I think you and others are missing Maher’s bigger point. As a non ‘progressive’ liberal he doesn’t believe in the modern left’s methodology of deplatforming, canceling, or equating speech with actual violence. So, he leads by example by having guests he disagrees with on his show and having a conversation. Does he keep the temperature of the exchanges from getting super heated? Yes. But building rapport is a step in changing minds and hostility that can include threats and physical violence is not.
Hmm, is “deplatformining” and “canceling” anything like banning books?
So people claim. Is it actually true though? History has demonstrated that a concentration of power leads to a lot more deaths than tolerating a few nutty ideas.
I guess it’s somewhat pointless but I think at least someone should push back against such assertions.
In the US right now, the cancellers are much more on the right. You’re labelled a “RINO” and very soon a pariah, for disagreeing with the party line on almost anything, let alone daring to try to work with democrats. Look at what’s happened with Christie or Cheney; voting with trump almost every time but admit that trump lost? You’re sanctioned, you’re heckled, you’re done.
Books are banned and brands boycotted for any mention of eg trans.
FYI – the full scoop on the extended season of Real Time: there will be three more shows after the Thanksgiving break, on December 1, 8, and 15.
Utter nonsense. For the vast, vast majority of people it is all upside, minimal downside. Everyone except the contraindicated (allergies, Guillain-Barré syndrome) should be getting a flu vaccine every year.
This looks like as good as any place to post this because it deserves the pit. Mahers latest New Rule segment on separation of church and state.
“More than half of republicans support Christion nationalism”
“The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church” - Lauren Boebert
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Duah55_-S4
I don’t understand what “deserves the pit.” Republicans who are Christion nationalists, or Maher for pointing it out?
the former
For those who didn’t watch the video, did Maher push back on Boebert?
He was making reference to a news item about her from last June, in the middle of a whole longer denunciation of the Christian Nationalists. The New Rule was more about Mike Johnson but he ran through quotes from various other congressional yoyos over the recent past. It was not her talking on the show.
After citing comments from several Republicans (including Boebert) who made comments indicating opposition to church-state separation, Maher said: “Republicans who believe horrible ideas are like ants…there’s always more that you can’t see.”
A couple of years ago, Maher said that Boebert is “what would happen if Michele Bachmann smoked bath salts.”
Of course, if Boebert actually got invited on his show, it’s highly doubtful if Bill would be as snarky.
I think one of the irrefutable proofs that my mother is crazy is that she loves Lauren Boebert.
And claims to be a moderate.
That’s when I realized we no longer had anything in common.
Dare I ask how your mom supports her? What rationalizations?
Well immediately after January 6, she called me up ranting. She said I “may see her on TV soon” because she was going out to protest an attempt to oust her candidate. You may recall that Boebert was the lady who tweeted Pelosi’s location during the Capitol riot.
My Mom never explicitly said this was Boebert, she was just ranting nonsensically, and at some point said something like, “If she broke the law then we should let the courts determine that.”
After the call was over I looked up her representative and sure enough.
My Mom loves Boebert because
A) She’s a confident woman
B) She’s pro-life
C) She loves guns
I haven’t talked to my Mom in a while. We don’t have a relationship any more. At least in the past when I was trying to make it work with her, I would try to focus on what we shared in common. My Mom was a smart woman - mechanical engineer - and at one point she actually was a moderate who embraced science and all that. But after that bonkers phone call, that’s when I realized there was nothing left to salvage.
And if he did invite her on the show and didn’t push back against her nonsense, I would conclude he was lying before.
I don’t know that’s so hard to understand. If you not only bring someone on your show, but then don’t fight back against them, you are perpetuating their nonsense. If you genuinely think they are wrong, you will refute them, not help them persuade more people.
Maybe MTG can somehow get onto his show. What could go wrong? With the likes of Jordan Peterson appearing there recently, no wonder I’ve been watching less of Bill, now. I have no more time to waste with shit like that.
I also feel for some of the studio audience who probably get sick of having to applaud after everything Bill says. I get it that studio audiences are queued to do so, but his ever-increasingly inane, predictable, sure-as-fuck-ain’t-funny offerings aren’t warranting it; even what used to be throwaway asides are getting clapclapclapclap.
Taking him off my PVR recording line-up, after a long time.
There’s nothing doubtful; I can tell you exactly how it would play out, because I’ve seen it many times before. Maher would let her talk, and he would ask pointed questions to push back on the crazy, but he would do it politely, and eventually he would send her off with a congenial handshake. The Maher-hating mob here would be all over it, claiming that Maher had turned into a far-right Republican.
This is Maher’s standard modus operandi: be bitingly vicious to morons who deserve it when they’re not on the show, and be congenial to all his guests no matter who they are, even if he was just flaming them with sarcastic vitriol the previous week.
Some might call that hypocrisy, but I see it more as show business pragmatism. The thing is that if you’re hostile to guests you don’t agree with, then they likely won’t came back, and furthermore, neither will anyone else who holds similar views. Then you’re left with like-minded guests in a much less interesting echo chamber. Not that I would call someone like Boebert in any way interesting – and I doubt he’d consider it worthwhile to have her on the show because she’s so mindlessly shallow – but in general it’s useful to have insight into how right-wing nutjobs are thinking if they’re anywhere near the levers of power.
I just don’t see this form of “politeness” as the positive you think it is in this context.
Lauren Boebert is in a position of power, her decisions and even her words can affect the lives of millions. It’s important that interviewers do not allow her, and others in government, to ignore questions, filibuster and throw out false talking points without pushback.
Most democracies know this; interviewers are very tough on UK TV, Dutch TV, Canadian TV etc etc. Politicians there still try to avoid questions, but it gets pointed out and they are rightly humiliated for trying to dodge a question that impacts their whole state or country.
This forced “politeness” thing is a curious aspect of the US media landscape, and ISTM it has enabled disinformation to proliferate.
Now, you may argue that Maher’s show is just entertainment, so he cannot be expected to conduct tough interviews. My response to that would be: he shouldn’t interview politicians at all if he’s not going to do a real interview. I have no problem (well, only a small problem) with politicians being invited on a show to tell jokes or play games or whatever. But if you’re going put people around a table and go through the motions of a proper interview, do a proper interview.
Otherwise all you are doing is platforming them.