elsewhere has argued for an alliance between Christian evangelicals and atheists against Muslims. Glad to see that's where you take your cues from.

Mahatma Gandhi

26th June 2010, 18:57

Please, hate me because of my religion, because at least that's something that I chose to say and do, and I could also quit it at any time.

Even if a Muslim were to quit and become a hardcore atheist, he'd still be judged unfairly by other people because of his origin. Even if he claims to be an atheist, people will continue to point to his Muslim origin and connect everything he does with that origin.

For instance, let's say an atheist-commie Muslim takes a pro-Palestinian position; he may have done so because of his humanism or leftist leanings, yet people will assume without evidence he's doing it only because he's a fanatical Muslim. Meaning, people don't judge you by your beliefs but by your origin. That is unfair.

People can also say something to counteract the stereotypes that others have of them.

Hmm, the victim of stereotyping must prove that he isn't all that bad, eh?

mikelepore

26th June 2010, 22:24

Yes, some people would judge others unfairly because of their origins, but this topic is about one particular person.

Conquer or Die

27th June 2010, 00:18

Mike Lepore has dominated this thread.

mikelepore

27th June 2010, 03:02

Hmm, the victim of stereotyping must prove that he isn't all that bad, eh?

Of course they must. Why do you think socialists are so careful to distance themselves from leaders like Stalin? Because he called himself a socialist. To say nothing about it would allow a stereotype to propagate.

In Christianity, pick a historic event, say when Bruno was burned at the stake for the crime of being interested in astronomy, it would have been good if Christians in the other countries could have spoken out to say that it wasn't a representative Christian act.

Islam has a practice similar to that of Christianity to preach for the purpose of making converts, which they call Dawah. They can only do that if they answer the stereotypes.

Mike Lepore has dominated this thread.

You should be so lucky. Very occasionally I grace you with my sublime wisdom.

Dean

27th June 2010, 14:35

Mike Lepore has dominated this thread.
That's good to know, since he insulted your precious little idol:

Maher isn't smart enough for us to deduce his actual beliefs from one of his comments. He glances at news wire feeds and makes somewhat random comments that he assumes no one will remember a minute later. His comments are based more on his search for a witty simile or onomatopoeia than a search for reasonable social policy.

So, does he "challenge people" with "random comments" that have "rings of truth" to them, CoD?

The bottom line is that he makes explicitly political statements and invites distinctly political discussion on his show. You'd have to be a damn fool to defend him based on being a "TV personality" that "isn't very political," especially considering the overtly political and distinctly partisan politics he spouts.

What are you two even defending here? You've basically said that his racism and hawkish stances "aren't important" because we can't take him as a serious political personality. That doesn't even hold up, but even if it did, it doesn't excuse him from criticism. Larry the Cable guy is incredibly condescending and exploitative to his rural audience, but his childish act doesn't make him any less offensive.

Bud Struggle

27th June 2010, 14:56

Maher is a classic example of why Liberals are no friend of the Radical Left.

Conquer or Die

28th June 2010, 03:20

That's good to know, since he insulted your precious little idol:

So, does he "challenge people" with "random comments" that have "rings of truth" to them, CoD?

He's not my "precious little idol," and if he was then I'd be missing the point.

The bottom line is that he makes explicitly political statements and invites distinctly political discussion on his show. You'd have to be a damn fool to defend him based on being a "TV personality" that "isn't very political," especially considering the overtly political and distinctly partisan politics he spouts.

He does make political points. He isn't a journalist nor he is part of the "cadre."

He's like a family member during Thanksgiving who talks politics and the world except he's more entertaining and a bit more intelligent. The fact that he's more independent than mainstream media and he has a communicative style that is fundamentally opposed to the traditional norms of Political television makes him a much better option than say, Wolf Blitzer at CNN.

We should be so lucky that there is at least one Bill Maher to the three dozen conservative radio jocks out there.

What are you two even defending here? You've basically said that his racism and hawkish stances "aren't important" because we can't take him as a serious political personality. That doesn't even hold up, but even if it did, it doesn't excuse him from criticism. Larry the Cable guy is incredibly condescending and exploitative to his rural audience, but his childish act doesn't make him any less offensive.

You're boring.

NGNM85

28th June 2010, 04:13

Yeah, I'm paranoid. Iv'e been taken aside, interrogated, and searched in an airport because I have an Arab middle name, I'm sure that's just paranoid.

No, what's paranoid is this simplistic analysis, which, incidentally, is fairly simlar to what one hears from conspiracy buffs. Unfortunately, the world isn't that simple. It isn't like an episode of SuperFriends where the Legion of Doom sit around a big table and hatch their evil plans. I also think you're confusing cause and effect.

God, your whiteness shines through the fucking screen. I guess blacks and Hispanics are also just whiney and paranoid and should get with the program in our wonderful color-blind society.

I never said, or implied, anything of the sort. However, as an aside, in general, I would maintain that class trumps race in the US, today. Unfortunately, there's a lot of fuzziness and confusion because minorities tend to be overwhelmingly represented among the poor and working class.

And yes, I totally agree that many things about Islam are very repressive.

One thing we can actually agree on.

That is one of many reasons why I am secular.

Like the fact that religion is fundamentally illogical, and destructive to rational thought.

But Maher(and many other people) is totally ignorant of the fact that US imperialism in the Middle East and other parts of the Muslim world have strengthened the most reactionary and backwards Islamic fundamentalists. Only a few decades ago the Middle East and Indonesia(the largest Muslim nation in the world), was politically dominated by secular nationalists, socialists, and Communists. But in the context of the Cold War, US imperialism conspired to wipe these political forces out, and largely succeeded. Into the vacuum stepped the Islamic fundamentalists.

Maher is so ignorant and ahistorical he assumes that 'religion' and religious extremism just exists in this vacuum and creates the regions current problems on their own, devoid of any economic, political, social, or historical context. And that the Muslims are just these underdeveloped primitives who are responsible for their own backwardness, rather then the fact that this backwardness was largely created by imperialism.

The West cetainly bears responsibility for creating or perpetuating the conditions where these ideas could thrive. However, you can't let the perpetrators off the hook. Nor can you overlook the source; the Koran.
The only reason there's less of these sorts of behaviors in the west is we've got a long history of a secular culture which has beaten back religious insanity. It's important to recognize this madness comes straight out of the books, themselves. What people need to understand is that, like capitalism, it isn't that we have a problem within religion, religion is the problem.

Yeah, Sam Harris, what a great secularist. A man who in his book advocates a nuclear first strike on the Arab world

False. Chris Hedges has really gone off on this, and he's mostly a great journalist, but he's totally misconstruing what Harris said. Sam Harris was simply postulating about the dangers posed by a theocratic regime, or Jihadist group acquiring nuclear weapons and the possible/probable response by the United States. He goes on to say actually doing so would be "an unconscionable act" an "unthinkable crime", and that it would probably galvanize the whole region leading to a massive counterattack (What the CIA call 'blowback.") that would very likely result in armageddon. The point he was making was that in the age of nuclear weapons we cannot afford to tolerate this ancient dogma, which is nothing short of the antithesis of civilization.

and elsewhere has argued for an alliance between Christian evangelicals and atheists against Muslims.

I don't know what passage you're specifically referring to, but especially in the light of the previous statement, and what I know of his work, I'm fairly skeptical. This doesn't sound like a remotely fair or accurate characterization.

Glad to see that's where you take your cues from.

I don't take my cues from anybody. I listen to people who I judge to have something valuable to say, it doesn't mean I agree with them about everything. Nobody bats 1000.

Also, just to tie things up with a bow and attempt to get back to the central thesis; no credible evidence has been presented to support the initial charge that Bill Maher is a "zionist." Probably because it isn't true. Nor has there been any evidence that he's a racist, but that hasn't stopped anybody from saying so. I personally don't care if other people like him or not, but if people are going to make accusations like this it'd be nice if they actually had some substance. You don't just get to call somebody whatever you like simply because you dislike them.

28th June 2010, 04:59

^If you can't see that Bill Maher is a pro-Zionist from mykittyhasaboner's post on the first page of this thread, you are obviously not interested in reality.

I have about 102394234 issues with the rest of your post, too, but I'm too exhausted.

NGNM85

28th June 2010, 06:07

^If you can't see that Bill Maher is a pro-Zionist from mykittyhasaboner's post on the first page of this thread, you are obviously not interested in reality.

Well, I have to give some credit for actually presenting some semblance of evidence as opposed to none at all. That's definitely an improvement.

I sort of take issue with the phrasing, why do we need to create new terms? How is someone pro-zionist, yet not a zionist? I think it's sort of a dubious classification.

Also, I read the blog several times and while he's definitely biased in favor of the Israelis, and he's wrong, incidentally, this piece is hardly a smoking gun. Suggestive, but not conclusive. I suppose it depends how strictly one defines 'zionism.' If you apply it very liberally, it's a better fit, but still leaves a bit to be desired. To put it bluntly, I would say his views on religion, on which we don't even have to speculate, would make it impossible for him to be a zionist.

I have about 102394234 issues with the rest of your post, too, but I'm too exhausted.

This is a non-statement.

mikelepore

28th June 2010, 07:32

What people here are mistaking for Zionism is the way Maher, in his ignorance, thinks of Israel-Palestine clashes in the same cartoonish the way that conservatives describe the violence at the 1968 Democratic Party National Convention in Chicago -- one day some nice police officers who represent a democratic society [what he thinks Israel is] were only trying to do their jobs and keep order, and along came some impetuous demonstrators [Palestinians] who threw rocks at the police officers, so naturally the nice police officers had to defend themselves and beat up all of the demonstrators -- Praise the nice policemen for showing "restraint." His travesty of the events need to be criticized, but for his actual errors. "Zionism" and "racism" are inaccurate summaries of his errors. If you write him letters you might correct his misconceptions and cause him to reverse his views, but only if you leave out the false accusations.

28th June 2010, 08:32

Well, I have to give some credit for actually presenting some semblance of evidence as opposed to none at all. That's definitely an improvement.

I sort of take issue with the phrasing, why do we need to create new terms? How is someone pro-zionist, yet not a zionist? I think it's sort of a dubious classification.

Also, I read the blog several times and while he's definitely biased in favor of the Israelis, and he's wrong, incidentally, this piece is hardly a smoking gun. Suggestive, but not conclusive. I suppose it depends how strictly one defines 'zionism.' If you apply it very liberally, it's a better fit, but still leaves a bit to be desired. To put it bluntly, I would say his views on religion, on which we don't even have to speculate, would make it impossible for him to be a zionist.

On the "pro-Zionist" versus "Zionist" label, it is really a semantic distinction, but I use it primarily to avoid semantic debates, which are pointless and tend to distract from the subject at hand. The point is, he supports Zionism. I don't actually think it is necessarily incorrect to refer to him as a Zionist, but someone could object along the lines of "well, is he actually going to go settle in Palestine/Israel? Is he really informed and ideologically committed to Zionism? If none of the above, then he is not a Zionist". So Zionist, pro-Zionist - call him what you want, the point is that he supports Zionism, he supports and defends not only the premise of a Jewish state, but he supports and defends the state itself. So.

Zionism, simplified to its most basic form, is:
a) the belief in the concept of "The Jewish People™" - that is, that Jews living throughout the world constitute a separate Nation and/or People, apart from the nations and peoples among which they live (see "the Diaspora™"); and
b) the belief that "The Jewish People" is therefore entitled to its own state.
Obviously, since the 'Jewish state' has now existed and been recognized as such for over 60 years, the most basic form that modern Zionism or pro-Zionism takes is in defending the existence and "right to self-defense" of the state of Israel. That is certainly sufficient for one to be considered at least a "pro-Zionist". The Maher blog entry posted by mykittyhasaboner is certainly conclusive, and I have no idea how you can honestly dispute that. The fact that Maher is ignorant about the actual details of the situation, and mikelepore's protestation that Maher would cease to support Zionism if he was actually informed about the matter (maybe he is right, but I seriously doubt it), does absolutely nothing to change the fact that he supports it now, and that he has in the past used his platform to express his support for the state of Israel. I do, however, agree with lepore and others that the accusation of "racism" is probably unnecessary here - whether or not one suspects that he is a racist, it is certainly possible for Jews outside of Israel to support Zionism out of ignorance without necessarily being racists, just as it is possible for Americans to support American imperialism and military occupations in the Middle East etc. out of ignorance without necessarily being racists, and throwing the word around so loosely probably detracts from the gravity of the accusation.

Anyway. Your argument that Zionism/pro-Zionism contradicts Maher's antitheism is also an invalid point. Some of Zionism's most passionate proponents are secularists and atheists. Typically the term 'Jew' - as it is commonly used - designates a social construct resembling an ethnicity or nationality ("The Jewish People") more than an adherent to a particular religion. According to Orthodox Judaism - and to the Law of Return used by Israel - someone is a Jew if their mother is a Jew, or if their maternal grandmother was 'born Jewish' (i.e. to a Jewish mother), even if they weren't raised Jewish, even if they practice Christianity or Buddhism or whatev, and certainly even if they are an atheist. In fact the Law of Return is very similar to the Nuremberg Laws, which I think we can all agree established what was essentially a racial criteria. And actually, the latter is often used as a justification for the former - e.g. "Anyone who would have been persecuted due to Jewish background in Nazi Germany, will be afforded sanctuary as a Jew in Israel". Zionism sees Jews first and foremost as "a People" or "a nation" - quasi-racial concepts - rather than specifically as religious adherents to Judaism, which individual Jews may or may not necessarily be.

So it is just as possible for an atheist - or an antitheist - to support Zionism as it is for an atheist or antitheist to support any kind of nationalism. A lot of the Bundistn in the Russian Empire (who, admittedly, I have a certain historical affinity for, in spite of the fact that obviously their nationalism - like all nationalism - was ultimately reactionary) were ardent atheists, but they were obviously still Jewish nationalists. It is confusing, I know - but there is no contradiction, considering the way Jewish identity is often being defined.

This is a non-statement.Yes, I realize. But I had to say it, in case someone might come along and imply that I am some sort of first world chauvinist because of something I didn't say or an argument I didn't make about certain comments in a post. It has happened before.

Dean

28th June 2010, 15:09

He does make political points. He isn't a journalist nor he is part of the "cadre."

He's like a family member during Thanksgiving who talks politics and the world except he's more entertaining and a bit more intelligent. The fact that he's more independent than mainstream media and he has a communicative style that is fundamentally opposed to the traditional norms of Political television makes him a much better option than say, Wolf Blitzer at CNN.

We should be so lucky that there is at least one Bill Maher to the three dozen conservative radio jocks out there.

Ah, now I see why you like him. You prefer absurd, emotive arguments to anything real.

No, I don't feel lucky that there's a shitty liberal hawk on TV encouraging ignorant, xenophobic stances in support of Israeli white nationalism. It's good to know that you do.

You're boring.
I guess my being "boring" and "the worst poster" on RevLeft are somehow related to my propensity to describe real-world systems and critique media figures in terms of how they relate to these systems. If only I could be as noncommittal as you!

Conquer or Die

29th June 2010, 07:44

Ah, now I see why you like him. You prefer absurd, emotive arguments to anything real.

The only absurdity is the profundity of canned phrases vomited out by non-intellectuals in this thread. Talk about an emotive argument.

"HE IS A ZIONIST" (picture little children declaring a fact here)

No, I don't feel lucky that there's a shitty liberal hawk on TV encouraging ignorant, xenophobic stances in support of Israeli white nationalism. It's good to know that you do.

I'm lucky that there's somebody who is intelligent and entertaining who is responsive to certain positions and open minded enough to call out bullshit.

"Xenophobic." Shut the fuck up. It's like you want Communism to lose.

"Israeli white nationalism." Way too pathetic for words.

I guess my being "boring" and "the worst poster" on RevLeft are somehow related to my propensity to describe real-world systems and critique media figures in terms of how they relate to these systems. If only I could be as noncommittal as you!

Pure verbiage from a fool. Your propensity is your ability to be wrong and discredit any real world progressive movement in the name of a Marxism that you don't understand.

The best you could do would be to leave Communism behind. At the very least this forum.

#FF0000

29th June 2010, 08:36

"Xenophobic." Shut the fuck up. It's like you want Communism to lose.

how is calling a xenophobe xenophobic a bad thing or detrimental to communism?

seriously though really what does not liking bill maher and thinking he's an ignorant bigot have to do with communism

Adi Shankara

29th June 2010, 08:41

How the fuck does some dickhead bigoted comedian get a thread that warrants 96 responses? :blink:

Pretty Flaco

29th June 2010, 08:49

How the fuck does some dickhead bigoted comedian get a thread that warrants 96 responses? :blink:
How the fuck do dickhead bigoted comedians get TV shows that warrant millions of viewers?

Adi Shankara

29th June 2010, 09:15

How the fuck do dickhead bigoted comedians get TV shows that warrant millions of viewers?

checkmate. :rolleyes:

NGNM85

29th June 2010, 10:07

On the "pro-Zionist" versus "Zionist" label, it is really a semantic distinction, but I use it primarily to avoid semantic debates, which are pointless and tend to distract from the subject at hand. The point is, he supports Zionism. I don't actually think it is necessarily incorrect to refer to him as a Zionist, but someone could object along the lines of "well, is he actually going to go settle in Palestine/Israel? Is he really informed and ideologically committed to Zionism? If none of the above, then he is not a Zionist". So Zionist, pro-Zionist - call him what you want, the point is that he supports Zionism,

I just feel it's being used far too liberally and ceasing to have any meaning. I also object to the way it's being casually thrown around and assumed to be self-evident.

he supports and defends not only the premise of a Jewish state,

I'm not entirely convinced this is so.

but he supports and defends the state itself. So.

Yes. However, there's nothing wrong with that, in the broad sense. As long as we're going to be having nation-states Israel has as much right to exist, as I said, as the United States, or Burkina Faso. (Excluding the territories annexed in 1967.) It should also go without saying they have the right to defend themselves. However, as governments often do, Israel is engaged in acts of blatant aggression under the label of self-defense.

Zionism, simplified to its most basic form, is:
a) the belief in the concept of "The Jewish People™" - that is, that Jews living throughout the world constitute a separate Nation and/or People, apart from the nations and peoples among which they live (see "the Diaspora™"); and

I'm not sure Maher necessarily believes that.

b) the belief that "The Jewish People" is therefore entitled to its own state.

I'm not convinced he believes that, either.

Obviously, since the 'Jewish state' has now existed and been recognized as such for over 60 years, the most basic form that modern Zionism or pro-Zionism takes is in defending the existence and "right to self-defense" of the state of Israel. That is certainly sufficient for one to be considered at least a "pro-Zionist".

Here's where I have a problem. This reminds me of 'the new anti-semitism" and that godawful book. Well, what is the 'new anti-semitism"? It's criticising Israel. That's absurd, and it's an abuse of language.

The Maher blog entry posted by mykittyhasaboner is certainly conclusive, and I have no idea how you can honestly dispute that.

Conclusive of what? If this is 'Exhibit A', you're in serious trouble.

The fact that Maher is ignorant about the actual details of the situation,

Granted. He has a surprisingly short-sighted perspective on the subject.

and mikelepore's protestation that Maher would cease to support Zionism if he was actually informed about the matter (maybe he is right, but I seriously doubt it),

Why?

does absolutely nothing to change the fact that he supports it now, and that he has in the past used his platform to express his support for the state of Israel.

We're mostly in agreement on that one.

I do, however, agree with lepore and others that the accusation of "racism" is probably unnecessary here - whether or not one suspects that he is a racist, it is certainly possible for Jews outside of Israel to support Zionism out of ignorance without necessarily being racists, just as it is possible for Americans to support American imperialism and military occupations in the Middle East etc. out of ignorance without necessarily being racists, and throwing the word around so loosely probably detracts from the gravity of the accusation.

It absolutely detracts from the accusation. That is an extremely serious charge that demands a burden of proof. It's not just unnecessary, it's inapplicable.

Anyway. Your argument that Zionism/pro-Zionism contradicts Maher's antitheism is also an invalid point. Some of Zionism's most passionate proponents are secularists and atheists.

You sort of have to admit religion kind of has something to do with it, though, right? I mean, it's pretty fundamental.

Typically the term 'Jew' - as it is commonly used - designates a social construct resembling an ethnicity or nationality ("The Jewish People") more than an adherent to a particular religion. According to Orthodox Judaism - and to the Law of Return used by Israel - someone is a Jew if their mother is a Jew, or if their maternal grandmother was 'born Jewish' (i.e. to a Jewish mother), even if they weren't raised Jewish, even if they practice Christianity or Buddhism or whatev, and certainly even if they are an atheist.

Incidentally, this idea is totally batshit. However, is there anything to suggest Maher subscribes to this thoroughly bogus idea?

In fact the Law of Return is very similar to the Nuremberg Laws, which I think we can all agree established what was essentially a racial criteria. And actually, the latter is often used as a justification for the former - e.g. "Anyone who would have been persecuted due to Jewish background in Nazi Germany, will be afforded sanctuary as a Jew in Israel". Zionism sees Jews first and foremost as "a People" or "a nation" - quasi-racial concepts - rather than specifically as religious adherents to Judaism, which individual Jews may or may not necessarily be.

Yes, it's very similar to Nazi racialist theories.

So it is just as possible for an atheist - or an antitheist - to support Zionism as it is for an atheist or antitheist to support any kind of nationalism. A lot of the Bundistn in the Russian Empire (who, admittedly, I have a certain historical affinity for, in spite of the fact that obviously their nationalism - like all nationalism - was ultimately reactionary) were ardent atheists, but they were obviously still Jewish nationalists. It is confusing, I know - but there is no contradiction, considering the way Jewish identity is often being defined.

It could very well be possible for an atheist to defend, however Maher is not simply an Atheist. He has vocally, and repeatedly called for nothing short of the end of religion. That it's just fundamentally bad and shouldn't exist at all. This is very clear. (I also happen to agree.) So, I think that is relevant.

Yes, I realize. But I had to say it, in case someone might come along and imply that I am some sort of first world chauvinist because of something I didn't say or an argument I didn't make about certain comments in a post. It has happened before.

I would personally advise you to ignore such people. You owe them nothing.

Conquer or Die

29th June 2010, 10:15

how is calling a xenophobe xenophobic a bad thing or detrimental to communism?

It's a politically correct, loaded label that is quite unsubstantiated in this context. It's just another case, frequent on this forum, where somebody calls somebody who is considered "left" a "reactionary" and gets summary applause from the hivemind.

seriously though really what does not liking bill maher and thinking he's an ignorant bigot have to do with communism

I personally think Dean is a damn fool along with that other guy who is obsessed with the almighty Ludwig Von.

I think the argument style present in this thread is one of childish name calling lobbed from a safety net. Bill Maher obviously unequivocally supports Israel but this is not because he is fundamentally fascist in character or nature. A majority of the American Left has similar views on Israel from a simply errant viewpoint that is sold through every major television news operation (and in print, as well).

Most notably Maher changed from a Hawkish viewpoint on foreign policy to a liberal throughout the years. He also progressively supports most economic socialism that is mainstream.

A bunch of do nothings in this thread mean nothing at their best and at their worst sound pathetic and defeated. Dean is the shining example as well as the non Third-Worldist islamists. Thus the danger to Communism.

#FF0000

29th June 2010, 13:53

It's a politically correct, loaded label that is quite unsubstantiated in this context. It's just another case, frequent on this forum, where somebody calls somebody who is considered "left" a "reactionary" and gets summary applause from the hivemind.

If you think it's unsubstantiated then you haven't read the thread. People have been giving reasons and posting clips throughout in which Maher has said things that could be construed as racist or xenophobic. Beyond that he is an elitist who would rather go around blaming individuals for institutional problems. Because he is a big, dumb guy.

I personally think Dean is a damn fool along with that other guy who is obsessed with the almighty Ludwig Von.

I think the argument style present in this thread is one of childish name calling lobbed from a safety net. Bill Maher obviously unequivocally supports Israel but this is not because he is fundamentally fascist in character or nature. A majority of the American Left has similar views on Israel from a simply errant viewpoint that is sold through every major television news operation (and in print, as well).

So what? He holds a stupid opinion and we are blasting him for it. Who cares?

Most notably Maher changed from a Hawkish viewpoint on foreign policy to a liberal throughout the years. He also progressively supports most economic socialism that is mainstream.

So what? I still think he's a bigot and an elitist.

A bunch of do nothings in this thread mean nothing at their best and at their worst sound pathetic and defeated. Dean is the shining example as well as the non Third-Worldist islamists. Thus the danger to Communism.

It is a thread about a dumb guy on T.V. good lord get a grip.

Dean

29th June 2010, 15:45

The only absurdity is the profundity of canned phrases vomited out by non-intellectuals in this thread. Talk about an emotive argument.

"HE IS A ZIONIST" (picture little children declaring a fact here)

I'm lucky that there's somebody who is intelligent and entertaining who is responsive to certain positions and open minded enough to call out bullshit.

"Xenophobic." Shut the fuck up. It's like you want Communism to lose.

"Israeli white nationalism." Way too pathetic for words.

Pure verbiage from a fool.
My emphasis. Its not simply coincidence that you are providing no serious critique of policy, and I am. "Pure verbiage" to be sure.

Your propensity is your ability to be wrong and discredit any real world progressive movement in the name of a Marxism that you don't understand.

The best you could do would be to leave Communism behind. At the very least this forum.
Maher represents "progressivism" in no way or form. He consistently compounds the xenophobic paranoia of the ruling US milieu, in particular his attacks on Iran, Afghanistan and the Palestinians (which are comparable to the vileness of Beck).

Furthermore, you don't establish a talk show with the specific intent of devoting long segments to political issues without inviting criticism for whatever you say on those topics. Your notion that he is "excused" from criticism because of some vague "progressivism" or "comedy" is simply absurd. Maybe I'd take that as legitimate if he didn't take himself seriously, but that's not the case.

Furthermore, any perceived "progressivism" of his doesn't excuse support for a violent white nationalist regime.

I don't know what kind of "communism" you associate with, but it sounds like a rather reactionary one. And I'm not a "marxist," but if I was, I'd probably be much more antagonistic to the likes of Maher, since they act as the purveyors of ruling class ideology.

Barry Lyndon

29th June 2010, 16:51

Maher represents "progressivism" in no way or form. He consistently compounds the xenophobic paranoia of the ruling US milieu, in particular his attacks on Iran, Afghanistan and the Palestinians (which are comparable to the vileness of Beck).

Furthermore, you don't establish a talk show with the specific intent of devoting long segments to political issues without inviting criticism for whatever you say on those topics. Your notion that he is "excused" from criticism because of some vague "progressivism" or "comedy" is simply absurd. Maybe I'd take that as legitimate if he didn't take himself seriously, but that's not the case.

Furthermore, any perceived "progressivism" of his doesn't excuse support for a violent white nationalist regime.

I don't know what kind of "communism" you associate with, but it sounds like a rather reactionary one. And I'm not a "marxist," but if I was, I'd probably be much more antagonistic to the likes of Maher, since they act as the purveyors of ruling class ideology.

Maher is 'progressive' only on some relatively trivial cultural issues. When it comes to issues such as capitalism, imperialism, US chauvinism, etc, he marches lockstep with the ruling class. He is a clear example of how so-called progressives, to paraphrase Noam Chomsky, set the terms of what is 'acceptable dissent'.

RadioRaheem84

1st July 2010, 17:12

I am so glad that people are finally awakening to this elitist, neo-colonial, racist twit. Maher represents the face of liberalism in the US and probably in Western Europe. Maher, Hitchens, Dawkins, Nick Cohen, Paul Berman, Oliver Kamm in the UK. I mean all of these idiot Western Liberals think that they can just totally denounce the Muslim world as these backwars yahoos that deserve to be carpet bombed by American and Western bombers.

But again, l've said it a thousand times before. This is the new face of the "left". We've been so marginilized in the media that we're now seen as "ultra-extreme" left that is in lieu with the Islamic terrorists. :lol:

Pro-War Cold War Liberalism is the new "left", and it's unapologetic about the War on Terror and Israel's near genocidal plans against the Palestinians.

HEAD ICE

2nd July 2010, 03:38

Barry Lyndon

2nd July 2010, 13:33

This thread reminded me of his movie "Religulous", and people have already mentioned how he gives Zionists a free pass, but another revolting scene is in the beginning where he goes and tells a bunch of truckers that they are idiots because they aren't as enlightened as his holy self. I hate that man so much.

Yes, that scene reeked of elitism and class prejudice- a 'look-at-me-im so-much smarter-then-these-dumb-serfs' moment. I can understand going after the religious psychos who harm people, but those guys? They weren't hurting anybody.

Conquer or Die

4th July 2010, 08:14

Who cares?

Whatever.

>Random line<

Get a grip.

Every single post is exactly the same from you.

NGNM85

4th July 2010, 08:25

I am so glad that people are finally awakening to this elitist, neo-colonial, racist twit. Maher represents the face of liberalism in the US and probably in Western Europe. Maher, Hitchens, Dawkins, Nick Cohen, Paul Berman, Oliver Kamm in the UK. I mean all of these idiot Western Liberals think that they can just totally denounce the Muslim world as these backwars yahoos that deserve to be carpet bombed by American and Western bombers.

I don’t even know where to begin. This is both completely untrue and completely unfair.

This thread reminded me of his movie "Religulous", and people have already mentioned how he gives Zionists a free pass, but another revolting scene is in the beginning where he goes and tells a bunch of truckers that they are idiots because they aren't as enlightened as his holy self. I hate that man so much.

Obviously, you were watching a different movie. That isn’t remotely what happened.

Conquer or Die

4th July 2010, 08:28

My emphasis. Its not simply coincidence that you are providing no serious critique of policy, and I am. "Pure verbiage" to be sure.

Calling somebody "White nationalist" is not a critique of policy. It's not, nor will it ever be. If you say things like that in any serious discussion you will be thought of as a fool.

Maher represents "progressivism" in no way or form. He consistently compounds the xenophobic paranoia of the ruling US milieu, in particular his attacks on Iran, Afghanistan and the Palestinians (which are comparable to the vileness of Beck).

This is just completely false on every level. There is a video posted in this thread where he takes a completely different turn from the *majority* of the press on Ahmandinejad. He supported the Afghanistan war as did a significant majority of Americans because they were under the delusion that America would actually succeed in bringing the person who perpetrated the crimes to justice. You avoid the Iraq war which he never did support (putting him far ahead of most so called liberals). He avoids the Palestinians because he is afraid to let his guard down on Israel, a mistake, but not something that he perpetrates as a zionist would (noticeably by letting Anti-Zionists on his show).

Once again you don't really have a case and you haven't watched his show. You're just a tad bit imbecilic aren't you?

Furthermore, you don't establish a talk show with the specific intent of devoting long segments to political issues without inviting criticism for whatever you say on those topics. Your notion that he is "excused" from criticism because of some vague "progressivism" or "comedy" is simply absurd. Maybe I'd take that as legitimate if he didn't take himself seriously, but that's not the case.

He supports freedom of speech and lets those with opposing views on his show frequently. He is sharp when it comes to putting idiots in their place (IE Denny Prager, and the guy who insulted Ahmandinejad at Columbia). He has things I disagree with but he manages to keep an even keel.

You, on the other hand, do not say anything of value and while you may superficially agree with many of the things I believe in you certainly wouldn't be of any use in achieving them.

I feel like I need to bring up the Civil War thread again. It's like you have no contact with reality.

Furthermore, any perceived "progressivism" of his doesn't excuse support for a violent white nationalist regime.

Calling it a violent white nationalist regime makes you look like an idiot. It's name calling. You would be destroyed by an Apocalyptic Christian in a debate on Israel. Once again please return your services rendered.

I don't know what kind of "communism" you associate with, but it sounds like a rather reactionary one. And I'm not a "marxist," but if I was, I'd probably be much more antagonistic to the likes of Maher, since they act as the purveyors of ruling class ideology.

You aren't a communist or even a reactionary, you're just a fool with too much time on your hands.

I guess it's my fault for not helping you see that your blathering is not going to get respected anywhere outside of a close environment. I'll just say it again: You aren't making criticisms, you are name calling. You haven't proven anything except that you'll say outdated terms to get bonafides from the hivemind. *High Five*

#FF0000

4th July 2010, 09:11

you're just mad because you like Bill Maher and we think he's a bigot and has an elitist attitude.

RadioRaheem84

4th July 2010, 15:25

I don’t even know where to begin. This is both completely untrue and completely unfair. how so? Please begin.

Dean

4th July 2010, 19:59

There is a video posted in this thread where he takes a completely different turn from the *majority* of the press on Ahmandinejad.
No, he didn't. He was using the same scare tactics about Admadinejad - "it's what he wants." Please.

You're pitifully grasping at straws because you know hes a xenophobe who does little more than prop up the democrat's lines.

Conquer or Die

4th July 2010, 23:53

No, he didn't. He was using the same scare tactics about Admadinejad - "it's what he wants." Please.

You're pitifully grasping at straws because you know hes a xenophobe who does little more than prop up the democrat's lines.

You're ineffectual.

HEAD ICE

5th July 2010, 01:56

Obviously, you were watching a different movie. That isn’t remotely what happened.

mvpnSKCQ0gk

It is actually worst than I remembered. The video starts with him scoffing and laughing at taking the "back roads", and then he goes to their chapel and mocks their intelligence. Bill Maher's self importance and self righteousness literally nauseates me.

Oh yeah, the title they gave the video is a gem - "trucker rednecks." Just goes to show you the mindset of the fans of Bill Maher, identical to his.

NGNM85

5th July 2010, 04:21

how so? Please begin.

It’s just a clusterfuck of nonsense and hyperbole. Quote; ”I am so glad that people are finally awakening to this elitist, neo-colonial, racist twit.” Neo-colinial? WTF?! Then you go completely off the rails and claim Bill Maher is a racist. This is an absolutely baseless accusation. Seriously, something of that severity should not be tossed around so thoughtlessly.

Then the bogus claim that Maher represents the face of western liberalism. First, if western liberals were electing their representative, Maher wouldn’t make the top ten. Second, on this website the word ‘liberal’ has almost no meaning, whatsoever. I’m not even sure half the people throwing it around like confetti could even define it. It’s just a preferred slander, a brand to slap on anybody you disagree with. The context it carries here has virtually nothing to do with liberalism, at all.

“Maher, Hitchens, Dawkins, Nick Cohen, Paul Berman, Oliver Kamm in the UK.” Where are you getting this list? It’s like you’re pulling names out of a hat.

“I mean all of these idiot Western Liberals think that they can just totally denounce the Muslim world as these backwars yahoos that deserve to be carpet bombed by American and Western bombers.”

This is total bullshit. Again, I’m sort of at a loss. (The infamous “L” word makes a conspicuous comeback.) Why the hell did you put Dawkins in this menagerie? Do you know Dawkins is against the wars in the middle east? Maher has always been against the Iraq war, and has been critical of the conduct of the Afghanistan campaign. (Hitchens, while being a very smart guy, is, admittedly, totally batty on this issue.)

This is a completely unfair characterization that in no way represents the views of most, if not all, of these people.

Conquer or Die

5th July 2010, 04:32

NGNM85

5th July 2010, 04:46

It is actually worst than I remembered. The video starts with him scoffing and laughing at taking the "back roads",

You're reading an awful lot into a very inoccuous, off-the-cuff statement, which was made by the driver, incidentally, not by Maher. You're just seeing what you want to see.

and then he goes to their chapel and mocks their intelligence. Bill Maher's self importance and self righteousness literally nauseates me.

Oh yeah, the title they gave the video is a gem - "trucker rednecks." Just goes to show you the mindset of the fans of Bill Maher, identical to his.

I'm not surprised that this clip is only a fragment of this scene. For anybody who actually wants to see the rest of it, you can watch this;
fmTE9Q_SkW8 There's a brief interruption with a clip of a short conversation with Dr. Francis Collins of the Human Genome Project, then the rest of the truckstop scene follows.

From what you're saying I have to wonder if you ever actually saw the film. Maher did not mock these people, he questioned their ideas, and in a fairly friendly, colloquial, and inoffensive way. He was very diplomatic.

Look, if you want to say; "The guy just seems like a dick to me.", or; "I just don't think he's funny." That's fine. I couldn't care less. Let's just jettison the bullshit.

mikelepore

5th July 2010, 06:30

As for the scene where he interviews the "truckers" -- It's a documentary in which the whole purpose throughout was to interview religious people and challenge them with the question "How could a smart person like you believe that miracles are possible?" If he were to interview only clergy and theology professors, the people here would be complaining, "Why didn't he talk to some more typical working class people?" But now that he did that, he's getting blamed for that too.

HEAD ICE

5th July 2010, 06:43

Here is more video evidence of Bill Maher being an idiot and getting owned. Be forewarned this is a vicious owning.

cu1jajbOnBw
STY5FwyJ2O8
m5ENu4zT92c
aqnuKfCddK0

Edit: for NGM85 and mikelepore, I may very well have my sympathies showing, but living in the south and seeing how working class people here go to religion as an escape from the hardships that they face working to live, when they have nothing, I can not blame someone having a faith in a deity to have something to live for in life. Especially in the case of truckers, which I know plenty, drive days on end with little to no sleep and on a poor diet for a meager wage and away for weeks from their families, to have some smug idiot like Bill Maher go to their chapel asking the most inane, condescending questions whose only purpose is to make himself look smart at the expense of "redneck truckers", makes me have little respect for the man.
(http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=29065)

mikelepore

5th July 2010, 07:33

How could you expect a polemic where the purpose is to argue in favor of abandoning religion not to show one person say to another person "your reasons for believing in religion seem illogical to me"? That's what it means to produce any publication that argues a point.

He didn't say a single thing to put down truck drivers, or put down people from the south. What he did was to argue the case against religion in this work in which the whole purpose was to argue the case against religion. If some viewers interpret that as the author saying "I'm smarter than you" then they must be new to the world of debating ideas.

Does an atheist have the right to make a film in which he gives his argument? If so, are you telling me that he required to do it in a way where he never says anything like "the story where Jonah was inside of a big fish is a silly story"? Where does this rule come from?

IllicitPopsicle

5th July 2010, 09:24

But i want waffles!

RadioRaheem84

5th July 2010, 16:37

I
t’s just a clusterfuck of nonsense and hyperbole. Quote; ”I am so glad that people are finally awakening to this elitist, neo-colonial, racist twit.” Neo-colinial? WTF?! Then you go completely off the rails and claim Bill Maher is a racist. This is an absolutely baseless accusation. Seriously, something of that severity should not be tossed around so thoughtlessly.

Bill Maher is a xenophobic twit that sometimes goes into mild racist tangents. Did you not hear his tirade about how President Obama should've acted like a real "black" President by having a gun in his pants and showing it to BP execs?

Then the bogus claim that Maher represents the face of western liberalism. First, if western liberals were electing their representative, Maher wouldn’t make the top ten.
I meant the elitist, prickish attitude of many western liberals toward the working class is what makes him a representation of liberalism in the States.

Second, on this website the word ‘liberal’ has almost no meaning, whatsoever. I’m not even sure half the people throwing it around like confetti could even define it. It’s just a preferred slander, a brand to slap on anybody you disagree with. The context it carries here has virtually nothing to do with liberalism, at all.

No it's not. It is pretty well defined on here. I can see where you're coming from when members on here use it against dissenting Marxists from various strains, but we're talking about conventional Western liberalism. It's pretty easy to define from that perspective. I mean what are you talking about here?

“Maher, Hitchens, Dawkins, Nick Cohen, Paul Berman, Oliver Kamm in the UK.” Where are you getting this list? It’s like you’re pulling names out of a hat.

You've probably have never even heard of half of them, so stop complaining. They are a rowdy bunch of opinionated ass hats (with varying opinions), but all love to tout the greateness of western civilization and detest the backward cultures of the East. They've all appeared with each other at one point or another promoting the wonders of the Western nations and their discontent for the religious/third world. Dawkins himself in an interview I read not to long ago attributes some of the response back to Western Imperialism, i.e. the War on Terror, to "precepts of Islam". :rolleyes: So even in his disdain for the War on Terror, he attributes reaction to "well what else do you expect from the Islamic world".

This is total bullshit. Again, I’m sort of at a loss. (The infamous “L” word makes a conspicuous comeback.) Why the hell did you put Dawkins in this menagerie? Do you know Dawkins is against the wars in the middle east? Maher has always been against the Iraq war, and has been critical of the conduct of the Afghanistan campaign. (Hitchens, while being a very smart guy, is, admittedly, totally batty on this issue.)

Maher has been against the conduct and method of the war and thought that War in Afghanistan was justified. Read his debate with Pro War Liberal hawk Ron Silver back in 03. He literally reduced the whole debate to just disagreement over technique. If that makes him "anti-war" in your book, then there is nothing more I can say to you. And what is this "critical of the conduct" in Afghanistan bullshit? Are you insinuating that it was the "good war". WTF?

NGNM85

6th July 2010, 03:02

Bill Maher is a xenophobic twit

Is there any actual evidence of this xenophobia?

that sometimes goes into mild racist tangents.

What has he said that you can actually call 'racist' with a straight face?

Did you not hear his tirade about how President Obama should've acted like a real "black" President by having a gun in his pants and showing it to BP execs?

He was obviously joking. He IS a comedian. This is so ridiculous. Also, just because I can already hear the response, yes, people like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Michael Savage cover their invective under the banner of 'humor.' The difference is those people are actually racist.

I meant the elitist, prickish attitude of many western liberals toward the working class is what makes him a representation of liberalism in the States.

Even if I agreed completely, and I don't, necessarily, it would make him an example of liberals, not liberalism, and a select sub-set, at that.

No it's not. It is pretty well defined on here. I can see where you're coming from when members on here use it against dissenting Marxists from various strains, but we're talking about conventional Western liberalism. It's pretty easy to define from that perspective. I mean what are you talking about here?

That this word is so horribly and maliciously misused, so frequently, that it has virtually been stripped of virtually all meaning in this community.

You've probably have never even heard of half of them, so stop complaining.

I've read Hitchens' "God is not Great", and "Trials of Henry Kissinger." (Which was excellent, incidentally.) I've also watched numerous interviews and debates by him. I've read "The God Delusion" twice, and some of "The Greatest Show on Earth." Again, as well as numerous debates, lectures, and interviews by Dawkins. I've heard of Nick Cohen, he's some english journalist who I've heard described as a leftist but sounds pretty right-wing on just about everything. This list just seems sort of random. I mean, Dawkins is an Oxford biologist. This just seems like an odd menagerie.

They are a rowdy bunch of opinionated ass hats (with varying opinions), but all love to tout the greateness of western civilization and detest the backward cultures of the East.

Are you capable of acknowledging there is anything good about western society? I'm curious. As for the second part, a large portion of the middle east lives under religious law, a substantial percentage are dictatorships, in large part women have no rights, in large regions activities such as honor killings, and martyrdom, are condoned if not encouraged, and by and large homosexuals are universally persecuted, in some cases, executed. Is this not so?

They've all appeared with each other at one point or another promoting the wonders of the Western nations and their discontent for the religious/third world. Dawkins himself in an interview I read not to long ago attributes some of the response back to Western Imperialism, i.e. the War on Terror, to "precepts of Islam". :rolleyes: So even in his disdain for the War on Terror, he attributes reaction to "well what else do you expect from the Islamic world."

I have no idea what you're referencing. However, I would garuntee you're mischaracterizing what he actually said. Dawkins is not a bigot. He is a scientist, a rationalist.

Maher has been against the conduct and method of the war and thought that War in Afghanistan was justified. Read his debate with Pro War Liberal hawk Ron Silver back in 03. He literally reduced the whole debate to just disagreement over technique. If that makes him "anti-war" in your book, then there is nothing more I can say to you.

He's against the Iraq war, like I said. I also think his opinions, along with much of the country, have been evolving over the past few years. the view of the Afghan war has changed substantially, and while he may not be totally anti-war, I think Maher is substantially more critical of it, today, than he was a few years ago.

And what is this "critical of the conduct" in Afghanistan bullshit? Are you insinuating that it was the "good war". WTF?

Not at all. However, that is how it has been portrayed in the media, and how a lot of Americans believed it to be, however, people are becoming more skeptical over time.

NGNM85

6th July 2010, 03:05

you're just mad because you like Bill Maher and we think he's a bigot and has an elitist attitude.

Is there any actual reason you think he's a bigot?

Sendo

6th July 2010, 04:44

Is there any actual reason you think he's a bigot?

As RR84 mentioned, it's because he thinks "real black[s]" carry 9s in their pants and flash it to people who go round frontin and actin the fool on his turf. I don't know how to explain how racist that is, even in joking. I wonder if you, yourself, have ever been on the losing end of racism. My experiences pale in comparison to blacks in America, but boy, do I see a lot of racism where before I couldn't. It's just intuitive. You either think things like "Why, on TV, are white people just 'people' and black people are always prefaced with the word 'black' before 'people'" or you don't.

Maybe you haven't had experiences to change your thinking yet, I don't know. My Korean girlfriend had anti-dark skin prejudices and feelings that they are dirty-looking or not good looking. Yet after spending time with me and recounting my thoughts and my experiences and those of minorities in America, she found herself far more color blind. She was watching the (mostly) progressive TV show on Korea where Korean-speaking women born from all over the world appear on a talk show called "Hotties" (my translation). It showcases the same attractive and funny women every week pretty much and shows that we are all interesting and deep down all the same, and that every race has it's share of beautiful people. Well, one day, one idiot Korean woman host mentions how she feels so ugly and dark (dark negroes, Pinoys, and Hindis, etc are all "ugly") compared to her pale-skinned British-born boyfriend. My girlfriend remarked how offensive that must have been to the Kenyan (and very dark) woman...a Korean who avoids the sun and wears skin bleacher feels beyond the pale in the company of a midnight black woman. My girlfriend's friend had trouble understanding why my girlfriend would find anything odd about all this.

mykittyhasaboner

6th July 2010, 04:57

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STY5FwyJ2O8&feature=related

^Lol. "I have never made fun of any holy book." - Bill Maher

NGNM85

6th July 2010, 05:56

As RR84 mentioned, it's because he thinks "real black[s]" carry 9s in their pants and flash it to people who go round frontin and actin the fool on his turf. I don't know how to explain how racist that is, even in joking. I wonder if you, yourself, have ever been on the losing end of racism. My experiences pale in comparison to blacks in America, but boy, do I see a lot of racism where before I couldn't. It's just intuitive. You either think things like "Why, on TV, are white people just 'people' and black people are always prefaced with the word 'black' before 'people'" or you don't.

I can only assume you've never seen the clip in question, and that you are unfamiliar with his work. This is a total misinterpretation of what he said, how he said it, and what he meant by it. However, I can't blame you for that when a number of people here are engaging in very deliberate deception. I can only suggest you watch a few episodes of "Real Time", or a couple of his comedy performances, unedited, so you can get a feel for his comedic style and who he really is. However, anyone who's familiar with him and his work should be well aware tha he is in no way racist. A number of people making these charges know this to be true.

I also want to add as an aside; there's a difference between not being racist, not judging people based on their skin color, and flat-out pretending that different ethnicities don't exist, as the enforcers of political correctness would have us do. You can differentiate without devaluing.

#FF0000

6th July 2010, 07:08

I also want to add as an aside; there's a difference between not being racist, not judging people based on their skin color, and flat-out pretending that different ethnicities don't exist, as the enforcers of political correctness would have us do. You can differentiate without devaluing.

Literally no one says ethnicity doesn't exist.

RadioRaheem84

6th July 2010, 16:17

Is there any actual evidence of this xenophobia?

his comments toward muslims and followers of other religions.

What has he said that you can actually call 'racist' with a straight face?
He was obviously joking. He IS a comedian. This is so ridiculous. Also, just because I can already hear the response, yes, people like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Michael Savage cover their invective under the banner of 'humor.' The difference is those people are actually racist.

Of course he was joking because he is a comedian. Did you think I was going to post something where he said something racist with a straight face? The point is that even in jest, how is what he said funny or not offensive to black people? Apparently, a "real" black Prez would've showed up BP by brandishing the gun tucked in his pants? Yeah, real funny. What's funnier is you trying to defend his absurd attempts at humor.

Even if I agreed completely, and I don't, necessarily, it would make him an example of liberals, not liberalism, and a select sub-set, at that.

A conventional liberal with all the puff and glory of not being red baited or looked at as a pansy, then yes, I would say he is really a standard American liberal.

That this word is so horribly and maliciously misused, so frequently, that it has virtually been stripped of virtually all meaning in this community.

No it hasn't. It's pretty well defined as a non-leftist (Marxist, anarchist, etc.) reformist capitalist. Maher is a liberal.

I've read Hitchens' "God is not Great", and "Trials of Henry Kissinger." (Which was excellent, incidentally.) I've also watched numerous interviews and debates by him. I've read "The God Delusion" twice, and some of "The Greatest Show on Earth." Again, as well as numerous debates, lectures, and interviews by Dawkins. I've heard of Nick Cohen, he's some english journalist who I've heard described as a leftist but sounds pretty right-wing on just about everything. This list just seems sort of random. I mean, Dawkins is an Oxford biologist. This just seems like an odd menagerie.

It's not random. The British ones are all consorts, Euston Manifesto types that believe in bourgeoise democracy as the best thing since sliced bread and needs to be defended (yet disagree on how) by the unwashed third world masses and their religious zealousy.

Are you capable of acknowledging there is anything good about western society? I'm curious. As for the second part, a large portion of the middle east lives under religious law, a substantial percentage are dictatorships, in large part women have no rights, in large regions activities such as honor killings, and martyrdom, are condoned if not encouraged, and by and large homosexuals are universally persecuted, in some cases, executed. Is this not so?

Well what is your point? Does this somehow make Western society seem so much better when it commits horrible attrocities toward the third world and has an economic boot on their necks which stifles any sort of progressive movements from gaining ground? Please, come off it. You're not making any sense by simply giving me a 'clash of civilizations' argument. Of course I know that Western society is preferable to the Middle East but only in a sense that the US and Western Europe have been for the most part been allowed to develop internally while they mal-developed the third world.

I have no idea what you're referencing. However, I would garuntee you're mischaracterizing what he actually said. Dawkins is not a bigot. He is a scientist, a rationalist.

Oh a scientist and a rationalist. Yup, that makes him a paragon of virtue then. :rolleyes: Yet, he too touts a sort of clash of civlizations line and promotes the idiotic 'islamo-fascism' token pro-war argument.

RD:.....So Islam is the big danger today because they have a Medieval mindset which bursts through into the twenty-first century.
MK: How far do you think the rise of this Medieval mindset can be put at the door of the West in terms of encouraging it in the 20th century?
RD: That is always a good point that one has to make. That the West in a way has been answering for trouble by its belligerent posture, for example, in the Iraq war. This has served to exacerbate political – that’s undoubtedly true. But I think it’s a sort of added affect over the precept of Islam.

http://www.thecommentfactory.com/richard-dawkins-interview-on-religion-evolution-and-iraq-2777/

He's against the Iraq war, like I said. I also think his opinions, along with much of the country, have been evolving over the past few years. the view of the Afghan war has changed substantially, and while he may not be totally anti-war, I think Maher is substantially more critical of it, today, than he was a few years ago.

Ugh.

MAHER: Wait a second. We're not all left-wing, nut-wings out here, Ron. I'm for the use of force, absolutely. And I am for fighting terrorism, absolutely.

I just think this is the wrong way to do it. We're just having a debate about technique, really. We're having a debate about strategy. We're having a debate about some guys attacked us, like I say, based in Kabul, Afghanistan. And we're going after a religious-based, jihad-type organization by attacking Iraq. The one country that was never involved in that sort of true believer jihad...

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0303/13/wbr.00.html

The man is not anti-war. You're just insinuating that just because he is anti-Iraq War that he is absolved? No, he is anti-the way we're conducting the Iraq War or War on Terror. And so what if he is anti-Iraq War. He would still one of those liberals that is anti-Iraq War but pro-Agfhan War or pro-War on terror. Either way its a standard pro-war liberal hawk attitude.

Not at all. However, that is how it has been portrayed in the media, and how a lot of Americans believed it to be, however, people are becoming more skeptical over time.

WTF? Most if not all the war the US government engages in have been "good wars" according to the media. What are you talking about? People have been skeptical since the inception of the War on Terror.

Dean

6th July 2010, 16:54

Is there any actual reason you think he's a bigot?

How about the unwarranted contempt for AlJazeera?! That man is a goddamn joke, and this proves beyond a doubt (alongside all his other crap) that he has nothing but contempt for the "enemies of America," another xenophobic tendency he fully backs.

Dean

6th July 2010, 17:04

Bill Maher: I Love Being on the Side of My President http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/i-love-being-on-the-side-_b_25375.html

I surrender my credentials as Bush exposer - from the very beginning - to no man, but on Israel, I love it that a U.S. president doesn't pretend Arab-Israeli conflict is an even-steven proposition. Lots of ethnic peoples, probably most, have at one time or another lost some territory; nobody's ever completely happy with their borders; people move and get moved, which is why the 20th century saw the movement of tens if not hundreds of millions of refugees in countries around the world. There was no entity of Arabs called "Palestine" before Israel made the desert bloom. If those 600,000 original Palestinian refugees had been handled with maturity by their Arab brethren, who had nothing but space to put them, they could have moved on -- the way Germans, Czechs, Poles, Chinese and everybody else has, including, of course, the Jews.

But I digress. I really wanted to say that, for all those who accuse the likes of myself and the birthday girl of being unpatriotic, or hating America first, the feeling I've had watching Israel defend herself and a US president defend Israel (a country that is held to a standard for "restraint" that no other country ever is asked to meet, but that's another story) just reminds me how wrong that is. I LOVE being on the side of my president, and mouthing "You go, boy" when he gets it right. He just, outside of this, almost never does.

He revels in his support for the white nationalist regime, justifying mass expulsion and embargos because "nobody is happy with their borders." No, people are really unhappy when their borders are consistently regressing due to an expansionist, racist neighbor who has taken all or nearly all of the local arable land, water resources and the like.

Again, a hack.

Dean

6th July 2010, 17:27

You're ineffectual.

Long documentation of Maher's racism: http://palestinethinktank.com/2010/05/27/nima-shirazi-the-ridiculest-bill-mahers-cultural-supremacy-and-religious-hierarchy/

"Now, I've been known to make fun of Christians, but I have the perspective to know that they're a lot more evolved than people who target girls for going to school…And that's because Muslims still take their religion too seriously."
...
"but, would you grant me this, as long as there is an Israel in the world, and I’m a big supporter of Israel, as long as America backs it, the kind of Muslims that take their religion that seriously that they would strap on a suicide belt are always gonna be out for us and always gonna be trying to kill us?"
...
"Here's Syria. Here's Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Egypt, Sudan, Libya. Look at all this. Now, the Arabs purport to be brothers, that's what we always hear. It's one Arab nation divided into falsely drawn countries by the colonial powers. If this whole bit of land are all brothers, how come at the time of the partition when they refused to share the land with Israel, and there was only 600,000 Palestinian refugees, how come they couldn't find any home in this whole area?"

I love the last one. Classic racialist conceptualization of the conflict. A true American hero!

mikelepore

6th July 2010, 20:49

Is there any actual evidence of this xenophobia?

his comments toward muslims and followers of other religions.

Xenophobia means the fear of, or aversion to, strangers or people from other places. It does not mean the belief by atheists that it's foolhardy for people to believe in religion, or the tendency of atheists to ridicule or denounce religious beliefs.

NGNM85

6th July 2010, 23:34

his comments toward muslims and followers of other religions.

That isn't 'xenophobia.' As someone else has already pointed out. It isn't even close. This is the kind of crap I'm talking about.

Of course he was joking because he is a comedian. Did you think I was going to post something where he said something racist with a straight face? The point is that even in jest, how is what he said funny or not offensive to black people? Apparently, a "real" black Prez would've showed up BP by brandishing the gun tucked in his pants?

I garuntee you most black people would not take offense to that because they're hip and smart enough to get it. This is just so insane.

Yeah, real funny. What's funnier is you trying to defend his absurd attempts at humor.

See, that's you're whole point. You don't think he's funny. Great. Super. However just because you don't think he's funny, or you think he's a dick doesn't mean you get to call him a racist.

A conventional liberal with all the puff and glory of not being red baited or looked at as a pansy, then yes, I would say he is really a standard American liberal.

I take it you've done extensive research to reach this conclusion?

No it hasn't. It's pretty well defined as a non-leftist (Marxist, anarchist, etc.) reformist capitalist. Maher is a liberal.

That's a gross oversimplification.

It's not random. The British ones are all consorts, Euston Manifesto types that believe in bourgeoise democracy as the best thing since sliced bread and needs to be defended (yet disagree on how) by the unwashed third world masses and their religious zealousy.

That's not remotely fair or accurate. Again, you're reducing things to crude oversimplifications.

Well what is your point? Does this somehow make Western society seem so much better when it commits horrible attrocities toward the third world and has an economic boot on their necks

That's not what I said, I'm not excusing that, I've never excused that. That isn't what i was talking about. My point was very simple and very clear. That it is BETTER for women to not be chattel, it is BETTER not to live under religious law, it is BETTER not to have honor killings. I mean, I know it's not hip to acknowledge that western society has any redeeming features whatsoever, but it does.

which stifles any sort of progressive movements from gaining ground?

The west has a lot of responsibility for that, but not all of it. Unfortunately, you can't blame absolutely everything on western governments and industry. Some of the people in these regions actually do bear some responsibility for some things.

[QUOTE=RadioRaheem84;1794524]Please, come off it. You're not making any sense by simply giving me a 'clash of civilizations' argument.

'Clash of civilizations' in the sense of two civilzations clashing. Or, more accurately, the clash between civilization and it's opposite. The Abrahamic faiths are LITERALLY the antithesis of civilization. That's a fact.

Of course I know that Western society is preferable to the Middle East but only in a sense that the US and Western Europe have been for the most part been allowed to develop internally while they mal-developed the third world.

That's part of it. Another part is years of secular culture ever since the Enlightenment that has pried loose the talons and tentacles of religion which strangled the West for so long. Unfortunately, the Middle East doesn't have the advantage of decades and decades of secularization.

Oh a scientist and a rationalist. Yup, that makes him a paragon of virtue then. :rolleyes: Yet, he too touts a sort of clash of civlizations line and promotes the idiotic 'islamo-fascism' token pro-war argument.

http://www.thecommentfactory.com/richard-dawkins-interview-on-religion-evolution-and-iraq-2777/

That is completely dishonest. You're completely micharacterizing what he said. It's abundantly clear why you left out all of the context for the line you quoted. For everybody else, here's what he actually said;

"MK: Do you draw distinctions between religions? In terms of Islam and Christianity do you think they are both equally malicious and malign or do you think that one is worse than the other?
RD: Well in terms of the potential danger from blind faith there’s no difference between them. All faith is dangerous because all faith teaches that you don’t need to argue for your point of view – you just simply assert: this is my faith, this is what I believe, I don’t have to give reasons for belief. That is very dangerous. And in the case of Christianity the danger in practice was sort of played out in the Middle Ages and thereafter and Christianity has now more or less tamed it except in some extreme areas in America. In Islam it hasn’t and so what we’re seeing in Islam – they are now doing what Christianity used to do in the Middle Ages, in much more dangerous circumstances because now there are much more terrible weapons than the Crusaders, for example, ever had. Or than other Medieval Christians ever had.
So Islam is the big danger today because they have a Medieval mindset which bursts through into the twenty-first century."

Ugh.

I know you like things in black and white. Maher, like a whole shitload of people, is not completely for, or completely against war, as a concept. Like many people, he also changes his mind, sometimes.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0303/13/wbr.00.html

The man is not anti-war. You're just insinuating that just because he is anti-Iraq War that he is absolved?

Absolved of what?

No, he is anti-the way we're conducting the Iraq War or War on Terror. And so what if he is anti-Iraq War. He would still one of those liberals that is anti-Iraq War but pro-Agfhan War or pro-War on terror. Either way its a standard pro-war liberal hawk attitude.

I know it's so much easier to put things into simplistic categories, but, unfortunately, the world is much more complex.

WTF? Most if not all the war the US government engages in have been "good wars" according to the media. What are you talking about? People have been skeptical since the inception of the War on Terror.

Yes, obviously, the mainstream media reinforces the status quo. Yes, some people have been skeptical since the very beginning. I was one of those people. however, most of the electorate were initially supportive of the wars in the Middle East. Now the public is largely critical of the war in Iraq, they turned on that some time ago. However, the war on Afghanistan has been cast as "The Good War", in fact I think that was the cover headline for Newsweek last month, verbatim. The public support for the Afghanistan campaign, for a number of reasons, has been more resilient.

mikelepore

7th July 2010, 01:02

Perhaps some of you saw, in recent weeks, that Bill Mahar held what he called the tournament to name "the stupidest state" in the U.S. He got the list down to eight finalists: Texas, Alaska, Mississippi, Florida, Arizona, Alabama, Kansas, and Utah. He named some of the qualifications of each state, including homophobic laws, efforts to require the teaching of creationism, and reported sightings of miracles. He said, "I 'play' [have stage performances in] these states, because I realize that not everyone from a stupid state is stupid." In the following weeks, he reduced the list to four semifinalists, and then two main contenders. In the final week of the tournament, he announced the winner. He awarded Arizona a trophy -- a golden statue of a man bent over with his head inserted into his own anus. He sent the trophy to Arizona governor Jan Brewer.

Realizing the style in which Maher talks about places and the people who live in those places, now take another look at the reports posted here about how Maher speaks as though the people in predominantly Muslim countries were all fanatics. Overgeneralizing about places and the people who live there is one of the routines in his act. If you think his style is inappropriate, or simply not funny, that may be a valid criticism. However, the claims posted above that he targets Muslims in a "racist" way show a misunderstanding of the kind of stage act that he puts on.

Conquer or Die

7th July 2010, 02:57

Dean

7th July 2010, 14:28

Realizing the style in which Maher talks about places and the people who live in those places, now take another look at the reports posted here about how Maher speaks as though the people in predominantly Muslim countries were all fanatics. Overgeneralizing about places and the people who live there is one of the routines in his act. If you think his style is inappropriate, or simply not funny, that may be a valid criticism. However, the claims posted above that he targets Muslims in a "racist" way show a misunderstanding of the kind of stage act that he puts on.

Was this anecdote supposed to make him look better? Sorry, someone who endorses wars of western conquest and xenophobia is not "redeemed" because he uses the same vile criticism against US citizens.

I've never heard someone on the supposed left use "generalization" as a defense for xenophobia. That is rather surprising.

The weak minded cretins who would smother Communism with their self-love and ignorance do not speak for us all. Thank you MikeLepore, you are the "vanguard" at this forum.
Yep, hes a vanguard and so are you because you don't think political shows can be judged on their political content. Real revolutionary; if only you could spread this liberal shit to the world, we'd have a bona fide communist world!

Because that's what tolerance for racist warmongering engenders, right? :laugh:

RadioRaheem84

7th July 2010, 16:23

That is completely dishonest. You're completely micharacterizing what he said. It's abundantly clear why you left out all of the context for the line you quoted. For everybody else, here's what he actually said;

"MK: Do you draw distinctions between religions? In terms of Islam and Christianity do you think they are both equally malicious and malign or do you think that one is worse than the other?
RD: Well in terms of the potential danger from blind faith there’s no difference between them. All faith is dangerous because all faith teaches that you don’t need to argue for your point of view – you just simply assert: this is my faith, this is what I believe, I don’t have to give reasons for belief. That is very dangerous. And in the case of Christianity the danger in practice was sort of played out in the Middle Ages and thereafter and Christianity has now more or less tamed it except in some extreme areas in America. In Islam it hasn’t and so what we’re seeing in Islam – they are now doing what Christianity used to do in the Middle Ages, in much more dangerous circumstances because now there are much more terrible weapons than the Crusaders, for example, ever had. Or than other Medieval Christians ever had.
So Islam is the big danger today because they have a Medieval mindset which bursts through into the twenty-first century."

NGN, the main point of contention with the "anti-totalitarian" left and the real left is that they believe that religion and islamic fundamentalism, i.e. islamic fascism is the biggest enemy civilization has to deal with and is more dangerous than globalization and imperialism. Dawkins also begins with this premise.

And I didn't leave anything out. You wouldn't have found the rest of the quote without the link I provided.

ZeroNowhere

7th July 2010, 16:58

Of course he was joking because he is a comedian. Did you think I was going to post something where he said something racist with a straight face? The point is that even in jest, how is what he said funny or not offensive to black people? Apparently, a "real" black Prez would've showed up BP by brandishing the gun tucked in his pants? Yeah, real funny. What's funnier is you trying to defend his absurd attempts at humor. I love how you on the one hand concede that he was joking, and then claim that he was stating that a real black President would do that. The joke was at the expense of the stereotype, and does not seem to even take it seriously, not in favour of it.

I love the last one. Classic racialist conceptualization of the conflict. A true American hero!That is not racist. His argument in that section is idiotic, reading over it now, but it's not racist. It's vaguely similar to people justifying the Versailles treaty, Dresden, and so on, by saying, "Well, the Germans declared war, they deserve it!" Stupid, but not necessarily racist. Probably closer to nationalist. I don't recall that link calling him racist either, although I may have missed it.

Other than that, I don't find Maher particularly amusing, so I don't have that much to say about him. I'm not sure on what basis one would deny that he supported Israel, though.

Dean

7th July 2010, 17:52

That is not racist. His argument in that section is idiotic, reading over it now, but it's not racist. It's vaguely similar to people justifying the Versailles treaty, Dresden, and so on, by saying, "Well, the Germans declared war, they deserve it!" Stupid, but not necessarily racist. Probably closer to nationalist. I don't recall that link calling him racist either, although I may have missed it.

It's absolutely racist because he is condemning Arab States for not helping "their brothers," the Palestinians, who have a responsibility to help them because they are their "Arab brothers." This lovely little race-war ideology has been presented by others here, as well - all OIers, of course.

ZeroNowhere

7th July 2010, 17:58

Dean

7th July 2010, 21:48

He doesn't seem to be arguing that, though. What he seems to be arguing is, "If you claim to be their brothers, why not take them in, rather than protesting about Israel not doing so?" He gets called out on the weakness of his argument later ("What if you had somebody come up to you and tell you that if you don't leave your home, they will shoot you?" "Well... I don't live in contested territory. Also, you declared war first!" "I do not recall doing so"), but nonetheless it doesn't seem necessarily racist.

"Here's Syria. Here's Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Egypt, Sudan, Libya. Look at all this. Now, the Arabs purport to be brothers, that's what we always hear. It's one Arab nation divided into falsely drawn countries by the colonial powers. If this whole bit of land are all brothers, how come at the time of the partition when they refused to share the land with Israel, and there was only 600,000 Palestinian refugees, how come they couldn't find any home in this whole area?"

So, "the arabs" purport to be brothers.

Let's say, "the Jews claim that Israel is their birthright" and see how people react.
Let's say, "the blacks claim that they are unfairly targeted" and see what happens.

It's a rash generalization, and worse, at an ethnic group he is criticizing.

mikelepore

7th July 2010, 21:56

Was this anecdote supposed to make him look better? Sorry, someone who endorses wars of western conquest and xenophobia is not "redeemed" because he uses the same vile criticism against US citizens.

I've never heard someone on the supposed left use "generalization" as a defense for xenophobia. That is rather surprising.

Your argument relies on the assertion that Maher has eight additional types of xenophobia, directed against the people of Texas, Alaska, Mississippi, Florida, Arizona, Alabama, Kansas, and Utah. And yet he doesn't exhibit xenophobia toward the people of the other 42 states, and he doesn't exhibit xenophobia toward people from almost 200 other countries around the world.

And yet xenophobia is defined as an aversive reaction to strangers or people from other geographical regions, so he can only exhibit xenophobia if he has this aversive reaction to the people of all 49 states except for California where he lives, and if he has this aversive reaction to the people of nearly 200 countries in the world, all of whom are strangers to him, and all of whom are from other geographical regions.

This is what happens when people use language in a sloppy way.

*******

"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling the tail a leg does not make it so." --- Abraham Lincoln

Dean

7th July 2010, 22:51

Your argument relies on the assertion that Maher has eight additional types of xenophobia, directed against the people of Texas, Alaska, Mississippi, Florida, Arizona, Alabama, Kansas, and Utah. And yet he doesn't exhibit xenophobia toward the people of the other 42 states, and he doesn't exhibit xenophobia toward people from almost 200 other countries around the world.
He absolutely does.

And yet xenophobia is defined as an aversive reaction to strangers or people from other geographical regions, so he can only exhibit xenophobia if he has this aversive reaction to the people of all 49 states except for California where he lives, and if he has this aversive reaction to the people of nearly 200 countries in the world, all of whom are strangers to him, and all of whom are from other geographical regions.

This is what happens when people use language in a sloppy way.
No, its got nothing necessary to do with geography. Let's see some definitions:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=3ex&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&defl=en&q=define:xenophobia

Definitions of xenophobia on the Web:

a fear of foreigners or strangers
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn (http://www.google.com/url?q=http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn%3Fs%3Dxenophobia&sa=X&ei=T_Q0TLrLB8L6lweB8cHVBw&ved=0CAwQpAMoAA&usg=AFQjCNFjPiThqcwzCZZ2tXqpzbtTt9gCbw)
Xenophobia is a dislike and/or fear of that which is unknown or different from oneself. It comes from the Greek words ξένος (xenos), meaning "stranger," "foreigner" and φόβος (phobos), meaning "fear. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia (http://www.google.com/url?q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia&sa=X&ei=T_Q0TLrLB8L6lweB8cHVBw&ved=0CA0QpAMoAQ&usg=AFQjCNEYKDB7OVuaMiCK3wnn02MIS8jN8Q)
Xenophobia (Why?) is the third studio album by Australian rock band Spy vs Spy, it was produced by Les Karski (Boys Next Door, Midnight Oil, Nauts) and Guy Gray, and released through WEA on 21 March 1988. For this album Spy vs Spy were known as v. Spy v. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia_(Why (http://www.google.com/url?q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia_%28Why%3F%29&sa=X&ei=T_Q0TLrLB8L6lweB8cHVBw&ved=0CA4QpAMoAg&usg=AFQjCNG6WDY8NXFB8u1kmvmYUf7Ds_nPng)
A fear or hatred of persons of a different race, or different ethnic or national origin.
www.bailiff.com.au/Legaldictionary/S-T-U-V-W-X-Y-Z-legaldictionary.asp (http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.bailiff.com.au/Legaldictionary/S-T-U-V-W-X-Y-Z-legaldictionary.asp&sa=X&ei=T_Q0TLrLB8L6lweB8cHVBw&ved=0CA8QpAMoAw&usg=AFQjCNFAt0jMix6M-7wylqWxb0oapXT8RA)
a fear or dislike of foreigners or people significantly different from oneself. Gender gap: gender refers to social differences between men and women (as opposed to biological differences); women outlive men in the vast majority of countries (exceptions are some states in West and Southern ...
teacherweb.ftl.pinecrest.edu/snyderd/MWH/AP/definitions/APdefinitions3.htm (http://www.google.com/url?q=http://teacherweb.ftl.pinecrest.edu/snyderd/MWH/AP/definitions/APdefinitions3.htm&sa=X&ei=T_Q0TLrLB8L6lweB8cHVBw&ved=0CBAQpAMoBA&usg=AFQjCNEhmqrl0-Ae45XJoM04cs616FZjPg)
fear or dislike of strangers or the unknown, often used to describe nationalistic political beliefs and movements
www.fearsandphobias.com.au/documents/definitions.html (http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.fearsandphobias.com.au/documents/definitions.html&sa=X&ei=T_Q0TLrLB8L6lweB8cHVBw&ved=0CBEQpAMoBQ&usg=AFQjCNEzEAFAaxpcgIU656qlPMz32vYMbw)
a fear or contempt of that which is foreign or unknown, especially of strangers or foreign people.
www.romarights.net/content/terminology (http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.romarights.net/content/terminology&sa=X&ei=T_Q0TLrLB8L6lweB8cHVBw&ved=0CBIQpAMoBg&usg=AFQjCNH9vikGk4nw7LjnZw-tdX5ooJfdjA)

(my emphasis) - each of these describe valid descriptors for his expressions of contempt levied at Arabs, Muslims or rural Americans.

If we were to create a holistic definition which included all of these it would be "fear or dislike of people different from oneself, esp. groups."

Your particular notion about "49 other states" is preposterous. I never said that he had particular problems with people in some states; neither does my criticism rely on such a ridiculous notion. But he does hold culturalist viewpoints which are best described as urbanite and anti-rural.

You're being exceptionally sloppy with language here; and your above narrow argument about semantics is what happens in such cases. :tt2:

mikelepore

8th July 2010, 00:03

The definitions you posted prove my point, not yours. When Maher bashes Muslims his comments are similar to "they take their religion too seriously", "all upset just because someone drew a cartoon", "forcing women to wear bee-keeper suits", etc. He bashes the fact that Sharia law keeps religion and government mixed together, so that blasphemy is punished by government. He doesn't make a single comment showing a dislike for anyone because of their nationality or place of birth or biological group or language group, or because they are strangers to him or unfamiliar to him.

What Maher says about religious fundamentalism is what the members of all atheist associations say. Go read any atheist forum and you will see it. Religious people tend to behave foolishly, and their foolishness is in proportion to their religiosity. Slightly religious people behave slightly foolishly; moderately religious people behave moderately foolishly; extremely religious people behave extremely foolishly. If hearing this bother anyone here, then your real intention is cover your eyes and ears so that you don't have to find out about the viewpoints of the atheist movement.

For the people here to go on calling such a viewpoint "racism" and "xenophobia" shows a strong resistance to learning that one has misunderstood the meanings of several words. It is as though the people who have been using these words incorrectly are heavily invested in retaining their misunderstandings of the definitions. The next time someone says something like "Hitler was a socialist", and you try to explain to them that they misunderstand the meaning of a word, and then they respond by showing a strong resistance to being informed that they have been using a word incorrectly, the people in this forum should take a look in the mirror, because the people here are showing that same kind of resistance. Your understanding of the meanings of some words is incorrect, and it is causing you psychological pain to be informed about that fact.

8th July 2010, 00:53

This ridiculous never-ending debate about whether he is a racist or xenophobe is completely missing the point. And the point, really, is that he is a millionaire liberal who supports the US occupation in Afghanistan and defends the state of Israel. I think this fact is pretty straightforward by now. I don't see why it is necessary to continue debating beyond this, as if a millionaire liberal who supports the US occupation in Afghanistan and defends the state of Israel for reason X is fundamentally different than a millionaire liberal who supports the US occupation in Afghanistan and defends the state of Israel for reason Y.

Dean

8th July 2010, 02:06

Conquer or Die

8th July 2010, 02:11

But he challenges people. He's just a comedian.

If only you knew how silly you sound.

#FF0000

8th July 2010, 02:12

If only you knew how silly you sound.

This is coming from the guy who literally said people who think bill maher is a big dumb guy aren't communists

NGNM85

8th July 2010, 04:43

NGN, the main point of contention with the "anti-totalitarian" left and the real left is that they believe that religion and islamic fundamentalism, i.e. islamic fascism is the biggest enemy civilization has to deal with and is more dangerous than globalization and imperialism. Dawkins also begins with this premise.

Is religion (Which includes Islam.) the biggest threat to civilization? Maybe not, but it's definitely in the top 10. Regardless, it's something we're going to have to deal with, as a species, like nuclear proliferation. In fact, the existence of nuclear weapons makes it much more important that we deal with religion before some extremists get their hands on one. Not to mention all the other reasons to get rid of religion; it's bigoted, backward, irrational, etc.

And I didn't leave anything out. You wouldn't have found the rest of the quote without the link I provided.

You deliberately misrepresented what he said, then you posted the part that would be most inflammatory without any context, and then removed all the context.

IllicitPopsicle

8th July 2010, 11:57

Jesus, can't we all just agree that Maher is a big wad of asscandy and get over it?

RadioRaheem84

8th July 2010, 15:37

Is religion (Which includes Islam.) the biggest threat to civilization? Maybe not, but it's definitely in the top 10. Regardless, it's something we're going to have to deal with, as a species, like nuclear proliferation. In fact, the existence of nuclear weapons makes it much more important that we deal with religion before some extremists get their hands on one. Not to mention all the other reasons to get rid of religion; it's bigoted, backward, irrational, etc.You don't have a Marxist outlook on anything much less an Anarchist one. There is no top ten list of things that are a threat to 'civilization'. The US and the Western powers have used, tested, and threatened to use nuclear bombs on others. We've engaged in sick acts of terrorism toward anyone we deem a threat; all conducted by Cold War Warriors that you can characterize as "western supremacist", right wing extremists". Sicker acts that you can find in the most backward of Islamic societies. Acts still carried on to this day. So what is your problem?

You deliberately misrepresented what he said, then you posted the part that would be most inflammatory without any context, and then removed all the context.

The Hitchens, Dawkins, crowd starts off with this premise that religion, especially Islam is the most dangerous thing on earth and that we should focus our attention away from criticizing western civilization (which is the best thing since sliced bread) and demean their society. You would have to first believe in the "pro-war" liberal hawk argument that these movements are just pathological in their violence and have no concern for political and social outlets.

You're presupposing a lot of stuff that was already said by many pro-war hawks and you continue to argue that somehow your ideas are unique or something.

mikelepore

8th July 2010, 21:04

RadioRaheem84

8th July 2010, 21:15

You're right on several points there, except one. Maher consistently speaks out against the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan. He emphasizes this in almost every weekly program.

No he doesn't. He pokes fun at the idiocy of the campaign and the direction it has taken. I posted a debate on here with Maher arguing the methods and techniques of fighting the War on Terror, he was not anti-war.

I believe his views have shifted a little but nothing more than simply thinking that the fight against "islamo-fascism" has taken a "bad" turn.

Look, being against the Afghan or Iraq War is not a testiment to having leftist credentials. There are plenty of anti-war liberals that still subcribe to the 'clash of civilizations' myth and all the western chavinism. Salmond Rushdie is one that comes to mind, Dawkins another and Johann Hari (although I like him, he is not that bad).

The most awful anti-war liberal that makes me fume is this idiot Eric Alterman. Oh, that man is just wrong on so many levels.

mikelepore

8th July 2010, 21:41

Is religion (Which includes Islam.) the biggest threat to civilization? Maybe not, but it's definitely in the top 10. Regardless, it's something we're going to have to deal with, as a species, like nuclear proliferation.

It has been in the news in the past few days, a court in Iran convicted a woman, a mother of two children, of committing adultery. The conviction was based on a confession obtained during a beating, and a confession which she retracted after the beating was ended. The punishment announced by the court was 99 lashes, and then she is to be buried in the ground up to her neck, and then have people throw rocks at her head until she is dead. The 99 lashes were delivered, and she is waiting to receive for the remainder of the punishment.

This kind of atrocity arises when religion and government are not kept separate, that is, from theocracy. Women are the major victims. Continuous international pressure should be applied to speed up the awakening of the people in such countries to the harm done by theocracy. If the people always get reminded that the human race is outraged by their barbaric laws, they will be more likely to rise up and force a change in their system of government.

mikelepore

8th July 2010, 22:03

No he doesn't. He pokes fun at the idiocy of the campaign and the direction it has taken. I posted a debate on here with Maher arguing the methods and techniques of fighting the War on Terror, he was not anti-war.

In the Hudson Valley we get his weekly show every Friday night on channel 82 on Optimum Cablevision. What channel do you watch his program on?

9th July 2010, 00:29

You're right on several points there, except one. Maher consistently speaks out against the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan. He emphasizes this in almost every weekly program.

He supported the invasion.

Originally Posted by Bill Maher
Afghanistan was right. Exactly.

NGNM85

9th July 2010, 02:41

You don't have a Marxist outlook on anything much less an Anarchist one.

I never claimed to be a Marxist. I am an Anarchist. Nothing I've said here is philosophically inconsistent with Anarchism.

There is no top ten list of things that are a threat to 'civilization'.

Of course not, I was simply trying to put it in the simplest terms. It should be obvious I was simply saying that religion is one of the greatest threats to civilization if not the greatest. It's a huge, serious, dangerous fucking problem. I can't type slower, I really don't know what else to do.

The US and the Western powers have used, tested, and threatened to use nuclear bombs on others. We've engaged in sick acts of terrorism toward anyone we deem a threat; all conducted by Cold War Warriors that you can characterize as "western supremacist", right wing extremists". Sicker acts that you can find in the most backward of Islamic societies. Acts still carried on to this day. So what is your problem?

What is your point? What are you rambling about?

The Hitchens, Dawkins, crowd starts off with this premise that religion, especially Islam is the most dangerous thing on earth

Religion is incredibly dangerous, that's a fact. Moreover, both Hitchens , Dawkins, and Sam Harris make it very clear, as I have, that Islam is no less crazy that Christianity. However, unlike the west, the Middle East has not had the benefit of the secularism that has beaten back religion in the west. Again, I fear this is too subtle.

and that we should focus our attention away from criticizing western civilization

That's not what they say, and again, you're conflating things to the point where you're simply talking nonsense.

(which is the best thing since sliced bread)

What they are saying, what I am saying, is that it's better than the alternatives.

and demean their society.

No, criticizing those actions and attitudes which deserve criticism is not unfair.

You would have to first believe in the "pro-war" liberal hawk argument that these movements are just pathological in their violence and have no concern for political and social outlets.

You're presupposing a lot of stuff that was already said by many pro-war hawks and you continue to argue that somehow your ideas are unique or something.

I'm not even going to bother trying to unpack all of this. If you're going to talk like this conversation is going to be impossible.

mikelepore

9th July 2010, 04:19

He supported the invasion.

Now the claim is that he agrees with the October 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, which is true. But before the accusation made here was that he supports the OCCUPATION of the country, which is false. There's a big difference between the U.S. retaliating after an attack on the U.S. was planned in Afghanistan by the Taliban's "invited guests", and the U.S. tendency never to leave anywhere and to keep troops stationed in other countries indefinitely. This distinction is made as clearly as it can be expressed on the TV program.

Sendo

9th July 2010, 06:03

NGNM85

9th July 2010, 08:10

NGNM85 I know Maher's show, I have for years, watched entire programs, and listened to his apologists. The worst, though, is your accusation that the Muslims have never had secular society. Malaysia for one? Okay, not the Middle East....

Precisely.

oh wait, what about Iran before the CIA brought the shah to power? How about Iraq before and during Saddam?

Yes, there have been periods of secular goverments. However, nothing like the enlightenment. Western culture has had centuries of gradual secularization, the Middle East hasn't experienced anything comperable, unfortunately. That was my point.

In any case, the argument is irrelevant. A race or region does not need to be taught or experience secularism or democracy to want it. Black slaves born in Dixie and cut off from their heritage don't need a tradition of freedom to want it.

I wasn't necessarily claiming otherwise. I'm sure there are a lot of people in the region, the worst parts, that really want to break free, especially women, I would imagine. However, unfortunately a lot of people actually subscribe to these ideas. But I'm all for doing whatever possible to help the region become more secular and democratic. However, we need to realize that Islam, itself, is part of the problem.

Dean

9th July 2010, 14:16

This thread was banal like 3 pages ago.

In any case, I don't think Mikelepore and NGNM85 actually support Maher's vile positions. So the argument is pretty silly. Let's let go.

If only you knew how silly you sound.
I don't know if you're dumb enough not to see the mockery. So I'm pointing it out.

Bud Struggle

9th July 2010, 14:47

I think the problem here is that you people are aproaching the question of Bill Maher as Communists. Taking it from Capitalist perspective, making 5 million dollars a year to work half an hour a day saying whatever wacky think pops into your head--is a pretty good gig. :)

RGacky3

9th July 2010, 14:51

No we are approaching the question as people who listen to what people say.

mikelepore

9th July 2010, 20:36

NGNM85 I know Maher's show, I have for years, watched entire programs, and listened to his apologists. The worst, though, is your accusation that the Muslims have never had secular society. Malaysia for one? Okay, not the Middle East....oh wait, what about Iran before the CIA brought the shah to power? How about Iraq before and during Saddam?

I don't understand your sentence fragments. Are you saying that Malaysia has a secular society? Malaysia is composed of several states that have different laws, and none of them are secular. All of them have penalties for former Muslims who have quit the religion. In some of the states, people who want to drop out of the religion have to ask for permission from a court of law. Even if the permission is granted they lose some legal rights afterwards, and they are subjected to discrimination. In some of the states of Malaysia there is no procedure to ask for permission to be let out of the religion - the law just says that people who change their mind about religion simply get beaten and placed into prison.

Malaysia is considered relatively progressive in this area compared to some other countries. Laws in the following countries prescribe the death penalty for "apostasy" (the crime committed by Muslims who quit their religion): Egypt, Afghanistan, Mauritania, Iran, Sudan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen.