Bill Maher To PC Liberals: “Shut Up”

[Brian37]

It really is no different than dealing with the Middle East, it would be fatal to the world to start a war because of their religious oppression, but putting cracks in it to get it to grow up slowly will not kill the planet. Change takes time. If anything Bush Jr and the GOP would push the world to oblivion and quickly.

[Brian37]

I like Bill Maher, but he does get on my nerves. Not everyone needs to be an instigator like him that continuously points out harm that religion does in the way he does. Mocking, and mocking in the way he does and the ways he is saying "we all should" has it's place, but there are many ways of going about it... and I actually feel like having multiple approaches to actively opposing religion works better than just one aggressive one, even if it's the most aggressive approach to opposing religion.

Like Shir said. be respectful... even with your disrespect. Some things deserve disrespect, but don't dish out more disrespect than is deserved, because then you become the asshole and the problem.

No he is trying to plant those instigators in the east and people like that Muslim in that article I posted earlier in that thread want more instigators of their own, by Bill saying what he says and former Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali saying what she says more in the East will feel empowered.

The word needs provokers, I don't mean violent people or people to call for violence, but we do have to stop this stupid idea that getting insulted or having your ideas and claims picked on is the worst thing in the world.

Um no, when you say "be respectful even with your disrespect" that the bullshit that allows the violent side of religion to hide and or grow. I do not nor ever will play nice with my words to people who harm others with with their religions. Fuck the word "respect", that is a hollow word humans use to say "don't bruise my ego". I value human rights and part of those human rights means people will offend me sometimes.

[Shiranu]

Frankly, my interest in this thread has declined significantly, so this will be my last post.

You are arguing against positions that no one here is holding.

-No one is saying Bill Maher's speech should be infringed upon.

-My point was not to discredit all of Jefferson's work, simply that he is not the moral icon I wish to emulate. I far more prefer the morality of men like MLK, the Buddha and Gandhi, and their morality is what I base my views on how others should be treated. I respect Jefferson as a politician and a man likely ahead of his time, but I simply do not agree with him on all aspects of what is moral and right and what is immoral and wrong.

-Your definitions of putting cracks in it and mine differ; I see provocation and aggression as only putting cracks in our own position by lowering ourselves and only continuing the cycle of anger and animosity between the two sides.


These are my positions, and I hold to them. I do not believe Maher's snark provides a valuable service in terms of debate, and I do not find it as funny as I once did. I do not judge others for finding it funny any more than I judge people for liking country music or ABBA, it just doesn't appeal to me.

I also do not find many prominent atheist's way of attacking religion as productive. I am no longer a fan of Dawkin's snark, or Hitchen's "Hitch Slapping" people. Their arguments are generally sound, and I agree with them and find them interesting; I just do not find the delivery to be appealing or the best way to reach out. And I have every right to say that just as they have every right to deliver their message as they please. That does not mean I am in anyway infringing on them.

That is all. I have left this as clear as I feel I can get it at the moment, and don't really care to expand further.

Um no, when you say "be respectful even with your disrespect" that the bullshit that allows the violent side of religion to hide and or grow. I do not nor ever will play nice with my words to people who harm others with with their religions. Fuck the word "respect", that is a hollow word humans use to say "don't bruise my ego". I value human rights and part of those human rights means people will offend me sometimes.

And I simply feel you are wrong that this is the only doctrine that works, as great men like MLK and Gandhi have proven.

To compare Ayaan Hirsi Ali to Maher is a very cheap comparison. I have seen no quotes of her's that have the toxicity of Maher's snark. And I'm sorry, but Maher has little to no influence in the Middle East. I will put $100 on the line right now that few people in the ME even know who he is.

You want to know who are the victims of radical Islam, and the people who are doing the most to fight it?

Moderate Muslims. They are the ones fighting the radical groups in the Middle East. They are the one's having their homes and mosques bombed. They are the one's that are struggling against radicalism. Not Bill Maher.

[Brian37]

Frankly, my interest in this thread has declined significantly, so this will be my last post.

You are arguing against positions that no one here is holding.

-No one is saying Bill Maher's speech should be infringed upon.

-My point was not to discredit all of Jefferson's work, simply that he is not the moral icon I wish to emulate. I far more prefer the morality of men like MLK, the Buddha and Gandhi, and their morality is what I base my views on how others should be treated. I respect Jefferson as a politician and a man likely ahead of his time, but I simply do not agree with him on all aspects of what is moral and right and what is immoral and wrong.

-Your definitions of putting cracks in it and mine differ; I see provocation and aggression as only putting cracks in our own position by lowering ourselves and only continuing the cycle of anger and animosity between the two sides.


These are my positions, and I hold to them. I do not believe Maher's snark provides a valuable service in terms of debate, and I do not find it as funny as I once did. I do not judge others for finding it funny any more than I judge people for liking country music or ABBA, it just doesn't appeal to me.

I also do not find many prominent atheist's way of attacking religion as productive. I am no longer a fan of Dawkin's snark, or Hitchen's "Hitch Slapping" people. Their arguments are generally sound, and I agree with them and find them interesting; I just do not find the delivery to be appealing or the best way to reach out. And I have every right to say that just as they have every right to deliver their message as they please. That does not mean I am in anyway infringing on them.

That is all. I have left this as clear as I feel I can get it at the moment, and don't really care to expand further.

Neither am I saying you are trying to stop him. I am talking about your code "wink" language trying to imply his tactic is wrong. No he is not wrong. You simply are not comfortable with the way he goes about it. You are not wrong either, both are needed. No one ever thinks about the third option.

Life is never an either or proposition. Just accept you like the library, that does not make him wrong.

[PickelledEggs]

No he is trying to plant those instigators in the east and people like that Muslim in that article I posted earlier in that thread want more instigators of their own, by Bill saying what he says and former Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali saying what she says more in the East will feel empowered.

The word needs provokers, I don't mean violent people or people to call for violence, but we do have to stop this stupid idea that getting insulted or having your ideas and claims picked on is the worst thing in the world.

Um no, when you say "be respectful even with your disrespect" that the bullshit that allows the violent side of religion to hide and or grow. I do not nor ever will play nice with my words to people who harm others with with their religions. Fuck the word "respect", that is a hollow word humans use to say "don't bruise my ego". I value human rights and part of those human rights means people will offend me sometimes.

I don't know what you read, but it wasn't the my post you quoted.

I said that the world needs instigators and provokers.... in other words someone to push boundaries, but the world ALSO needs other types of activists that go about it different ways. I am literally saying the same thing as you, so I don't know why you sound like you want disagree with me.

My "be respectful with disrespect" may not have been the best way to communicate what I wanted, but fuck dude, at least think about what it means before you kneejerk in to a hissy fit.  I simply meant by that, properly give the amount of respect something deserves. Sometimes it's none sometimes it's some... sometimes it's flat out disrespect that is deserved. If someone is simply identifying as a muslim or christian, they aren't deserving of an onslaught of mockery like the assholes that preach the crap on facebook every day and especially like the ones that believe it fundamentally do.


Egos need not to be bruised.... they need to be destroyed. But have some priorities about how you go about it. I have a lot of religious facebook friends and I'm pretty open about my stance on how religion is harmful right on my own page and with my own page on to my friends' discussions. Especially recently with the Indiana and the Phil Robertson shitfuckery. I even unloaded some logic on to someone that I studied art with that was preaching that god gives us morals and we live to serve him... There are many more people that I'm friends with on there that also have a profound faith in the bible, but some of them, I don't talk to about it because it doesn't come up. For instance, this one girl is probably SUPER religious, she even went to some bible institute, but I don't insult her faith, because she doesn't post about it... almost like she is one of the few that knows about Mathew 6:6

They don't preach-- I don't pounce. My rule of thumb.... but that's only some people's rule of thumb. There are so many ways of going about it, some more passive, some more aggressive... The only problem with Bill Maher I have is that he is telling people what to do... I don't think it's one of his most effective things he's done... We definitely need thought provokers all over the place, but saying that EVERYONE that is PC needs to stop being PC is a load of shit. Don't tell people what to do. Period. Tell the world what we need and the right people will come out for the fight.

[Munch]

https://youtube.com/index?hl=en-GB&gl=GB&rdm=zrezqtm&layout=mobile&client=mv-google#/watch?v=BfyXk-sgy-8

[Brian37]

Holy crap another word I need to blast on top of "respect", don't call what Bill does a "doctrine" where the hell is that coming from?

Bill isn't a lawmaker, and our secular constitution allows everyone no matter what position they hold to say what they have to say. "Doctrine" is simply more stupid code to say "I don't like the way others conduct themselves". Just say that and stop trying to make your opinion sound fancy.

You don't like Bill, well yea no kidding, on a planet of 7 billion guess what, that is going to happen.

[SGOS]

I remember a friend of mine that once said, "Politically correct is a meaningless term."  I don't think it's meaningless, but it is certainly a nebulous concept.  While I think I have a good grasp of what politically correct usually means, things get confusing when one tries to identify politically correct issues.  In addition, certain baggage is added to the meaning, often that it's "some silly bullshit that liberals do."

But that's not how I define politically correct.  I think it's simply the most popular opinion about an issue.  Since it's decided by popular opinion, it may or may not be congruent with reality.  But it is most assuredly not a flaw limited to liberal thinking.  In 2002 the most widely spread politically correct belief was that the US should invade Iraq in order to destroy Iraq's supply of weapons of mass destruction.  It appeared to be accepted by 67% of Americans, some of which were liberals, while the majority was conservative.  The fact that the opinion turned out to be dead wrong, doesn't make it politically correct, just as it does not make it politically incorrect.  Those who believed there were no reasons to assume Iraq actually had any WMD, were on the wrong side of the opinion, and were not politically correct, even though they turned out to be right.

This was part of my confusion about Bill Maher, although a lesser part for sure.  He was deciding who he disagreed with and then saying they were politically correct, implying that they had no basis for their opinions.  But this group he was hammering, certainly didn't represent any kind of majority of liberals from what I could tell, nor were their disagreements with others within their groups of any consequence.  But Maher was pretending to have his nose all out of joint.

Remember, Maher's first show on HBO?  It was called Politically Incorrect.  I thought that sounded interesting.  Here there will be some unpopular views held up for critical examination.  But it turned out that the show was more politically correct than anything else.  It was just Bill upholding popular opinion, while attacking the minority views, either conservative or liberal.  I think he had me kind of confused back then to in regards to his politics.  Was he liberal, conservative, or just some charismatic speaker with opinions about everything?

Since then he's kind of etched out a reputation as an atheist, although early on, he said to Larry King that he didn't believe in God, but when King said, "So then you're an atheist," Maher replied, "No, I'm not one of THOSE PEOPLE!"  I think he does a pretty good Don Rickles imitation, but I always wonder about how knowledgeable he is.

[Brian37]

Atheist is not an indicator of education nor it is a moral code. It merely means "off" on one claim.