Their post is not content free. They are pointing out a contradiction in your logic. You claimed not to know anything about this guy, then then were 100% sure that statements about him were exaggerations.
Yes, their tone was antagonistic. But that’s because of your post. Look at it: you got mad at Smapti for saying something negative about Maher after you had said something positive about him. Then you attack him for not bringing up a bunch of other completely unrelated things that Maher said.
This is a Pit thread for Bill Maher. You can’t act like Sam Stone used to in the Musk Pit thread and think you won’t get the same types of responses. No one likes that guy who gets offended when people say bad things about a celebrity they like.
This isn’t a debate thread about whether Bill Maher has valid things to say. It’s a Pit thread. It exists to rant whenever we see Maher say or do something that pisses us off. Any positive commentary about him is a bonus.
We don’t need you policing this thread from the “haters.” Technically, the haters are the ones who are on topic.
Utter fucking bullshit. I didn’t say I knew “nothing” about Louis CK, and I didn’t say I was “100% sure” about anything! I was familiar with the accusations from news stories, and had just refreshed my memory from the Wikipedia article. So I know what he was alleged to have done. I don’t know anything in-depth about his character or the extent of his remorse or rehabilitation. I do know that some of those terms being bandied about, based on the published information of what he actually did, are exaggerations being used to try to score debating points. Capiche? It’s not complicated.
Wut?? This thread was started by someone who apparently doesn’t like Bill Maher, and hasn’t made much of an appearance ever since as the discussion meandered across many different related subjects. Is it your illustrious opinion that a contrary view saying that Maher has his good points, too, is off topic? In the Pit? We don’t need you policing this thread.
I still don’t know why you got your shorts in a knot about his offhand comment about Louis CK, which was that people have done worse things and received less backlash for it, and maybe the guy deserves a second chance. If you don’t agree with that, fine, but as you’ll note from the Wiki article I cited, a large number of respected entertainers feel the same way as Maher about it, so maybe you’re just an angry sanctimonious asshole.
I don’t give a shit if he got other people to excuse what he did, I sure as fuck am not going to.
And note that I was a fan of his. I watched multiple TV shows and movies he was in, watched every episode of his TV show Louie, and watched numerous stand up comedy specials.
I guess I’m pretty much the opposite of you in both ways.
It wasn’t an “offhand comment”. It’s part of a pattern of behavior on his part of making excuses for sexual deviants. Scroll up in this thread and you’ll find him claim that Woody Allen was innocent of having a sexual relationship with his stepdaughter. You know, the one he married after he divorced Mia Farrow.
It’s all part of his pining for the '90s routine - he’s mad that the world has moved on and he isn’t allowed to be a sexist asshole and make casual gay/trans jokes and use the N-word without getting called out, when rich white men in their 40s could get away with “dating” teenagers or demanding sexual favors in exchange for a role in a movie or TV show. Chances are he’s got skeletons in the closet that he’s worried will come out someday.
What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Polanski got an Oscar because he’s a great director. He was also later expelled from the Academy for being a perv. Maher’s show was nominated for 21 Emmys that were mostly in the category of “Outstanding variety series” or “Outstanding music, variety, or comedy series” based on the show’s merits.
Critical accolades and “forgiveness” from other celebrities doesn’t excuse being a pervert, and the fact that Maher chooses time and time again to stand up for perverts says a lot about his (lack of) character and integrity. OJ Simpson won the Heisman - he was still a murderer. Chris Benoit was one of the greatest pro wrestlers to ever live - he still strangled his own son. Harvey Weinstein was one of the most successful producers in Hollywood - he’s still a rapist.
When it inevitably comes out that Maher groomed a 15-year-old to be his “girlfriend” or offered women a spotlight on his show in exchange for a blowjob, let noone say I didn’t tell you so.
And yet somehow Maher has had a prime time show for nearly a quarter of a century on a network renowned for the quality of its original programming. And Bill Burr has a podcast.
That Bill Burr came on Maher’s own podcast and subjected his host to a verbally abusive tirade tells me all I need to know about Burr.
One thing that can be said about Maher is that though his jokes are often crass or profane, when actually talking to people like the guests on his show, I’ve never seen him be anything but civil even when he vehemently disagrees with them.
Or maybe it will be revealed that Bill Maher is actually an alien from Pluto. In either case, I’ll wait for the announcement before commenting.
“At last Frodo spoke with hesitation. ‘I believed that you were a friend before the letter came,’ he said, 'or at least I wished to. You have frightened me several times tonight, but never in the way the servants of the Enemy would, or so I imagine. I think one of his spies would - well, seem fairer and feel fouler, if you understand.“”
I concede that to be a valid point. But then how do you judge quality without relegating it to a totally subjective opinion? In the case of a TV show, I can think of several criteria.
One is the track record and reputation of the network that chooses to carry the show. A talk show on Fox News is not the same as a talk show on HBO. Fox has “Fox & Friends” and “Hannity”; HBO has “Real Time with Bill Maher” and “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver”.
Another is the recognition the show receives from credible organizations like the Television Academy and its Emmy awards.
And finally, the subjective aspect can be supported with observations like the fact that I’ve learned a lot from the show, both in terms of better understanding the thinking and viewpoints of influential people, and in terms of actual objective information about the world. You don’t have to take everything Maher says at face value to get value from the show.
Oprah Winfrey had a show that ran for 25 years and she’s won more Emmys than Bill Maher.
Like Maher, Oprah has promoted dangerous quackery on her show, enabling the rise of Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil, giving a platform to Jenny McCarthy to spew her antivaccine rantings and promoted crap like “The Secret” and phony faith healer “John of God”.
And like Maher, Winfrey has legions of admirers who are happy to excuse the harm she’s done because they like her personality or whatever.
So I don’t have HBO, and I’ve only watched Maher in clips, so while I haven’t really liked the clips I saw, I thought I would give him a real chance particularly with a recommendation that he “knocked it our of the park!” in this segment.
My god, is he an insufferable ass! It was all I could do not to reach into my computer screen and wring his scrawny neck. Media is sensationalistic and tends to print stories of people who are the exception rather than the rule. Wow, I never would have thought of that if your keen insight hadn’t shown us the way. Most college students aren’t arrested, so lets ignore them. I mean there were thousands of buildings that didn’t get hit by and airplane on September 11th most New Yorker’s were just fine. What is the big deal.
Also NPR says Haiti is a paradise? What the heck is that? All of the reports on Haiti that I have heard on NPR describe it as a hell hole that is barely holding on due to poverty, political turmoil and repeated natural disasters. But I guess it sounds like he imagines a stereotypical leftist might say, so lets put it out there. That we by criticizing both side he can prove that he is the only one who is unbiased.
In reality he is a smug condescending douchey aged hipster who ciricizes everything but produces nothing, but who has enough legions of fans who tell him how wonderful he is that, like Trump and Musk, he has convinced himself he can do no wrong. And that is what makes him a bad comedian. A good comedian needs to be able to show some humility and laugh at himself. John Stewart and John Oliver are great at that, making thesleves as much a part of the joke as the people they are laughing at. Maher it appears sits on high passing judgment on others while basking in the glory of how smart he is to do that. Show me some clips of his engaging in sincere self-deprecating humor and maybe I’ll change my mind. But for now I have to conclude that he even more annoying than I gave him credit for.
As I said several times way upthread, I’m not entirely comfortable being in the position of single-handedly defending Bill Maher because he does have some crazy ideas, and yes, he does have a smug attitude which is part of his comedy schtick but which a lot of people find off-putting. My main point has been that despite some faults, his show attracts influential and thoughtful guests and engenders intelligent and informative converstation. You don’t stay on a network with the stature of HBO for 22 years and counting because you’re nothing but a pompous asshole. It just doesn’t happen.
If you’re not familiar with Bill Maher you may not have known that the peculiar lecturing tone of the “New Rules” segment is an intentional, signature affectation of how those segments are delivered. Even Bill Maher at the peak of his smugness doesn’t normally speak that way. So that may have put you off from fairly hearing what he was really saying.
Criticism of the media is a real hot button for me because the failure of contemporary media to support an informed public is a fundamental threat to democracy. The failure of media is how Donald Fucking Trump got to be president and likely may do so again as tens of millions of uninformed ignoramuses line up to vote for him.
Tell me which of these points you disagree with. Some are worded for comedic effect but at their core all are fundamentally true. If you don’t think so, why not?
Media don’t cover what’s most important, just what’s most fun to watch
If the headlines in your preferred media feature words like “shreds”, “destroys”, “pummels”, “bashes” … your outlet is a partisan piece of shit. Either that or you’re reading a Batman comic.
Any news source that cites “the internet” or “Twitter says” are a bunch of hacks too lazy to do real journalism.
If your news outlet consistently reduces everything that happens in the world to who the US president is, get rid of it. It’s just thoughtless reflexive team politics.
Once the news became the profit division of media companies, they stopped being in the news business and are now in the audience-stroking business; the goal is no longer to inform opinions, it’s to reinforce them. Walter Cronkite used to say “that’s the way it is”. Now it’s “that’s our story and we’re sticking to it”.
Never trust initial reports. The media cares way more about being first than about being right. He cites the initial reports about the Columbine shootings: “they got everything right except for all of it”.
FTR, Maher didn’t say “Haiti”, he said “Jamaica”. But to be fair, he did screw this up. To my knowledge, NPR never tried to characterize Jamaica as “a paradise”. What they did do at one point was review a book, “Here Comes the Sun”, by Jamaican immigrant Nicole Dennis-Benn, in which she makes rather the opposite point. Her point being that tourists from rich countries visiting exclusive resorts in Jamaica come away with the impression that the place is a paradise, but outside the guarded gates of the resorts it’s quite a different place.
I agree with this. I’ve done both – stayed at these resorts, and ventured outside into the real Jamaica. I never had any problems with crime but outside the resorts the evidence of poverty was everywhere.
