Fact-checking yesterday's Real Time With Bill Maher episode

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Normally I expect the best from Bill Maher, a guy who thinks far enough outside the box to not fall into the Trump-worshipping trap Republicans have but to also dissent from other Democrat supporters on other topics. He doesn't pretend to consider Christianity and Islam equally bad any more than he would pretend to consider a woman having sex with an underage boy just as horrible as the gender flip.

But yesterday's episode raised more red flags than usual that instead of thinking outside the box, he's started thinking outside the realm of reality and internal consistency as well.

A: He compared New York coronavirus cases with Florida cases to argue for the former's preventative measures not being effective, and ignored Ritchie Torres' point about New York being more densely populated and a hub of international travel, when you'd think that would be one hell of a confounding factor.

B: On the matter of vaccines, while he accepts the benefit to individuals receiving the vaccine (namely, not dying of coronavirus) he disputes the idea that it has any effect on your likeliness to spread it to other people. Doesn't this fly in the face of the new variants coming from places with less access to the vaccine? And how does it explain so many governments wanting individuals to get "the jab"? Do public officials really care that much about protecting people from themselves, that they'd lie about how much it protects other people?

C: On the matter of crime, he blamed "soft on crime" policies for the recent "smash and grab" burglaries, even though much of Europe is much softer on crime and still winds up with less of it than the USA. Doesn't that suggest the desperation some people are feeling under this pandemic might have more to do with these burglaries than the soft on crime policies themselves?

D: He argued that Joe Biden and Barack Obama should divorce their wives and marry each other so Obama can run the government as "first lady." Why, exactly, can't Michelle Obama run for President and have Barack Obama run the government as "first gentleman"? What is it about being Joe Biden's spouse that'd make him more eligible to do this than being Michelle Obama's spouse?

[Arpasia]

I guess that Bill Maher is now mired in controversy.

[Heloin]

Why do you keep insisting on making threads about Bill Maher?

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Why do you keep insisting on making threads about Bill Maher?

Anything that doesn't conform completely to conventional liberalism nor to conventional conservatism is to be examined in more depth. It's no guarantee of genuine outside-the-box thinking, of course; anyone looking to cash in on people's desperation for alternatives to the two could just as easily fake it; but at least it's a start. A start from which we can see what strays from both in a good way and what in a bad way on further discussion.

I could try making more threads about Richard Dawkins, but he doesn't have a famous Friday night talk show of his own. That I know of, anyway.

[Ifreann]

Normally I expect the best from Bill Maher

[Stellar Colonies]

He doesn't pretend to consider Christianity and Islam equally bad any more than he would pretend to consider a woman having sex with an underage boy just as horrible as the gender flip.

what

[Vadterland]

Who the hell cares about Bill Maher? He makes shit takes, unsubstantiated takes, and hosts other irrelevant jackasses who make similarly shit unsubstantiated takes to the cheering of a studio audience. And they are never even spicy out there takes or even the schizoid garbage that Alex Jones puts out, just the same pseudo-libertarian nonsense that 13 year-olds and slightly less conspiracy-aligned uncles nod along with like vaccine hesitancy. I don't understand why you deem him at all worthy of attention, let alone your time. Or ours for that matter.

[Heloin]

Why do you keep insisting on making threads about Bill Maher?

Anything that doesn't conform completely to conventional liberalism nor to conventional conservatism is to be examined in more depth. It's no guarantee of genuine outside-the-box thinking, of course; anyone looking to cash in on people's desperation for alternatives to the two could just as easily fake it; but at least it's a start. A start from which we can see what strays from both in a good way and what in a bad way on further discussion.

He’s an unbelievable generic libertarian. If you think he’s thinking outside the box then dear god, what kind of box are you living in?

I could try making more threads about Richard Dawkins, but he doesn't have a famous Friday night talk show of his own. That I know of, anyway.

What we clearly need is the opinion of a different know it all self righteous twat.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Anything that doesn't conform completely to conventional liberalism nor to conventional conservatism is to be examined in more depth. It's no guarantee of genuine outside-the-box thinking, of course; anyone looking to cash in on people's desperation for alternatives to the two could just as easily fake it; but at least it's a start. A start from which we can see what strays from both in a good way and what in a bad way on further discussion.

He’s an unbelievable generic libertarian. If you think he’s thinking outside the box then dear god, what kind of box are you living in?

I could try making more threads about Richard Dawkins, but he doesn't have a famous Friday night talk show of his own. That I know of, anyway.

What we clearly need is the opinion of a different know it all self righteous twat.

Which “neither liberal nor conservative” content would you recommend as an alternative, then?

[The Black Forrest]

Why do you keep insisting on making threads about Bill Maher?

I had that same thought.

[Forsher]

Why do you keep insisting on making threads about Bill Maher?

I had that same thought.

Brought to you by Carl's Junior energy..

As to the question of population density... I honestly wonder if that is a confounder... it's so misleadingly measured...

[Dakini]

Normally I expect the best from Bill Maher,

I mean, that seems like a you problem.

[Hemakral]

ah, yes, bill maher
patron saint of preteen atheist libertarians

[Nilokeras]

NSG is not your Bill Maher review blog

[Attempted Socialism]

He’s an unbelievable generic libertarian. If you think he’s thinking outside the box then dear god, what kind of box are you living in?


What we clearly need is the opinion of a different know it all self righteous twat.

Which “neither liberal nor conservative” content would you recommend as an alternative, then?

If you want left-of-centre content, you can go for https://www.jacobinmag.com/ or any of the other leftist publications. If you'll settle for anything with a higher degree of accuracy than Maher, The Young Turks network is on some US TV options. Heck, you can also go for a cocktail of Fascism, white supremacy, Nazism, and economic class warfare you'd get from OANN, Fox News, Breitbart.

[Hemakral]

NSG is not your Bill Maher review blog

Not yet, anyway...

[Jerzylvania]

Why do you keep insisting on making threads about Bill Maher?

I had that same thought.

Ditto.

[Dogmeat]

As he falls steadily into obscurity, Maher will continue to say increasingly hyperbolic and outrageous things in a desperate attempt to re-created the controversy that made him famous in the first place.

It will not work. None of us care anymore.

[Gravlen]

Normally I expect the best from Bill Maher

WellThere'sYourProblem.mp3

[GuessTheAltAccount]

NSG is not your Bill Maher review blog

This is not about reviewing Bill Maher. This is about discussing how one of the most influential TV voices these days; especially as far as "neither liberal nor conserative" options go; is characterizing the issue of COVID-19, the issue of crime, and the issue of what would constitute the most politically palatable alternative to Trump. You can like or dislike Bill Maher, but either way he's notable, especially when he talks about things that happen to be important.

[Uiiop]

Why in the name of "Outside the box thinking" would one support just "Supporting the quiet parts of our foreign policy and institutional misandry out loud"? Those aren't actually hot takes.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Why in the name of "Outside the box thinking" would one support just "Supporting the quiet parts of our foreign policy and institutional misandry out loud"? Those aren't actually hot takes.

Bill Maher opposed the invasion of Iraq despite his views on Islam. (Or perhaps because of it? Bush called Islam a religion of peace and when the WMD talking point didn't work out talked about "Iraqi freedom;" as in, sacrificing predominantly-Christian soldiers on behalf of a predominantly-Muslim civilian populace. Or at least pretending that's on whose behalf you're sacrificing them, suggesting there to be a segment of voters such talk appeals to.) Views on Islam and views on foreign policy are not to be conflated.

I'm against misandry as much as the next guy, but I think we should be nuanced about it, including granting kernels of truth to the notion that boys are horndogs. When we pretend to be "gender-neutral" about this sort of thing, despite these guys' own insistence that they don't even regret it, we undermine the case against individual perpetrators whose victims actually DO claim to have been unwilling. In a world where teenage boys are horny enough to risk life-ruining consequences for sex with their girlfriends, the idea that one of their partners being decades older is a bridge too far, even when these guys themselves insist otherwise, is absurd.

If people really considered it rape for a woman to have sex with a guy who's willing solely but underage, they wouldn't make him pay child support.

[Galloism]

B: On the matter of vaccines, while he accepts the benefit to individuals receiving the vaccine (namely, not dying of coronavirus) he disputes the idea that it has any effect on your likeliness to spread it to other people. Doesn't this fly in the face of the new variants coming from places with less access to the vaccine? And how does it explain so many governments wanting individuals to get "the jab"? Do public officials really care that much about protecting people from themselves, that they'd lie about how much it protects other people?

Wasn't there some new data along these lines indicating this is possibly true with Omicron posted in the covid thread a few days ago?

[Galloism]

Why in the name of "Outside the box thinking" would one support just "Supporting the quiet parts of our foreign policy and institutional misandry out loud"? Those aren't actually hot takes.

Bill Maher opposed the invasion of Iraq despite his views on Islam. (Or perhaps because of it? Bush called Islam a religion of peace and when the WMD talking point didn't work out talked about "Iraqi freedom;" as in, sacrificing predominantly-Christian soldiers on behalf of a predominantly-Muslim civilian populace. Or at least pretending that's on whose behalf you're sacrificing them, suggesting there to be a segment of voters such talk appeals to.) Views on Islam and views on foreign policy are not to be conflated.

I'm against misandry as much as the next guy, but I think we should be nuanced about it, including granting kernels of truth to the notion that boys are horndogs. When we pretend to be "gender-neutral" about this sort of thing, despite these guys' own insistence that they don't even regret it, we undermine the case against individual perpetrators whose victims actually DO claim to have been unwilling. In a world where teenage boys are horny enough to risk life-ruining consequences for sex with their girlfriends, the idea that one of their partners being decades older is a bridge too far, even when these guys themselves insist otherwise, is absurd.

If people really considered it rape for a woman to have sex with a guy who's willing solely but underage, they wouldn't make him pay child support.

Let's not use "society is horrifically unjust and therefore it's fine that society is horrifically unjust" and pretend that's a logical basis.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Let's not use "society is horrifically unjust and therefore it's fine that society is horrifically unjust" and pretend that's a logical basis.

That's not even close to what I was saying. The same public that keeps something as notoriously brutal as prison an option as a sentence for her doing something like that also keeps, as an option, making the guy pay child support as if it were his fault. Either people's indignation against this sort of thing was fake, or most people haven't thought this through. (Probably the former, if the reception movies like Blank Check got is anything to go by.)

Wasn't there some new data along these lines indicating this is possibly true with Omicron posted in the covid thread a few days ago?

Do you remember how many days ago? It'd be interesting to see that.