It appears the taboo against criticizing religious ideas is alive and well, and that Berkeley may not be teaching students that race and religion are not the same thing.
(CNN) -- TV host Bill Maher started his career as a standup comedian. But students at the University of California, Berkeley aren't laughing at his latest antics; they're petitioning to have him removed as their 2014 fall commencement speaker.
"Bill Maher is a blatant bigot and racist who has no respect for the values UC Berkeley students and administration stand for," a petition on Change.org states. "In a time where climate is a priority for all on campus, we cannot invite an individual who himself perpetuates a dangerous learning environment.
"Bill Maher's public statements on various religions and cultures are offensive and his dangerous rhetoric has found its way into our campus communities."
The petition points to a recent episode of Maher's HBO show "Real Time" as an example. (HBO, like CNN, is a division of Time Warner.) When actor Ben Affleck appeared on the program in early October, their conversation turned into a heated debate about Islam that many in the Muslim community found hurtful.
"Islam is the only religion that acts like the mafia that will f***ing kill you if you say the wrong thing," Maher said during the episode, which is cited on the students' petition as an example of Maher's "hate speech."
The Change.org petition had more than 2,200 signatures as of Tuesday morning. It appears to have been written by Khwaja Ahmed, an active member of the Middle Eastern, Muslim and South Asian Coalition, according to Berkeley's student newspaper.
This isn't the only petition on the site about Maher. Several have called for his firing from "Real Time," though they don't seem to have garnered much traction. Maher has been on the show for 12 years and has become known for his controversial statements on a wide range of topics.
Bill Maher was right, but he touched the third rail of PC. Its nothing that he's against religion. He's been viciously against religion for years. After without him I would have never known about how TRexes love coconuts.
Its a particular religion. This act proves his whole point when he debated Dogma boy.
In other words people don't want someone who is embarrassing, pretentious, smug and obnoxious to do a commencement speech for their university makes sense to me.
Cheesecat wrote: In other words people don't want someone who is embarrassing, pretentious, smug and obnoxious to do a commencement speech for their university makes sense to me.
You don't need to rewrite the article. 'embarrassing', 'pretentious', 'smug', and 'obnoxious' are much nicer words than were used in the commencement petition.
Cheesecat wrote: In other words people don't want someone who is embarrassing, pretentious, smug and obnoxious to do a commencement speech for their university makes sense to me.
Well in that case, isn't Maher the perfect person for a University who's student body is generally pretentious, smug and obnoxious?
Cheesecat wrote: In other words people don't want someone who is embarrassing, pretentious, smug and obnoxious to do a commencement speech for their university makes sense to me.
Well in that case, isn't Maher the perfect person for a University who's student body is generally pretentious, smug and obnoxious?
Cheesecat wrote: In other words people don't want someone who is embarrassing, pretentious, smug and obnoxious to do a commencement speech for their university makes sense to me.
Well in that case, isn't Maher the perfect person for a University who's student body is generally pretentious, smug and obnoxious?
Cheesecat wrote: In other words people don't want someone who is embarrassing, pretentious, smug and obnoxious to do a commencement speech for their university makes sense to me.
Cheesecat wrote: In other words people don't want someone who is embarrassing, pretentious, smug and obnoxious to do a commencement speech for their university makes sense to me.
Well in that case, isn't Maher the perfect person for a University who's student body is generally pretentious, smug and obnoxious?
Even if we exclude the most recent episode didn't people already dislike him? He isn't an academic and he isn't someone important, and even many liberals find him to be an unlikable douche. Is it really a surprise that students wouldn't want him to give an address?
Ahtman wrote: Even if we exclude the most recent episode didn't people already dislike him? He isn't an academic and he isn't someone important, and even many liberals find him to be an unlikable douche. Is it really a surprise that students wouldn't want him to give an address?
Well, to be fair, plenty of non-"academics" give commencement speeches.
I also find him to be an unlikable douche, but not because of his opinions (I don't agree with everything he says either), but because of his delivery.
Ahtman wrote: Even if we exclude the most recent episode didn't people already dislike him? He isn't an academic and he isn't someone important, and even many liberals find him to be an unlikable douche. Is it really a surprise that students wouldn't want him to give an address?
Well, to be fair, plenty of non-"academics" give commencement speeches.
I also find him to be an unlikable douche, but not because of his opinions (I don't agree with everything he says either), but because of his delivery.
The "isn't someone important" covered the non-Academics. I find him unlikeable both because of his attitude and many of his opinions.
Ahtman wrote: Even if we exclude the most recent episode didn't people already dislike him? He isn't an academic and he isn't someone important, and even many liberals find him to be an unlikable douche. Is it really a surprise that students wouldn't want him to give an address?
Well, to be fair, plenty of non-"academics" give commencement speeches.
I also find him to be an unlikable douche, but not because of his opinions (I don't agree with everything he says either), but because of his delivery.
The "isn't someone important" covered the non-Academics. I find him unlikeable both because of his attitude and many of his opinions.
He's no less important than any otherfamousperson that has given commencement speeches.
I really dislike Bill Maher. He's not that smart, though he seems to think he is, and he's just a smug gobshite who comes up with shallow one liners.
I don't have a particular problem with him saying what he said (though it is also incorrect of course, extremists in many religions can behave in the way described- though there does seem to be a higher number of islamic extremists than other religious groups), but then I also don't have a problem with students protesting what he said.
Da Boss wrote: I really dislike Bill Maher. He's not that smart, though he seems to think he is, and he's just a smug gobshite who comes up with shallow one liners.
I don't have a particular problem with him saying what he said (though it is also incorrect of course, extremists in many religions can behave in the way described- though there does seem to be a higher number of islamic extremists than other religious groups), but then I also don't have a problem with students protesting what he said.
These things are cyclical.
At this moment in time, the 21st Century, Islam is currently the religion with the worst problems of extremism. Before that, it was probably Christianity (the Crusades, Colonialism and the Northern Ireland "Troubles" and Irish terrorism of the late 20th century, though that was more to do with nationalism and sectarianism than religion).
But the difference is, Christianity (in the West at least) has been largely neutered and pacified and forced to reform after the enlightenment and several centuries of secularism, scientific progress and civil rights movements. Islam on the other hand remains largely the same as it was in the Middle Ages. Islam needs to go through a similar process of reformation and overall pacification like Christianity did.
Well, there's the argument to be made that many islamic countries were undergoing a sort of liberalisation in the 20th century, but the failure of especially Arab states to deal effectively with Israel lead to the rise of extremism.
I would also nitpick your "Irish terrorism" to "british/irish terrorism" because I'm a bollocks.
Da Boss wrote: I really dislike Bill Maher. He's not that smart, though he seems to think he is, and he's just a smug gobshite who comes up with shallow one liners.
I don't have a particular problem with him saying what he said (though it is also incorrect of course, extremists in many religions can behave in the way described- though there does seem to be a higher number of islamic extremists than other religious groups), but then I also don't have a problem with students protesting what he said.
These things are cyclical.
At this moment in time, the 21st Century, Islam is currently the religion with the worst problems of extremism. Before that, it was probably Christianity (the Crusades, Colonialism and the Northern Ireland "Troubles" and Irish terrorism of the late 20th century, though that was more to do with nationalism and sectarianism than religion).
But the difference is, Christianity (in the West at least) has been largely neutered and pacified and forced to reform after the enlightenment and several centuries of secularism, scientific progress and civil rights movements. Islam on the other hand remains largely the same as it was in the Middle Ages. Islam needs to go through a similar process of reformation and overall pacification like Christianity did.
Don't forget, part of that was the religious wars of the 1500-1600s, including the infamous 30 Years War with equivalent casualty levels to Eastern Front WWII on the civilian populations, before a lot of that really burned out.
I'd rather not see 100 years of conflict where 30% of the population is slaughtered. Sadly that may be taking the place in Iraq/Syria as we speak.
Bill Maher is an insufferable human being regardless of what the topic is, that seems adequate enough to drop him from any speaking engagement regardless of the topic.
Da Boss wrote: Well, there's the argument to be made that many islamic countries were undergoing a sort of liberalisation in the 20th century, but the failure of especially Arab states to deal effectively with Israel lead to the rise of extremism.
Define "deal with" ? My impression is that the Islamic world pretty unanimously wishes Israel did not exist and wants the land to revert to Muslim control. (and thats putting it politely).
I would also nitpick your "Irish terrorism" to "british/irish terrorism" because I'm a bollocks.
If by British terrorism you mean the Ulster Unionist paramilitary groups, then yes.
Da Boss wrote: I don't have a particular problem with him saying what he said (though it is also incorrect of course, extremists in many religions can behave in the way described- though there does seem to be a higher number of islamic extremists than other religious groups)
What are you referring to here? The Maher/Affleck hullabaloo started not because Maher said that Islam has more extremists than other religions, or that Islamic extremists behave differently than other religions' extremists, but that Islam's tenets run counter to liberalism as demonstrated by people who identify as moderate Muslims believing in things like a death sentence for apostasy, or the persecution of religious and social minorities/women.
Which leads to this eloquent post. Excellent point, Shadow Captain Edithae.
At this moment in time, the 21st Century, Islam is currently the religion with the worst problems of extremism. Before that, it was probably Christianity (the Crusades, Colonialism and the Northern Ireland "Troubles" and Irish terrorism of the late 20th century, though that was more to do with nationalism and sectarianism than religion).
But the difference is, Christianity (in the West at least) has been largely neutered and pacified and forced to reform after the enlightenment and several centuries of secularism, scientific progress and civil rights movements. Islam on the other hand remains largely the same as it was in the Middle Ages. Islam needs to go through a similar process of reformation and overall pacification like Christianity did.
I think Maher's argument gets lost in all of the shouting and PC posturing, but ultimately his argument is that Islam is anathema to liberalism because it has not been "pacified" and until that happens it will continue to put liberals in a funky position where their support of Islam will also support practices that the same liberals would rage against if any other religion were committing those offenses.
As for the petition, I find it ridiculous, especially after reading some of the comments left by supporters of the petition who seem to be spouting the same nonsense about Maher being "racist" which tells me those commentators either didn't listen to his argument or can't understand it because race has nothing to do with what Maher is saying.
I never said no entertainer has given a commencement speech, but from talking to students over the years they tend to want someone who has done more. Can't ay about Andy Samberg, but Patton Oswalt and Amy Poehler are both very involved in other issues such as Amy Peohler's Smart Girls. Maher's mainly known for being a smug donkey-cave to people of faith and those that have animal companions.
The entire concept of commencement speakers is utterly stupid to being with. Have the President/Dean give a 5 minute speech, the valedictorian give a stupid 10 minute speech and PASS OUT THE SHEEPSKINS!
Frazzled wrote: The entire concept of commencement speakers is utterly stupid to being with. Have the President/Dean give a 5 minute speech, the valedictorian give a stupid 10 minute speech and PASS OUT THE SHEEPSKINS!
I kinda agree. I don't even remember who gave the commencement speech at my undergrad ceremony. What I do remember was the fellow was long winded and that the June sun was murder while wearing a black cap and gown.
Da Boss wrote: Well, there's the argument to be made that many islamic countries were undergoing a sort of liberalisation in the 20th century, but the failure of especially Arab states to deal effectively with Israel lead to the rise of extremism.
Define "deal with" ? My impression is that the Islamic world pretty unanimously wishes Israel did not exist and wants the land to revert to Muslim control. (and thats putting it politely).
I would also nitpick your "Irish terrorism" to "british/irish terrorism" because I'm a bollocks.
If by British terrorism you mean the Ulster Unionist paramilitary groups, then yes.
Yeah, that's what I mean by "deal with". I mean, I don't agree with wiping out Israel, but neither do I think Israel should have been created. It's there now, and the effect on the region is obvious, and the people in the surrounding nations certainly weren't happy with their more secular leaning leader's attempts to deal with the situation. Creating a nation state out of thin air and importing a whole lot of people to live there tends to cause problems- see aforementioned Irish Troubles (arguable minus the "nation state" bit, as it wasn't as popular back then).
As for Ulster Unionist paramilitary groups, well, of course I meant them. I'll leave it there though, since I'm just being a bit of a prick about it
Da Boss wrote: Well, there's the argument to be made that many islamic countries were undergoing a sort of liberalisation in the 20th century, but the failure of especially Arab states to deal effectively with Israel lead to the rise of extremism.
Define "deal with" ? My impression is that the Islamic world pretty unanimously wishes Israel did not exist and wants the land to revert to Muslim control. (and thats putting it politely).
I would also nitpick your "Irish terrorism" to "british/irish terrorism" because I'm a bollocks.
If by British terrorism you mean the Ulster Unionist paramilitary groups, then yes.
Yeah, that's what I mean by "deal with". I mean, I don't agree with wiping out Israel, but neither do I think Israel should have been created.
Well, I do. The creation of Israel was hardly ideal and could have been handled better, and its actions over the last 6 decades have been far from innocent (though the surrounding Muslim nations behaved far worse).
But when the British Mandate ended, the region erupted into civil war. Jews and Muslims were at each others throats. As I understand it, partitioning the region into Jewish and Muslim states was the only fair compromise to prevent further bloodshed. And the land the Jews got was dwarfed by the land the various Muslim people's of the region got.
Palestine was partitioned because these people were unwilling to peacefully coexist in one nation. The Jewish communities accepted the partition, but the Arabs did not, which led to yet more war.
It's there now, and the effect on the region is obvious, and the people in the surrounding nations certainly weren't happy with their more secular leaning leader's attempts to deal with the situation.
Meaning, their failure to destroy Israel and reconquer the land?
Creating a nation state out of thin air and importing a whole lot of people to live there tends to cause problems- see aforementioned Irish Troubles (arguable minus the "nation state" bit, as it wasn't as popular back then).
So does 2000 years of persecution worldwide, a campaign of genocide throughout the supposedly civilized European continent, and having no Jewish national state and homeland anywhere in the world to act as a safe refuge.
Ultimately I think the root cause of the Israel-Islam conflict is Islam's intolerance towards Judaism, and the desire of Muslims to "own" the Holy Land. (which, lets face it, is extremely important to all three Abrahamic religions and has been a nexus of religious conflict for 2000 years). Ideally the region should be one big secular country run for the benefit of all, but thats not possible because...Islam. And sometimes Jewish extremism. But mostly Islam.
Anyway, thats my position, and I respect your position, so lets leave it at that and not derail the thread further.
As for Ulster Unionist paramilitary groups, well, of course I meant them. I'll leave it there though, since I'm just being a bit of a prick about it
Of all your remarks, I'd say that was the most innocuous.
Frazzled wrote: The entire concept of commencement speakers is utterly stupid to being with. Have the President/Dean give a 5 minute speech, the valedictorian give a stupid 10 minute speech and PASS OUT THE SHEEPSKINS!
I kinda agree. I don't even remember who gave the commencement speech at my undergrad ceremony. What I do remember was the fellow was long winded and that the June sun was murder while wearing a black cap and gown.
Should of tryed it at mine..... omg it was -27 half the class was male... by the end of the speech there was only females and males that went through reverse puberty
So does 2000 years of persecution worldwide, a campaign of genocide throughout the supposedly civilized European continent, and having no Jewish national state and homeland anywhere in the world to act as a safe refuge.
Ultimately I think the root cause of the Israel-Islam conflict is Islam's intolerance towards Judaism, and the desire of Muslims to "own" the Holy Land. (which, lets face it, is extremely important to all three Abrahamic religions and has been a nexus of religious conflict for 2000 years). Ideally the region should be one big secular country run for the benefit of all, but thats not possible because...Islam.
Point 1.... So, when are we going to carve Kurdistan out of whatever it's gonna come from?
Point 2, I agree with you.... Although, Israel has shown itself more and more militarily capable, I mean, look at the 6 days war or whatever it was... When Israel took on Egypt, Syria and Jordan, with backing from other countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iraq (based on info from the ever reliable Wikipedia), and whooped the gak out of them in less than a week. Really, I'm agreeing with you in that there are certain religions that are far, far less tolerant of others' religions, and it's mainstream to hold those beliefs, even if certain "leaders" will publicly say this isn't the case.
So does 2000 years of persecution worldwide, a campaign of genocide throughout the supposedly civilized European continent, and having no Jewish national state and homeland anywhere in the world to act as a safe refuge.
Ultimately I think the root cause of the Israel-Islam conflict is Islam's intolerance towards Judaism, and the desire of Muslims to "own" the Holy Land. (which, lets face it, is extremely important to all three Abrahamic religions and has been a nexus of religious conflict for 2000 years). Ideally the region should be one big secular country run for the benefit of all, but thats not possible because...Islam.
Point 1.... So, when are we going to carve Kurdistan out of whatever it's gonna come from?
What, they haven't already done it? My impression is that its already a semi autonomous region, albeit unrecognized.
Point 2, I agree with you.... Although, Israel has shown itself more and more militarily capable, I mean, look at the 6 days war or whatever it was... When Israel took on Egypt, Syria and Jordan, with backing from other countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iraq (based on info from the ever reliable Wikipedia), and whooped the gak out of them in less than a week. Really, I'm agreeing with you in that there are certain religions that are far, far less tolerant of others' religions, and it's mainstream to hold those beliefs, even if certain "leaders" will publicly say this isn't the case.
You just need to watch Palestinian and other Arab national childrens' TV shows to gauge their attitude towards Judaism...It ain't pretty.
Frazzled wrote: The entire concept of commencement speakers is utterly stupid to being with. Have the President/Dean give a 5 minute speech, the valedictorian give a stupid 10 minute speech and PASS OUT THE SHEEPSKINS!
Yeah, I have to agree. No one's going to remember what was said, and even if they did it's surely been said before, and better, by someone else anyway.
whembly wrote: Don't these Berkeley student's know they're provingMaher's point?
But Whembly!
Diversity! Equality! Things!
That tickticks me off so much. This campus promotes free speech, but only if it is good free speech. I can't wait to go into the Racist Halloween seminar and point how but hurt they are, then get called racist
Jihadin wrote:Let me do it. I have my own professional style of making them fear for their career before it even begin.
I would prefer you do it.
Jimsolo wrote:Right? Wrong? I'm just happy to see Maher lose work.
Yah. Honestly I'm with Frazzled that I don't think commencement speeches are needed, and this is really done more for attention, but we have to talk about something and I find him insufferable.
Can someone explain all the Bill Maher hate to me? I find the guy rather hilarious. Granted, I don't take his political views seriously, because I think taking advice from comedians is foolish, but I think he raises some funny points and is brash when some comedians shy away from these issues.
Ouze wrote: Bill Maher is an insufferable human being regardless of what the topic is, that seems adequate enough to drop him from any speaking engagement regardless of the topic.
Couldn't agree more. Just seeing his face gets on my nerves because i know he is going to say something that just rubs me the wrong way. Worst part is, he knows he does that and he does it on purpose. There's a jerk off that lives in my neighborhood that is just like that, as soon as the bar codes he drives around on his Harley and revs the crap out of it until the police shows up. Ugh, people like that can fall off the flat side of the planet.
Frazzled wrote: The entire concept of commencement speakers is utterly stupid to being with. Have the President/Dean give a 5 minute speech, the valedictorian give a stupid 10 minute speech and PASS OUT THE SHEEPSKINS!
I kinda agree. I don't even remember who gave the commencement speech at my undergrad ceremony. What I do remember was the fellow was long winded and that the June sun was murder while wearing a black cap and gown.
Exactly. Now that I am a parent in the stands this is doubly stupid. No one remembers you guys. Just make it short and move on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pyeatt wrote: Bill Maher is the only man brave enough to speak the truth.
Well him and Jon Stewart.
You're right. The Chinese guy with the briefcase who stood in front of the line of Chinese tanks (and was later executed) wasn't brave at all.
You really should expand your horizons a little.
hotsauceman1 wrote: The Hypocrisy though. The signs i see that say
"Report Hate speech"
There's nothing stopping you from speaking out against it if it bothers you.
Well, not if he no longer wants to be there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jreilly89 wrote: Can someone explain all the Bill Maher hate to me? I find the guy rather hilarious. Granted, I don't take his political views seriously, because I think taking advice from comedians is foolish, but I think he raises some funny points and is brash when some comedians shy away from these issues.
Well to be concise, he's what we call a Class One head.
You're right. The Chinese guy with the briefcase who stood in front of the line of Chinese tanks (and was later executed) wasn't brave at all.
You really should expand your horizons a little.
Source? As far as I'm aware he's still unidentified.
I never said no entertainer has given a commencement speech, but from talking to students over the years they tend to want someone who has done more. Can't ay about Andy Samberg, but Patton Oswalt and Amy Poehler are both very involved in other issues such as Amy Peohler's Smart Girls. Maher's mainly known for being a smug donkey-cave to people of faith and those that have animal companions.
Additionally, Patton Oswalt is a famous, and successful alumnus of the high school where he gave the commencement speech; something is generally quite important at that level.
jreilly89 wrote: Can someone explain all the Bill Maher hate to me? I find the guy rather hilarious. Granted, I don't take his political views seriously, because I think taking advice from comedians is foolish, but I think he raises some funny points and is brash when some comedians shy away from these issues.
Some people don't like him because he does not respect a few dying taboos. In this case it's the taboo against criticizing people's religious ideas and beliefs. On top of that, he does so frequently through mockery, so alot of times his ideas don't get through due to the manner in which they are expressed.
Ahtman wrote: Maher's mainly known for being a smug donkey-cave to people of faith and those that have animal companions.
I am unfamiliar with his stance on animal companions. Any links or additional information you can provide? All I have been able to locate is Maher's support of PETA.
Ahtman wrote: Maher's mainly known for being a smug donkey-cave to people of faith and those that have animal companions.
I am unfamiliar with his stance on animal companions. Any links or additional information you can provide? All I have been able to locate is Maher's support of PETA.
Well PETA doesn't like people having pets and he is big on PETA. The few times I saw his show I've seen him attack things on his show that had to do with animal related activities.
I know he doesn't like zoos and animal racing sports, but those things are quite difficult to defend as being ethical. Id never heard he was anti-pet, although I know 'pet-mills' are pretty high up on PETA's list, so it wouldn't surprise me.
He also has some pretty wacky 'Jenny McCarthy-ish' ideas about vaccines, medicine, and food. He's shown overtime that he's susceptible to left wing conspiracy theories, but I've seen him ease up on these in recenrecent years, I imagine due to his association with skeptics such as Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris.
jasper76 wrote: I know he doesn't like zoos and animal racing sports, but those things are quite difficult to defend as being ethical. Id never heard he was anti-pet, although I know 'pet-mills' are pretty high up on PETA's list, so it wouldn't surprise me.
He also has some pretty wacky 'Jenny McCarthy-ish' ideas about vaccines, medicine, and food. He's shown overtime that he's susceptible to left wing conspiracy theories, but I've seen him ease up on these in recenrecent years, I imagine due to his association with skeptics such as Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris.
Is there also a difference between East and West Coast Republicans? Wide labels never bring any good.
Yep, probably. But I would probably put the Republican divide along North and South lines, but then, the Republicans have some serious issues with their base (as in, how does one appeal to both the Moral Traditionalist base, as well as the Classical Liberal base, AND survive a primary doing so?) so the differences in types of Republican are far deeper than simply locality.
jasper76 wrote: He also has some pretty wacky 'Jenny McCarthy-ish' ideas about vaccines, medicine, and food.
Forgetting everything else, shouldn't this be enough to dissuade anyone?
Just speaking for myself, I find him and his show entertaining despite disagreeing with some of his ideas. His show is a sort of guilty pleasure for me. I imagine some conservatives feel the same way about Fox News celebrities.
Is there also a difference between East and West Coast Republicans? Wide labels never bring any good.
Yep, probably. But I would probably put the Republican divide along North and South lines, but then, the Republicans have some serious issues with their base (as in, how does one appeal to both the Moral Traditionalist base, as well as the Classical Liberal base, AND survive a primary doing so?) so the differences in types of Republican are far deeper than simply locality.
Geographic political differences aside, I actually feel somewhat sorry for GOP politicians. They have to please conservative Christians, moderate Christians, economic conservatives, tea party folks, and neo-conservatives, and while there is some overlap, many times these factions are at odds. And in the case of presidential and sometimes congressional races, as you say, they have to please these factions in a manner that will not offend moderate Democrats...no easy task.
I always did have him pegged as an East Coast Liberal (and yes, there actually is a difference between Liberals on the East and West coasts)
Is there also a difference between East and West Coast Republicans? Wide labels never bring any good.
West Coast Liberals believe in flower power, hippy love, and the government knows best to protect you from yourself.
West Coast Republicans think they are cowboys and have guns and go to church.
East Coast Liberals think their don't stink and look down on everyone else.
East Coast Republicans don't own guns. They own corporations.
Geographic political differences aside, I actually feel somewhat sorry for GOP politicians. They have to please conservative Christians, moderate Christians, economic conservatives, tea party folks, and neo-conservatives, and while there is some overlap, many times these factions are at odds. And in the case of presidential and sometimes congressional races, as you say, they have to please these factions in a manner that will not offend moderate Democrats...no easy task.
Lol, that's basically what I said.... Only, I'm currently stuck in "Intro to Political Science" so now I know what these people *really* are, and feel the need to use the correct terms, and generally speaking, Republicans can be divided into two groups: the Moral Traditionalists (a form of Conservatism), and Classical Liberal (a form of Locke's theories)
you can really see that particular fight in the last Presidential election when Romney tried to win the primary by appearing to be a true Conservative, but then fail miserably when he had to backtrack all those statements to come back into his true Liberal self
I had to look those terms up. I'd just add that there is a distinct third base of the Republican Party...the neocon (used to be 'hawks'), whose main political ideal has to do with aggressive foreign policy.
Maybe they fit ito one of those two categories...I'm relying on Wikipedia here.
Ahtman wrote: Maher's mainly known for being a smug donkey-cave to people of faith and those that have animal companions.
I am unfamiliar with his stance on animal companions. Any links or additional information you can provide? All I have been able to locate is Maher's support of PETA.
Well PETA doesn't like people having pets and he is big on PETA. The few times I saw his show I've seen him attack things on his show that had to do with animal related activities.
Ah okay, I know he is anti-exploitative animal labor (Sea World, horse drawn carriages, circuses ect.) but I thought he had come out against having pets or service animals or something like that.
The anti-vaccination stance surprises me. I missed that about him and that is extremely disappointing and rather surprising considering his usual support of science over feelings.
I haven't heard him mention anti-vaccine in quite a while.
It's my suspicion that after he became friends with people he respects in the skeptic community, he may have been shown the error of his ways regarding some of his more eccentric opinions on medicine that weren't based on evidence.
jasper76 wrote: I haven't heard him mention anti-vaccine in quite a while.
It's my suspicion that after he became friends with people he respects in the skeptic community, he may have been shown the error of his ways regarding some of his more eccentric opinions on medicine that weren't based on evidence.
Hopefully that is the case. I am honestly puzzled that he would ever come down against vaccines. No one is perfect, so maybe he pulled his head out of his backside.
Free Speech Under Fire On American Campuses Brian Levin, J.D. Director, Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, California State University
Fifty years ago this month, the University of California, Berkeley, became the vanguard of the free speech movement when left leaning Mario Savio led a movement to challenge campus restrictions on free expression. This week's attempted revocation of HBO Real Time host Bill Maher's invitation to deliver UC Berkeley's fall commencement threatened the institution's proud legacy. The administration rightly sets an important example to counter the disturbing nationwide trend of campus censorship by overruling the proposed revocation.
The Supreme Court's rationale in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), invalidating compulsory school flag salutes, holds true over a half century later here as well:
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us. There has been a disturbing, often de facto, censorship of important, yet controversial speakers, by a community of progressives, to which I belong. The targets are often controversial speakers, some of whom are conservatives. Just this month three time Pulitzer Prize winner Washington Post photojournalist Michel du Cille was disinvited from Syracuse University over fear that he covered Ebola in Africa three weeks earlier. Other censored folks include former NYPD Commisioner Ray Kelley, former Secretary of State Condelezza Rice, International Monetary Fund Christine Lagard, columnist George Will, and ironically former UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau.
Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg roundly criticized the practice at Harvard's Commencement last May:
This spring, it has been disturbing to see a number of college commencement speakers withdraw -- or have their invitations rescinded -- after protests from students and -- to me, shockingly -- from senior faculty and administrators who should know better.... In each case, liberals silenced a voice -- and denied an honorary degree -- to individuals they deemed politically objectionable. This is an outrage. Bill and Controversy: A Marriage Made in Heaven
Maher, 58, was invited in August by a committee of undergraduate students, called "The Californians" who for years selected commencement speakers. The Cornell educated social satirist, Emmy Award winner and stand up comedian is known for his biting, often mocking, commentary on important public issues, like religious and political hypocrisy. He has personally felt the sting of controversy when his ABC show was dropped in 2002 after he opined:
We have been the cowards. Lobbing cruise missiles from two thousand miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building. Say what you want about it. Not cowardly. You're right. Good Bill Hunting
He courted controversy, yet again, on his October 3 HBO show. There, Maher and fellow atheist and neuroscientist Sam Harris got into a heated debate on Islam with Berkeley born actor Ben Affleck. Affleck called Maher's homogenous views on Islam "gross and racist." Affleck rightly stated that Maher's criticism of Islam was an exercise of "painting the whole religion with that broad brush." Maher pointedly responded, "t's the only religion that acts like the mafia that will f*****g kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture or write the wrong book. There's a reason why Ayaan Hirsi Ali needs bodyguards 24/7..." Harris, added, "We have to acknowledge that Islam has doctrines like jihad and martyrdom and death to apostates, which are central to the faith in the way that they aren't in other faiths." Harris also insultingly called the faith "the mother lode of bad ideas." Maher has consistently maintained that the American left has been hypocritical in how it treats Islam on such issues as gender and sexual orientation equality, free expression, and religious conversion.
Maher's televised dust-up on Islam went viral on both the Internet as well as on cable news and prominent op-ed pages. The commentary was often critical not only of Maher's broad-brush condemnations, but also of the real examples of intolerance found in certain segments of the vast Muslim world community. The debate's aftermath advanced the discussion of both Islam, the scourge of anti-Islamic prejudice and the real problem of a Salafist extremist minority within the faith.
Whose Party Is It?
The telecast also prompted a student-led petition that generated thousands of signatures in support of revoking Maher's invitation. The petition argued that Maher's religious bigotry and "dangerous rhetoric" ran counter to the campus community:
The students at the University of California at Berkeley represent a diverse array of students from all walks of life. Every semester a commencement speaker is given the privilege of inspiring a class of talented and capable students. This year, UC Berkeley has chosen to invite Bill Maher to speak. Bill Maher is a blatant bigot and racist who has no respect for the values UC Berkeley students and administration stand for. In a time where climate is a priority for all on campus, we cannot invite an individual who himself perpetuates a dangerous learning environment. Bill Maher's public statements on various religions and cultures are offensive and his dangerous rhetoric has found its way into our campus communities. Too many students are marginalized by his remarks and if the University were to bring this individual as a commencement speaker they would not be supporting these historically marginalized communities. After the petition generated national attention, the committee reconvened without any administrators and "suggested" that Maher's invitation be rescinded, despite the fact that his anti-Islamic criticism is hardly a secret as it has been publicized for years in the national media.
The UC Berkeley Chancellor on Wednesday thoughtfully announced that the administration was rejecting the committee's reversal of their previous decision:
[i]The UC Berkeley administration cannot and will not accept this decision, which appears to have been based solely on Mr. Maher's opinions and beliefs, which he conveyed through constitutionally protected speech. For that reason Chancellor Dirks has decided that the invitation will stand, and he looks forward to welcoming Mr. Maher to the Berkeley campus. It should be noted that this decision does not constitute an endorsement of any of Mr. Maher's prior statements: indeed, the administration's position on Mr. Maher's opinions and perspectives is irrelevant in this context, since we fully respect and support his right to express them. More broadly, this university has not in the past and will not in the future shy away from hosting speakers who some deem provocative.
Unlike Other UC Speakers, at Least Maher Is Ready for Primetime
As Chancellor Nicholas Dirks pointed out UC has consistently invited provocative speakers to public campuses. The very principle that protects Maher's right to speak, has also rightly protected a continuous stream of brilliant and not so brilliant Muslim speakers over the years to campuses throughout the California public university system. Ironically, some of those invited speakers also include real nutjob examples of the very stereotypical caricatures that Maher routinely relies upon to fallaciously paint Islam in a negative light. Take, for example, Abdel Malik Ali, a frequent speaker throughout the UC system, including Berkeley:
The recipe for how we come to power: From an Islamic movement we graduate to an Islamic revolution, then to an Islamic state....When it's all over, the only one standing is gonna be us. ... We must implement Islam as a totality ... [where] Allah controls every place -- the home, the classroom, the science lab, the halls of Congress. Liars, straight up liars, Rupert Murdoch Zionist Jew, Zionist Jew owns Fox News. You know what I'm saying, because they're [Zionists or their supporters] the ones who did it [9/11] anyway. They [Zionist Jews] do things [World Trade Center 1993 bombings] to make people think that it's Muslims when it is actually them behind the scenes. If you talk about the disproportionate numbers of Jews, Zionist Jews, in the media, in finance and foreign policy, that's a crime, that's a crime [under the Shepard Byrd Hate Crime Act]. Free speech principles have protected numerous other wackjobs to speak freely at UC campus events. Imam Musa blamed the government for 9/11 and Jews for the slave trade at a UC, Irvine, lecture. Despite a record of virulent anti-Semitism, Mohammad al Asi has been invited to speak in the UC system. Al Asi has argued that thousands of Israeli Jews skipped work to escape 9/11. The erudite humanist and promoter of Holocaust denier Nazi Ahmed Huber has also written: "It is precisely what qualifies Yahud [Jews] for displacement, dispossession and depression. That is why they have been stamped with shame, mortification and the wrath of the Almighty." In a 2001 Washington, D.C. speech he stated: "We have a psychosis in the Jewish community that is unable to coexist equally and brotherly with other human beings."
Yet another marvelous speaker invited to both my University and UC, Irvine was firebrand convert Yvonne Ridley. She wrote that the mastermind of the Chechen school massacre was a "fearless" martyr who led an "admirable" struggle. She also called hook handed British extremist Abu Hamza al Masri "quite sweet, really," while criticizing his moderate Muslim detractors. He was recently convicted in federal district court of 11 counts of terrorism. She further wrote that a series of hotel bombings included not only a wedding party with Americans, but also "martyrdom operations" at Jordanian bars where "we know alcohol is strictly haram, it's an Islamic ruling which the King of Jordan chooses to openly ignore, and in a Muslim country."
It is interesting that the Council on American Islamic Relations, which rightly condemns broad-brushing all Muslims as terrorists, goes on to basically broad-brush Maher as a terrorist by likening his invitation to that of the Klan's Grand Dragon. Well they certainly are extremism experts as they've invited Nazi follower Al Baker, as well as Abdel Malik Ali and Yvonne Ridley to speak at their functions!
Bill and Me: It's Complicated
I am in a somewhat unusual, yet philosophically consistent, position to unequivocally champion the cause of Bill Maher's blunt freedom of speech on topics like Islam and violence, as I passionately challenged him on those very issues on his national television just last year. While countering Islamophbia is a priority for the university center I founded, so to is the protection of free speech, even that, like Maher's with which I so profoundly disagree.
To be sure, Maher's anti-religion biases can be both insightful, funny and at times incredibly offensive. With respect to Islam in particular, his "punchline" analysis reflects a convenient shallowness that focuses on the most violent and intolerant minority of Salafists, while ignoring the extraordinary diversity, history, and modern external influences on the faith. These external influences include nationalism, poverty, tribalism, regional cultural mores as well as the ongoing political instability hatched by the rapid collapse of colonialism following the World Wars.
However, he has, even when partly incorrect, even when hurtful, catalyzed public debate on crucial civic issues in a way few others can and has willingly engaged in spirited debate with his most outspoken critics, including me. As the Supreme Court noted, if any speech warrants protection in our system, it is controversial speech which some wish to silence:
Accordingly, a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, is nevertheless protected against censorship. Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949). Principles Over Politics: Let Bill (and others) Speak!
Let me be clear, free speech is a principle that transcends political and religious boundaries and in order to be viable must protect across the viewpoint spectrum. It protects Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's right to speak at Columbia, and my right to invite brilliant Iranian and Lebanese Muslim scholars to speak on my campus. It also protects the right of despicable nut job Islamophobes like Pam Gellar to buy offensive ads on New York buses. This month, illegal sanctions against a Palestinian student group at Montclair State in New Jersey for distributing political leaflets were correctly lifted after a threatened lawsuit. In New York, an opera about the brutal murder of wheelchair bound American Leon Klinghoffer by Palestinian terrorists went forward, as it should, despite protests.
It is curious that many of the same academics who sincerely protest the revocation of Palestinian Professor Steven Salita's University of Illinois job offer are mum about Maher or are supportive of academic boycotts against Israeli scholars like that of the pathetic American Studies Association. Salita tweeted, among other things: "Zionists: transforming "antisemitism" from something horrible into something honorable since 1948."
Perhaps Salita, himself, has the most passionate argument, not only for his own cause, but for Maher's as well: Principles of free speech, academic freedom, and shared governance enable faculty and students to ask difficult questions and find answers that challenge conventional wisdom. It is anathema to this tradition to allow the elite to dictate to a public university who gets hired and what ideas are acceptable. I couldn't agree more. Let Bill speak.
Brian Levin is a graduate of Stanford Law School where he received the Block Civil Liberties Award. He is the co-author of Supreme Court briefs on the First Amendment and the book "The Limits of Dissent".
Well Free Speech doesn't mean there are no consequences, but if really this is only about that one episode it is really stupid all around. There are a lot of reasons not to want him at a school, but to go with a flavor of the week outrage is silly. Not that it matters as apparently the petition worked, which disproves the theory that online petitions never work I suppose. I picked the snarkiest story since it seemed most appropriate.
A student group has un-invited America’s bachelor uncle Bill Maher from speaking at UC Berkeley’s fall commencement in December, a request that school administration has refused to honor. The snub comes after a segment on Maher’s HBO talk show earlier this month in which he engaged bat lover Ben Affleck in a heated debate about Islam.
The segment led to the creation of a Change.org petition calling for Maher to be uninstalled as commencement speaker, calling him “a blatant bigot and racist who has no respect for the values UC Berkeley students and administration stand for.” The petition goes on to say, “Too many students are marginalized by his remarks and if the University were to bring this individual as a commencement speaker they would not be supporting these historically marginalized communities.”
In the wake of the petition, the student organization known as the Californians, which is responsible for selecting commencement speakers, held a meeting in which they ruled that no, they did not want to have Bill Maher come to their campus and spread his anti-Islamic views, no matter how good his weed is. (They also ruled, presumably, that Winter’s vegan, gluten-free brownies were incredible and she should make them again for the next meeting.)
However, the ruling failed to resonate with the UC Berkeley administration, which released a statement saying, “The UC Berkeley administration cannot and will not accept this decision, which appears to have been based solely on Mr. Maher’s opinions and beliefs, which he conveyed through constitutionally protected speech.” The statement went on to say that UC Berkeley had no official position on Maher’s comments, and, presumably, that if students didn’t like to they could transfer to Oberlin.
The Californians had originally invited Maher to speak in August, when they just knew him as an atheist blowhard rather than an atheist blowhard with controversial opinions on Islam. Maher has promised to address the issue on Real Time With Bill Maher tomorrow night.
The school administration refused to accept the petition or the student organization's decision to revoke Maher's invitation. They will not prevent Maher from speaking at the commencement due to dissenting opinions from students. I'd argue that ultimately the petition didn't work because the administration is sticking with Maher. I suppose some sort of symbolic victory could be claimed, but I don't put much stock in victories that fail to achieve meaningful results.
Though, Maher could chicken out and not go, in which case I'd give the victory to the petitioners.
That makes more sense I suppose. I thought the article was saying that the group that makes the decision on commencement speakers decided to not have him speak and then the school published something saying they disagreed with their decision.
I'm actually surprised that Berkeley didn't kowtow to the PC pressure, and didn't fall for the "race=religion" fallacy. It's nice to see.
I highly doubt Maher will bow out. If he's a jerk, he's no coward. He regularly (at least in the past) has gone on tours in the Bible Belt, and presents his material in areas (if not to crowds) that are not the friendliest places to espouse his opinions on religion.
The still frame is a blurry pic of Maher with a stupid look on his face. I can't imagine it gets better so I'm not sure I want to watch the actual video and ruin it.
So he is simultaneously dismissing things which happen online, while also granting them legitimacy by addressing them and asking liberals to weigh in on the matter?
dogma wrote: So he is simultaneously dismissing things which happen online, while also granting them legitimacy by addressing them and asking college students to weigh in on the matter?
I think if you watch the video, he is obviously a bit concerned that he has been (wrongly) called a racist, and he's appealing to liberal students not to fall for the race = religion fallacy.
It's important to note here that he was indeed wrongly accused by the author of the petition of being a "blatant racist". Anyone who is familiar with Bill Maher at all knows he's not a racist. A jerk? Maybe. A douche? Perhaps. But not a racist. You have to make the unfortunate leap of logic from "Islam is a religion with some bad ideas" to "Islam is a race and that race is bad" in order to come to that conclusion.
Hopefully, things have not sunk that low with American students, and I think he's appealing to American students to show they are better than that. In what medium, I have no idea.
I think if you watch the video, he is obviously a bit concerned that he has been (wrongly) called a racist, and he's appealing to liberal students not to fall for the race = religion fallacy.
And yet he reinforces that notion with his joke about Jewish women.
Anyway: You can't argue that you support the free exchange of ideas when your primary means of expressing your own is a heavily produced TV show.
Anyway: You can't argue that you support the free exchange of ideas when your primary means of expressing your own is a heavily produced TV show.
I'm afraid you've lost me here. Why would expressing ideas through a produced TV program innately make you unsupportive of the free exchange of ideas? Don't make no sense, Jack!
I'm afraid you've lost me here. Why would expressing ideas through a produced TV program innately make you unsupportive of the free exchange of ideas? Don't make no sense, Jack!
Because the producers of the show directly control not only what you express, but the manner in which you express it? Double points for control over who you have as a guest, and what they're allowed to say.
I'm afraid you've lost me here. Why would expressing ideas through a produced TV program innately make you unsupportive of the free exchange of ideas? Don't make no sense, Jack!
Because the producers of the show directly control not only what you express, but the manner in which you express it? Double points for control over who you have as a guest, and what they're allowed to say.
Yeah, I guess its possible that Bill Maher doesn't have creative control over his own show, or what he says on his own show.
Except guests on his show are pretty damn politically diverse and are given ample time to discuss whatever the topic may be, whether they agree with Maher or not.
But you know, it could also not be that. I guess we'll never know for sure.
Nope........... Sorry Bill, but on UC campuses....Free Speech equals anything that goes contrary to what I think.
I got in trouble for my indian costume on campus and asked to remove it by a CA. Why? Because it is offensive.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Except guests on his show are pretty damn politically diverse and are given ample time to discuss whatever the topic may be, whether they agree with Maher or not.
Political diversity does not necessarily indicate the absence of production.
Maher begins the show with far more preparation than any of his guests could possibly have, and has a whole team of producers supporting him during discussion. I know this because all talk-show hosts have these advantages over their guests. Advantages which are compounded by the panel format in which each guest has no explicit knowledge of how any other guest will act, or even which issues will be raised.
Considering how obvious this one is I can't tell if you did it just to bait campus or made it up just to bait us, as I can't imagine you are this oblivious.
Finally had a moment to watch the video, what happened to Maher's face? Botched plastic surgery? At first I thought it was age, but it doesn't appear to be normal aging as it seems like a layer of plastic was put on his face. It could be the effects of some medication as well.
I guess [the video] was ok, but it still seemed like "I just wanted to come out there and give everyone a free blow job and some weed but everyone is mean to me for no reason", but then he can't not be a self involved douche.
Considering how obvious this one is I can't tell if you did it just to bait campus or made it up just to bait us, as I can't imagine you are this oblivious.
It was just to be fun. All I had was face paint, a feather and a headband. And somehow Im racist and appropriating their culture.
Another buddy got called out when he had "Dia Delos Muertos" skull on his face.
It was just to be fun. All I had was face paint, a feather and a headband. And somehow Im racist and appropriating their culture.
Another buddy got called out when he had "Dia Delos Muertos" skull on his face.
You should have just worn a Patagonia and some Sperry's and gone as "White Privilege."
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Except guests on his show are pretty damn politically diverse and are given ample time to discuss whatever the topic may be, whether they agree with Maher or not.
Political diversity does not necessarily indicate the absence of production.
Maher begins the show with far more preparation than any of his guests could possibly have, and has a whole team of producers supporting him during discussion. I know this because all talk-show hosts have these advantages over their guests. Advantages which are compounded by the panel format in which each guest has no explicit knowledge of how any other guest will act, or even which issues will be raised.
Very well.
Maher colludes with his producers to stymie the opinions of his quests because he has so much more prep time than the many experts and professionals that are oftens guests because he doesn't support the free exchange of ideas. You know this because you expertise also extends to an intricate knowledge of not just Maher's production methods, but all political talk shows because of course it does.
Maher colludes with his producers to stymie the opinions of his quests because he has so much more prep time than the many experts and professionals that are oftens guests because he doesn't support the free exchange of ideas.
Why would Maher stymie the opinions of his quests? Quests can't have opinions.
Anyway, that's not the argument I made. You are deliberately putting words in my mouth. A tactic Maher uses with great frequency.
You know this because you expertise also extends to an intricate knowledge of not just Maher's production methods, but all political talk shows because of course it does.
I made claims regarding general talk-shows in reference to Maher's show (which is more damning), and further singled out the panel format.
I never used the word "intricate", as my knowledge is based on observation and second-hand testimony.
I think if you watch the video, he is obviously a bit concerned that he has been (wrongly) called a racist, and he's appealing to liberal students not to fall for the race = religion fallacy.
And yet he reinforces that notion with his joke about Jewish women.
Anyway: You can't argue that you support the free exchange of ideas when your primary means of expressing your own is a heavily produced TV show.
The difference is, there actually is a "Jewish race" or ethnicity.
Islam on the other hand is composed of a huge range of ethnicities that span the globe.
Considering how obvious this one is I can't tell if you did it just to bait campus or made it up just to bait us, as I can't imagine you are this oblivious.
It was just to be fun. All I had was face paint, a feather and a headband. And somehow Im racist and appropriating their culture.
Because it was, and also a mish-mash of cultures to boot. Considering that Indians don't really dress that way either it seems more like an outsiders idea of an Indian than an actual Indian. Would you be as confused by this if you went black face? Pretending to be another ethnicity/culture isn't a costume, and made worse by doing so in a country with a history of not so nice treatment of those cultures. It isn't limited to people of color either, pretending to be from Appalachia by acting as if you are inbred and carrying a banjo isn't much better. There are a myriad of costumes that are 'fun' that aren't foolish or degrading. If you wanted to provoke people that is fine, but it seems you both picked an idiotic costume and want to be incensed when called on it.
Well, not really. Semitic is shared by other groups and not just by people who practice Judiasm. There are also people who practice Judiasm who are not Semitic.
Maher colludes with his producers to stymie the opinions of his quests because he has so much more prep time than the many experts and professionals that are oftens guests because he doesn't support the free exchange of ideas.
Why would Maher stymie the opinions of his quests? Quests can't have opinions.
Anyway, that's not the argument I made. You are deliberately putting words in my mouth. A tactic Maher uses with great frequency.
That's it, use my typo as a deflection. You're methods are evolving.
I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm just saying what you are implying. You know, like what you do. Fun, isn't it?
You know this because you expertise also extends to an intricate knowledge of not just Maher's production methods, but all political talk shows because of course it does.
I made claims regarding general talk-shows in reference to Maher's show (which is more damning), and further singled out the panel format.
I never used the word "intricate", as my knowledge is based on observation and second-hand testimony.
You implied that you have extensive knowledge of Maher's production methods. You claim that Maher begins his show with significantly more preparation than his guests (who are often experts at the topic being discussed) on top of the team of producers supporting him. Obviously, this implies that you have a far greater working knowledge of the how Real Time is produced, which of course proves your theory that Maher doesn't support the free exchange of ideas.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: You implied that you have extensive knowledge of Maher's production methods. You claim that Maher begins his show with significantly more preparation than his guests (who are often experts at the topic being discussed) on top of the team of producers supporting him. Obviously, this implies that you have a far greater working knowledge of the how Real Time is produced, which of course proves your theory that Maher doesn't support the free exchange of ideas.
If this is actually the case, I'm sure we'd all love to hear some fun stories from backstage at Real Time!
Please, delight and enthrall us with them, won't you?
I'm afraid you've lost me here. Why would expressing ideas through a produced TV program innately make you unsupportive of the free exchange of ideas? Don't make no sense, Jack!
Because the producers of the show directly control not only what you express, but the manner in which you express it? Double points for control over who you have as a guest, and what they're allowed to say.
Can I get a source on this? Because at the moment, it seems like you are making a broad generalization of talk shows.
I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm just saying what you are implying. You know, like what you do. Fun, isn't it?
Yes, you are. You are using words which have clearly distinct meanings from those I chose, for what seems to be the purpose of misrepresenting my initial statement.
You implied that you have extensive knowledge of Maher's production methods.
No I didn't. I stated that I have knowledge of the production methods used by other talk-shows and lumped Maher into that group, because he is a talk-show host. He might be special, but I doubt it.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: ...which of course proves your theory that Maher doesn't support the free exchange of ideas.
Considering how obvious this one is I can't tell if you did it just to bait campus or made it up just to bait us, as I can't imagine you are this oblivious.
It was just to be fun. All I had was face paint, a feather and a headband. And somehow Im racist and appropriating their culture.
Because it was, and also a mish-mash of cultures to boot. Considering that Indians don't really dress that way either it seems more like an outsiders idea of an Indian than an actual Indian. Would you be as confused by this if you went black face? Pretending to be another ethnicity/culture isn't a costume, and made worse by doing so in a country with a history of not so nice treatment of those cultures. It isn't limited to people of color either, pretending to be from Appalachia by acting as if you are inbred and carrying a banjo isn't much better. There are a myriad of costumes that are 'fun' that aren't foolish or degrading. If you wanted to provoke people that is fine, but it seems you both picked an idiotic costume and want to be incensed when called on it.
Well, not really. Semitic is shared by other groups and not just by people who practice Judiasm. There are also people who practice Judiasm who are not Semitic.
Heh. Yeah that was more or less what I was thinking of, Semitic ethnic groups.
Yes, you are. You are using words which have clearly distinct meanings from those I chose, for what seems to be the purpose of misrepresenting my initial statement.
No I didn't. I stated that I have knowledge of the production methods used by other talk-shows and lumped Maher into that group, because he is a talk-show host. He might be special, but I doubt it.
I'm sure he supports it in theory.
You're right, you never said that directly, but you certainly implied it, so obviously that's what you meant. You should be used to this, it's your go-to tactic in OT threads... fun, isn't it?
Also, unless you're responding using a typewriter, stop double spacing after a period.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: You implied that you have extensive knowledge of Maher's production methods. You claim that Maher begins his show with significantly more preparation than his guests (who are often experts at the topic being discussed) on top of the team of producers supporting him. Obviously, this implies that you have a far greater working knowledge of the how Real Time is produced, which of course proves your theory that Maher doesn't support the free exchange of ideas.
If this is actually the case, I'm sure we'd all love to hear some fun stories from backstage at Real Time!
Please, delight and enthrall us with them, won't you?
I will be waiting with bated breath for Dogma to elaborate on this as well.
It's somewhat immaterial if Bill Maher can be said to be a paragon of free speech due to his employers and whether or whether they do not censor content.
The basic fact is that Bill Maher made the argument that liberals whitewash some of the offenses to liberal values like women's rights, rights for homosexuals, and free speech that are all too frequently displayed by Islamic culture, because liberals generally also have a competing interest in valuing multiculturism, and for this , a student falsely accused him of racism and bigotry in a petition that gained media attention.
Besides being a display of the ignorant misconception that race and religious ideas are synonyms (this would require that Islam be a genetic condition, rather than a religion/worldview), it was also an assault on free speech principles, which ironically is one of the very criticisms that Maher has against current Islamic culture.
I feel like I should clarify a bit. I think it is ridiculous that they sent you home. You are, after all, an adult and they aren't your guardian. On the other hand I do see why they thought it was a bad idea, and honestly can't see how you thought it was a good idea.
Ahtman wrote: I feel like I should clarify a bit. I think it is ridiculous that they sent you home. You are, after all, an adult and they aren't your guardian. On the other hand I do see why that thought it was a bad idea, and honestly can't see how you thought it was a good idea.
dogma wrote: So he is simultaneously dismissing things which happen online, while also granting them legitimacy by addressing them and asking college students to weigh in on the matter?
I think if you watch the video, he is obviously a bit concerned that he has been (wrongly) called a racist, and he's appealing to liberal students not to fall for the race = religion fallacy.
It's important to note here that he was indeed wrongly accused by the author of the petition of being a "blatant racist". Anyone who is familiar with Bill Maher at all knows he's not a racist. A jerk? Maybe. A douche? Perhaps. But not a racist. You have to make the unfortunate leap of logic from "Islam is a religion with some bad ideas" to "Islam is a race and that race is bad" in order to come to that conclusion.
Hopefully, things have not sunk that low with American students, and I think he's appealing to American students to show they are better than that. In what medium, I have no idea.
Regardless of whether you agree with him or not I find the idea of banning speakers from universities to be both sinister and patronising to all concerned.
Aren't educational institutions supposed to be all about the free and open debate of ideas and veiw points, even those deemed to be unusual or even dangerous? How exactly is free thought promoted when certain ideas deemed 'unacceptable' are prohibited from scrutiny?
Students aren't children in need of protection from hearing unpleasant or offensive things. If those who created and signed this petition can't handle hearing what Maher has to say perhaps they should consider if they are ready for university yet.
LuciusAR wrote: Regardless of whether you agree with him or not I find the idea of banning speakers from universities to be both sinister and patronising to all concerned.
Aren't educational institutions supposed to be all about the free and open debate of ideas and veiw points, even those deemed to be unusual or even dangerous? How exactly is free thought promoted when certain ideas deemed 'unacceptable' are prohibited from scrutiny?
Students aren't children in need of protection from hearing unpleasant or offensive things. If those who created and signed this petition can't handle hearing what Maher has to say perhaps they should consider if they are ready for university yet.
As a policy I agree EXCEPT for commencement speeches. Those are effectively nonvolunrary events, have families who didn't consent to squat, and the commencement has all to do with the commencement speaker.
Again this would be far better if the Dean gave a short speech, the Valedictorian gave a short speech, than they moved that train down the line. You've got five thousand hands to shake - get to it!
LuciusAR wrote: Regardless of whether you agree with him or not I find the idea of banning speakers from universities to be both sinister and patronising to all concerned.
Aren't educational institutions supposed to be all about the free and open debate of ideas and veiw points, even those deemed to be unusual or even dangerous? How exactly is free thought promoted when certain ideas deemed 'unacceptable' are prohibited from scrutiny?
Students aren't children in need of protection from hearing unpleasant or offensive things. If those who created and signed this petition can't handle hearing what Maher has to say perhaps they should consider if they are ready for university yet.
As a policy I agree EXCEPT for commencement speeches. Those are effectively nonvolunrary events, have families who didn't consent to squat, and the commencement has all to do with the commencement speaker.
Again this would be far better if the Dean gave a short speech, the Valedictorian gave a short speech, than they moved that train down the line. You've got five thousand hands to shake - get to it!
I think it'd be better, and more educational to pick a student at random from the graduates to give a speech.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I hate graduations. I really really do.
The speeches from people I donot know, the long walk for a piece of paper.
Bah Humbug
I didn't want to go to my undergrad ceremony, but I did it for my mother who was helpful and patient with my schooling. So think of your family when it comes time to graduation. It is really more for them than the graduate anyway.
When it came time three years later for my grad ceremony, I skipped it all together. As Spiderman says, "Everybody gets one" and my mom got the undergrad ceremony in the hot, hot June sun.
If Bill is taking the same exact position liberals usually take whenever we see free speech being threatened, or women being abused or people forced to submit to fundamentalist dictates, why then is he facing any criticism for speaking out against these wrongs? When Christians do these things we speak up — loudly. So why not speak out when Muslims do it? ‘Cause it’s none of our business? Isn’t it?
A friend of mine sent me this to me and I found it interesting. It is an open letter to Ben Affleck written by a Pakistani-born Canadian illustrator named Eiynah. It's a little long but worth a read:
Spoiler:
Dear Ben,
I am writing to you today, as a woman who was born and raised in Islam. I saw your discussion with Bill Maher and Sam Harris - And I must say, you did me a great disservice that day. Your heart was in the right place, of course, and it was lovely of you to step up and defend ‘my people’.
What you really did though, perhaps inadvertently, was silence a conversation that never gets started. Two people attempted to begin a dialogue and you wouldn’t even listen. Why should any set of ideas be above criticism, Ben?
Why are Muslims being ‘preserved’ in some time-capsule of centuries gone by? Why is it ok that we continue to live in a world where our women are compared to candy -- waiting to be consumed? Why is it ok for women of the rest of the world to fight for freedom and equality, while we are told to cover our shameful bodies? Can't you see that we are being held back from joining this elite club known as the 21st century?
Noble liberals like yourself always stand up for the misrepresented Muslims and stand against the Islamophobes, which is great -- but who stands in my corner, and for the others who have been oppressed by the 'religion of peace'? Every time we raise our voices, one of us is killed or threatened. I am a blogger and illustrator, no threat to anyone Ben - except for those afraid of words and drawings. I want the freedom to express myself, without the very real fear that I might be killed for it. Is that too much to ask?
When I wrote a children’s book that carried a message of diversity and inclusivity for everyone, my life changed. My book, ‘My Chacha (uncle) is Gay' has the innocent anti-homophobia message, ‘Love belongs to Everyone’. This was not palatable to many of my Muslim brothers and sisters.
Since that project I have been declared an ‘enemy of god’ and deemed worthy of death. All because I want to help create a world where South Asian children too can have their stories told, so they too can know that love comes in all forms, and that that’s ok. My muslim brothers and sisters were hit hard by this work because it addresses the issue of homophobia within our own community. It is not something they can pass off as ‘Western' immorality. Just like they deny that any issues exist within the doctrine of Islam, many deny that homosexuality exists amongst good, ‘moral’ muslims.
Just like that, millions of people’s existence is rejected. Please do not defend people who think this way, and let me tell you Ben, many ‘good’ muslims do think this way.
What you did by screaming ‘racist!’, was shut down a conversation that many of us have been waiting to have. You helped those who wish to deny there are issues, deny them. You became an instant hero, a defender of Islam. It’s kind, it really is. I understand, because I too am plagued and affected by the issues brought about by actual Islamophobia. I have a muslim name and brown skin, my peaceful relatives have been pushed in the subway and called ‘terrorist’ for no reason.
I get that.
We must distinguish critiquing an ideology from being hateful towards a group of people. And for this reason I think that tackling the issues within Islam should be two-pronged. They must be brought up, but simultaneously we should stress that blame for these issues cannot be placed on individuals.
I am Pakistan’s only sex blogger, I am also a woman. I am by default a lesser being within Islam. The fact that I talk about sex makes me even more worthy of disgust. Sex is not something easily discussed amongst muslims. And in the efforts of preserving our religious purity, we let some very immoral acts slide. Things that can often be justified by religious scripture. I speak to women every day who suffer under the religion of peace because they are not held as equals. There are things you can use to justify marital rape within the texts, and things you can use to justify pedophilia, there are things you can use to justify beheading infidels and apostates - just as ISIS does. That is not to say that ALL muslims are pedophiles, rapists or violent beheaders, or that Islam promotes these things. But if you are a person looking to justify such acts, you may find what you are looking for within the texts. Countless numbers of people suffer because of this, Ben.
Who will stand up for those people? In the interest of being politically correct and ‘liberal’ we silence the voices of millions. I am turning to you because you were instrumental in starting this conversation. Those of us who want reform are muted by extremists, as well as the liberals who betray us in the name of multiculturalism.
ISIS paints a horrific picture, so I understand the knee-jerk reaction to deny any link. Most muslims choose to interpret scripture in a peaceful way, but that doesn’t mean the raw material isn’t there for those who choose the path of violence. That material must be addressed.
Can we talk about the blatant double standards and violation of human rights, for a second? Mosques are built throughout Western countries, usually without much issue. But in the hub of Islam, the heart of Islam - in Saudi Arabia no one but muslims are allowed to officially practise their faith. There are no churches, temples or synagogues - because Saudi Arabia will not permit any non-muslim place of worship to exist. Who will hold them accountable for such injustice if we hush everyone who speaks out against Islam?
What is so wrong with wanting to step into the current century? Why is there shame in accepting a book that is over a thousand years old just doesn’t hold up anymore? There should be no shame. There is no denying that violence, misogyny and homophobia exist in all religious texts, but Islam is the only religion that is adhered to so literally, to this day.
In your culture you have the luxury of calling such literalists “crazies", like the Westboro Baptist Church for example. In my culture, such values are upheld by more people than we realise. Many will try to deny it, but please hear me when I say that these are not fringe values. It is apparent in the lacking numbers of Muslims willing to speak out against the archaic Shariah law. The lack of acceptance for any alternate sexuality, the punishment for blasphemy and apostasy, these things are tools of oppression. Why are they not addressed even by the peaceful folk who “aren’t fanatical, who just want to have some sandwiches and pray five times a day?” Where are the Muslim protestors against Blasphemy laws/apostasy? Where are the Muslims who take a stand against Shariah? These sandwich-eating peaceful folk do not defend those suffering in the name of Islam Ben, and therein lies our problem.
Maybe the points Maher and Harris were trying to make are more easily digested when coming from within the community, I can appreciate that. That is why I am writing to you, as someone who has personally been hurt by the lack of acknowledgement of these issues.
If Muslims do not critique the atrocities that the religion *can* justify, then people on the outside will - and their message will not be listened to simply because of who they are. Its a vicious cycle, one that can only break if indeed, like Harris said, true reformers are empowered.
I ask you and anyone reading this, to make an effort to seek out reformers from within our community, and support them in any way you can.
If I were allowed to meet a man that is not my father, brother or husband unchaperoned - I would have loved to discuss this over drinks (which I am also not allowed to have) with you. So you see, things must change.
Sincerely,
Also, unless you're responding using a typewriter, stop double spacing after a period.
I didn't double space at all.
Wait wait wait! Are we not supposed to double space after a period anymore? I haven't been keeping up with the MLA, apparently!
What Hordini said.
I when I was taught typing, I was taught to double space. However, when I began journalism I had to unlearn that and a couple of other bad habits I picked up when I was younger because we used The Chicago Manual of Style. Typewriters were limited to monospaced fonts, which made double spacing acceptable; modern computers typically don't use monospaced fonts (but they can). However, in personal correspondence double spacing it's more acceptable.
Now that I'm looking at it, it must be the quote system on Dakka... it seems to add spaces, unless you also double space Cincy, because in your quote box in my text field there are two spaces after the question mark.
My new book says "there", "their", and "they're" will hereafter be spelled "there" and furthermore "there" is now an acceptable singular possessive pronoun.
jasper76 wrote: My new book says "there", "their", and "they're" will hereafter be spelled "there" and furthermore "there" is now an acceptable singular possessive pronoun.
because I'm a bollocks.
head. 
