Slackerinc is a fair weather liberal. When he looks at places where the fight for social progress has been won, and public support is on the side of the oppressed, he will happily crow about how progressive and accepting he is. But talk about an area where there’s still work to do, and he changes his tune: “oh no, we can’t piss off all the racists and Islamophobes! Look guys, I wpuld personally LOVE not to shit on them but if I did that Trump would win, so let’s just do what Trump wants, alright?”
He’s not a real liberal – just a conservative who’s too chickenshit to actually say something. Maybe he doesn’t want to turn the clock of social progress back to the 1950s but he’s just fine here at 2020 where a straight white man’s role in the world hasn’t taken too much of a hit and where he can keep feeling “paternalistically” better than other races.
In short, he is a smarmy little shitstain who isn’t worth engaging with, beyond pointing out to anyone he talks to that he doesn’t actually represent liberal thought.
Yeah, I call this the Victor’s Morality. Today these are people who approve of same-sex marriage but think trans rights are just social just warrioring. Ten years ago they were glad those anti-gay laws had been stricken from the books, but thought same-sex-marriage was absurd and people needed to stop arguing for it. Fifty years ago they weren’t racists, because they supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but thought agitating for schools to integrate too quickly would just lead to trouble. A hundred years ago they were glad slavery was over, but chastised people who fought to end Jim Crow.
It’s an incredibly convenient take on things: they’re on the right side of every historical struggle and on the wrong side of every current one.
I find myself agreeing with some of Slack’s posts from time to time, but I feel like taking a shower every time I do. I have to remind myself of his nonchalant racism and how he tries to sanitize these thoughts by espousing progressive ideals.
Exactly. Maybe those people aren’t quite as bad as the ones marching in the streets with torches demanding we actively go back and take these rights away again, but if we sat around waiting for them to approve, we’d still have slavery in this country. And if they got off their assets, maybe we would actually solve some of the problems this country has.
These are the people King called the “white moderates” and they certainly are a problem, but that doesn’t begin to scratch the surface of Slacker’s pathology. He has to be the only one who sees The Truth, he has to be The Smartest in the Room. He’s like a vampire: he wants others to suffer so that he can feel smug about it, so that he can get off on his weird condescending pity. He LIKES being Lord Farquad, “Many of you will have to die, but that’s a sacrifice I am willing to make”, as he wipes away a tear. He thinks that willingness makes him more admirable.
I can’t square what you guys are saying with the fact that he is racist and sexist. He’s sure that the white race is under attack and is concerned if a girl is shown as beating a guy at sports. Those aren’t staying with the current level of liberalism or progressivism. Those are about dragging us back.
Cite for either of these claims? I don’t remember every single thing I have ever posted, but just knowing my own mind, this strikes me as distorted/misleading at best. :dubious:
It obviously killed you that I was the only one defending you in that COVID-19 social distancing thread (and now in a wild whipsawing effect, I’m taking fire in a current thread where my moderate position, which has been consistent throughout, is being seen as too stringent concerning distancing and social opprobrium toward those who blow it off).
I am absolutely not here to defend Slacker, nor do I need to join the pile-on as you guys are doing just fine without my help. But I do want to set the record straight on the matter of Bill Maher, with apologies for the digression.
When I saw the “libertarian” quote from Rolling Stone, my immediate thought was that the article must be very old, as indeed it is – from 1999. US politics has changed a lot since then, and even then, Maher was pining for old-style traditional conservatism of years ago. Since then he’s become much less coy about his increasing liberalism, famously donating $1 million to the Obama campaign. Like everyone else, Maher is allowed to shift his political position, especially as mainstream politics itself shifts some of its basic tenets. At some point during the Obama administration, when Obama proved to be basically a centrist and Republicans turned into unprincipled obstructionists, Maher stated that “the Democratic party has moved to the right, and Republicans have moved into the lunatic asylum”. This was before anyone could seriously believe that one Donald J. Trump could actually become president of the USA, so it was actually quite prescient. Since then Maher has openly been a staunch liberal, though one with a couple of quirky beliefs.
Interesting that the Rolling Stone cite is from the last millennium. How about jumping forward twenty years, to Bill Maher in Rolling Stone in 2019?
To be fair (even though the other side here would never extend me the same courtesy–but I’m magnanimous like that), Maher has been acting more libertarian lately as regarding the coronavirus lockdowns. He has not quite gone full Elon Musk, but his rhetoric has verged more in that direction than I’d personally endorse. And it’s striking, because there is so little in general I disagree with Bill about (the only other subject that comes to mind is his Grinchlike attitude toward children and parenting).
So, I don’t see anything there that disagrees with what I actually said. Bill Maher said “I am a libertarian”. On the record. Which is what I said. *When *he said it is irrelevant.
What I have not been able to find, is a quote from Maher that is him saying “I am a liberal, not a libertarian” or any words to that effect. Closest I could find is that “9/11 liberal” islamophobe schtick (which is why **SlackInIQ **luuurves him, no doubt)
Conclusion - by his own words, Maher is still a libertarian, not a liberal.
Yes, political opinions change over time. If Maher’s have, give me that money quote.
And no, him having nice words for social democracies is not it.
” As the comedian put it, “I don’t really have a tribe. I certainly consider myself a liberal, but I’m not afraid to criticize the liberals when they’re wrong—and in that, I’m fairly unique.” - Paragraph 9.
I think Bill Maher is a jackass, but he’s the kind of jackass that would probably be just a relatively normal, smart and funny guy if he weren’t famous and super-successful. His success has driven his ego to override his intelligence on many issues, IMO. This explains why he’s a nut on so many health issues (‘I’m healthy because of these great decisions I make about eating and exercise – if only everyone else was a great as I was at these decisions, everyone would be healthy and no one would get sick’), and why he’s nuttily sympathetic to other total assholes who are criticized by liberals ('I’m sometimes criticized by those dumb liberals, and so is Milo Yiannopolous (and Charles Murray), so it must be something about those dumb liberals and not me ‘cause I’m great, and thus Milo (and Charles) must be okay too, so I’m going to have him on my show and ask him incredibly easy and gentle sympathetic questions and ignore his extreme hatefulness’), and it probably explains most of his other flaws (which are substantial).
I used to be a big fan, because he is (or used to be) smart and funny. Unfortunately, his assholery has grown so much that it overwhelms the smart and funny parts of his show.
My understanding, such as it is, is that he has always been a bit of an egotistic asshole. Long before he had a TV show and was just a stand-up comedian, I remember a story from another comedian that either was MCing or coming on before him about how pompous Maher acted off stage. He quizzed the person on what type of material they had and warned them not to do anything political, because he was a “political comedian.” The implication being that said person better not step on his toes.
Becoming rich and famous certainly seems to have stroked his ego, but by reputation he has never been a humble, self-effacing guy.
I see no need for false modesty. My fairness, my willingness to give a hearing to even the most unpopular ideas (and, by the same token, to look skeptically at the most popular ones), my willingness to “steelman” my opponents’ arguments and preemptively grant them points even when it might undercut mine, is my best attribute–even if it tends to incite outrage–and I’m not shy about saying so.
But I do want to set the record straight on the matter of Bill Maher, with apologies for the digression.