Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This must be the equivelant for extreme liberals to someone having a pet dog for years that suddenly bites them:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/29/bill-maher-tricks-guests-with-racist-paul-ryan-quote-that-was-actually-said-by-michelle-obama-the-reaction-he-gets-is-priceless/

Maher has criticized liberals many times.

 dogma wrote:
Maher has criticized liberals many times.

Pretty much everyone is turning on Obama about Obamacare. Not much surprise there, but he's pissed because he thinks that that it's not being pushed enough.

Relapse wrote:

Pretty much everyone is turning on Obama about Obamacare. Not much surprise there, but he's pissed because he thinks that that it's not being pushed enough.

The article I linked was first posted in 2009, hence the immediate reference to the 2010 elections.

Well..Harry Reid said something close about "lack of education" being one problem.

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Pretty much everyone is turning on Obama about Obamacare. Not much surprise there, but he's pissed because he thinks that that it's not being pushed enough.

The article I linked was first posted in 2009, hence the immediate reference to the 2010 elections.

Yet one time a few years ago does not equate to many times. The election comment rings true, though for a lot of Democratic Senators this November. That however, is talk for another thread.

While I find the man to be rather despicable, he has been known to do things like this on occasion.

Relapse wrote:

Yet one time a few years ago does not equate to many times. The election comment rings true, though for a lot of Democratic Senators this November. That however, is talk for another thread.

Want more?

Bill Maher accused MSNBC of being akin to Fox News.

Bill Maher criticized US policy on Syria.

And then there was the time he defended Rush Limbaugh.

Bill Maher may be a pompous douche, but he has never been afraid of saying exactly what is on his mind, regardless of who the target is.

It makes perfect sense that he defended Rush Limbaugh... he is the liberal counterpoint to him.

I find maher very funny but I don't like him. He's smug, look at his face when he's trying to get a word out and his audience cheers, just comes off like an donkey-cave. I think he often makes very good points but I find he's two faced in that he's perfectly fine doing the devil's advocate thing with some people, but others he lavishes praise on and never remotely challenges. It's disingenuous I find, its one thing to take some hard swipes at panelists, I don't mind that, they should defend their assertions especially passionate ones but in interviews he can be a total dick. He had a guy on to talk about a documentary about rumsfeld and just made it incredibly uncomfortable for no real reason. Then later in the show shane smith is added to the panel and he basically sucks up to him the whole time because they have work on a show together (vice).

Wouldn't that be ageist not racist? I didn't think wanting to be a baller or rapper is solely a black ambition. Even assuming the racist slant I'm not picking up, I don't think this can be likened to liberals being bitten by a loyal dog. Nothing wrong with making people question their beliefs!

Its all okay, though, because as Bell said, "Black people talk differently to each other than they do to white people."

 cincydooley wrote:
Its all okay, though, because as Bell said, "Black people talk differently to each other than they do to white people."

Does it bother you that they do? If so why?

 Ahtman wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Its all okay, though, because as Bell said, "Black people talk differently to each other than they do to white people."

Does it bother you that they do? If so why?

I couldn't care less.

I think his use of that as a justification for why it's okay when he learned Michelle Obama said it is fething nonsense.

 cincydooley wrote:
I couldn't care less.

If that were true you wouldn't post about it.

 cincydooley wrote:
I think his use of that as a justification for why it's okay when he learned Michelle Obama said it is fething nonsense.

So it does bother you.

No, I couldn't care less if they talk to each other differently.

I have a problem when Bell is calling it racist immediately when he thought Ryan said it, but then saying it was okay because Michelle Obama said it.

If it's a true statement, then it's a true statement regardless of who said it.

Not really, there's something called context. If you're talking to a specific group of people about an aspect of a problem (an aspect which applies to that group of people, ie, wanting to be a baller*), the same words can be considered racist if said to all groups of people. It's implying only the group of people who identify with that one aspect are the problem.

Horribly contrived example;

"The problem is we have those who sit around all day fantasising about marrying Justin Bieber instead of doing their homework"

Spoken to a school of girls by Hillary Clinton, no problem. Repeated at a press conference by Bush... sounds pretty sexist as it's implying only teenage girls don't do their homework.

* as opposed to wanting to be a basketball player I guess...

 Lesebyst wrote:
Not really, there's something called context. If you're talking to a specific group of people about an aspect of a problem (an aspect which applies to that group of people, ie, wanting to be a baller*), the same words can be considered racist if said to all groups of people. It's implying only the group of people who identify with that one aspect are the problem.

Horribly contrived example;

"The problem is we have those who sit around all day fantasising about marrying Justin Bieber instead of doing their homework"

Spoken to a school of girls by Hillary Clinton, no problem. Repeated at a press conference by Bush... sounds pretty sexist as it's implying only teenage girls don't do their homework.

* as opposed to wanting to be a basketball player I guess...

I guess to me the meat of the comment that he's isn't "marrying justin bieber" or "being a baller or rapper;" its:

“When it comes to getting an education, too many of our young people just can’t be bothered. They’re sitting on couches for hours playing video games, watching TV.

 cincydooley wrote:

I guess to me the meat of the comment that he's isn't "marrying justin bieber" or "being a baller or rapper;" its:

“When it comes to getting an education, too many of our young people just can’t be bothered. They’re sitting on couches for hours playing video games, watching TV.

I... don't follow. Are you saying you can detect racism in that segment of the quotation? Surely the issue is rap being historically a black genre and baller having some sort of black connotation? I'm guessing here, I didn't spot racism in the initial quote at all.

 cincydooley wrote:
No, I couldn't care less if they talk to each other differently.

I have a problem when Bell is calling it racist immediately when he thought Ryan said it, but then saying it was okay because Michelle Obama said it.

If it's a true statement, then it's a true statement regardless of who said it.

The identity of speaker changes the context in which a statement is made. This can alter whether or not the statement is perceived as being acceptable.

Pretending that race doesn't matter, doesn't actually mean that race doesn't matter.

 dogma wrote:


The identity of speaker changes the context in which a statement is made. This can alter whether or not the statement is perceived as being acceptable.

Pretending that race doesn't matter, doesn't actually mean that race doesn't matter.

Actually, its the height of bigotry to try to say that its ok for one race to say something, but racist for another race to say it.

Its also racist.

The words have meanings, independent of the speaker's ethnicity.

Words do not have a "black" meaning, a "white" meaning, and so on. Context should be given by the words of a speaker, not their skin colour. Sure a speaker being a doctor gives his speech about health some context, but it does not change the context if that Dr is black, while or latino.

To assert that certain races have "special speaking privileges" to say things others cannot, is as racist as giving certain races ANY special privilege or special detriments.

if race matters to you that much, you are probably racist,

its not "pretending" it doesnt matter... race really does not matter to some people, thats the whole point.

 easysauce wrote:

 dogma wrote:


The identity of speaker changes the context in which a statement is made. This can alter whether or not the statement is perceived as being acceptable.

Pretending that race doesn't matter, doesn't actually mean that race doesn't matter.

Actually, its the height of bigotry to try to say that its ok for one race to say something, but racist for another race to say it.

It is the height of ignorance to say that context doesn't matter when considering something.

Even when I agree with him I don't want to. I can't stand him.

 Ahtman wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Its all okay, though, because as Bell said, "Black people talk differently to each other than they do to white people."

Does it bother you that they do? If so why?

Because it's Racist.

I love that people actually believed Paul Ryan said the word "baller".

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Its all okay, though, because as Bell said, "Black people talk differently to each other than they do to white people."

Does it bother you that they do? If so why?

Because it's Racist.

It seems you might not know what that word means, since you are using it incorrectly.

You've got to give the social justice crowd credit for the speed at which they can circle wagons.

 easysauce wrote:

Actually, its the height of bigotry to try to say that its ok for one race to say something, but racist for another race to say it.

Its also racist.

The argument from racism I can see, but from bigotry? No, you need to go back to the drawing board there. By which I mean you should revisit the definition of "bigotry".

Anyway, the racist argument is also quite weak. As it turns on the notion that any instance in which a person makes a comment, or presumption, on the basis of a person's race is racist. This would obviously render anyone that discusses race issues, at all, a racist.

And here you are, discussing race issues.

 easysauce wrote:

The words have meanings, independent of the speaker's ethnicity.

And they also have meanings which are contingent upon the speaker's race, the word you meant to use when you used the word "ethnicity". Though, of course, people of varying ethnicities have similar leeway regarding certain words.

For example: I can get away with calling Polish people in Chicago "polack" because I'm a person of Polish descent from Chicago, and I look the part.

 easysauce wrote:

its not "pretending" it doesnt matter... race really does not matter to some people, thats the whole point.

Cincydooley already invalidated his claim that race does not matter to him.

But that's irrelevant. Race matters to a large number of people, ergo, race matters.

 Seaward wrote:
You've got the give the social justice crowd credit for the speed at which they can circle wagons.

It gets better, last week I heard that all of the following:

1. Supporting State's rights.
2. Supporting welfare reform.
3. Tough on crime.
4. Supporter of Free Market economics.

... means you're a racist and hate black people.

There's reframing the issue, and then there's holy what the feth???

What. I don't see how any any of those is in the least bit racist (I'm assuming that "State's rights" means guns).

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
What. I don't see how any any of those is in the least bit racist (I'm assuming that "State's rights" means guns).

This, again, is where context is important. You have to know the speaker and who they are speaking to. Of course one of the points of using a dog-whistle is deniability, which muddies the waters a bit. It isn't that "State's rights" is always a code word for slavery/segregation, but sometimes it is.

One group of alleged code words in the United States is claimed to appeal to racism of the intended audience. The phrase "states' rights", although literally referring to powers of individual state governments in the United States, was described by David Greenberg in Slate as "code words" for institutionalized segregation and racism.[18] In 1981, former Republican Party strategist Lee Atwater when giving an anonymous interview discussing the GOP's Southern Strategy (see also Lee Atwater on the Southern Strategy) said:

You start out in 1954 by saying, "[redacted], [redacted], [redacted]." By 1968, you can't say "[redacted]" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "[redacted], [redacted]."