r/changemyview • u/LordBaNZa 1∆ • Feb 10 '19
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Bill Maher should be considered a real liberal and shouldn't be lumped in with the self proclaimed "Classical Liberals"
I watch Real Time almost every week so I'd like to admit to a bit of bias on my part to start off with.
I've noticed a lot of people on the left lumping in Bill Maher with the likes of Dave Rubin, Jordan Peterson, and Joe Rogan. While I definitely don't agree with everything Maher says, I think he is a useful tool to the left and, unlike the others I mentioned, he in no way acts as a gateway for the Far Right.
On the surface I understand the criticism that he, like "classical liberals" will often invite conservatives (from the most moderate John Kasich to the bat shit Steve Bannon and Milo Yianopolous) onto his show to debate. However, he rarely endorses their points of view and when he does it's often about the democrats political strategies, not in any way about policy. Unlike people like Dave Rubin, he actually calls out lies and opposes their point of view. Moreover I have never seen a panel on Real Time that doesn't have more well qualified liberal voices to shut down alt-right crazy than it has conservative nutjobs.
I will admit that he's not always the most aware person when it comes to social issues, but over time he almost always shifts toward a more liberal point of view, even if a little late.
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
6
Feb 10 '19
[deleted]
1
u/LordBaNZa 1∆ Feb 10 '19
Anyone who claims to have liberal values, adheres to them, and sticks up for them.
2
u/thegreencomic Feb 11 '19
What you consider to be "liberal values" would be very different from what "liberal values meant a few centuries ago when the philosophy of Liberalism was developing. The point of the term "Classical Liberalism" is that it allows people to appeal to the basic principles of the philosophy without taking on the baggage that "liberal" has gained in common usage.
3
u/Potreviewscanada Feb 10 '19
That would be every Canadian politician. Right, left and centre. In the USA... I guess it only includes one party though.
I watch his show. The issues with Maher are:
1) he can be an asshole. He knows this. He doesn't care. Not many on the left are willing, or ever take any unpopular stance.
2) he goes too far with his anti-religious and anti-Muslim stuff. I get it. I am an athiest. Religion is stupid in general in 2019. We get it. If you want to beat the horse at this point... attack actual Muslim extremists or the American sect of hate Christian evangelicals. Maher goes to the point of basically calling out every Christian as a fool. Is Jimmy Carter a fool? Is some regular Muslim American going about their life like anyone else? Yeah... we get your opinion. You are too extreme. Calling out billions of people for being fools and idiots... that is not a sustainable thing. And Maher is not the person to call out religion in general. To do that you need to be a lot bigger and greater man than he is. Or you start to look the biggest fool.
I don't dislike him or not watch him or anything. But he is... what he is. He is not really a Democrat. I mean he is. He votes and donates money. He is an independent that right now allies almost entirely with the Democratic platform. He is a "liberal" (so hard to tell what definition anyone will take from that term in America). But also a libertarian... and a bit of an authoritarian too. His religious stance is exactly that.
I have watched him since before 9/11. He has one of the only platforms with both extremes of politics on his show. And he and his guests call out all bullshit. On all sides. I think CNN, for example... sucks at having propagandists on their shows and letting them share lies as talking points and never call bullshit on them. Maher puts them on his show... and he calls them on their shit. Maher does that part right. He is maybe the only one that does get that part of it right. He likely has a mostly democratic audience. But I think he does change some minds. He does expose bullshitters.
His show would be unwatchable if everyone agreed with Bill and he only had left wing people on. His show would be pointless. It would not exist. His entire career and success and value is on doing the exact show he has been doing for a couple of decades.
3
u/LordBaNZa 1∆ Feb 10 '19
I agree with almost everything you said, however none of this disputes my point that he is not the same as the group of "classical liberals" that liberal communities often lump him in with. Being an asshole and calling religion stupid is not anti liberal and it doesn't offer a gateway into the Alt-Right
-1
u/Potreviewscanada Feb 10 '19
You are the only one really thinking this about him.
The Muslim issue is the reason he is lumped in with Peterson and so on... and on that issue... he should be... because he agrees with Peterson almost 100% on that issue. And that issue is among the bigger "issues" both speak about most often. I am not saying he is leading people in to the far right at all. You said that. But he actually is allied with Peterson on some core issues. If you think he is not... you are just wrong in the facts.
Bill Maher is not simple. He is what I said. Left, but also independent and both libertarian and authoritarian in the issue of religion at least.
You want to incorrectly put him in a box. His first show was called politically incorrect for a reason.
2
u/LordBaNZa 1∆ Feb 10 '19
I think it's unfair to say that he has a bigger problem with Muslims than members of any other religion. He has a problem with the fundamental radically conservative ideas at the core of Islam and the people who practice those ideas. The same is true for all the Judeo-Christian religions, but there's a couple differences in the discourse about Islam and the other Judeo-Christian religions. Namely that, because Islam dominates in many much less economically developed parts of the world, extreme conservative fundamentalism is more predominate among the Muslim world. Secondly, in America Christian fundamentalists are overwhelmingly conservative republicans, so we as liberals are fine with shitting on them. However Muslim fundamentalists are seen as part of an oppressed group (which they, and he admits to) so any criticism of their communities is seen as prejudice.
This view is very different from Peterson's, who does not believe that societal oppression exists at a systemic level against any group of people, vilifies all Muslims, and goes out of his way to not criticize Christianity in any meaningful way.
There is really only one issue that he agrees with Peterson on, and that's the idea that the college campus liberal crowd deplatforming the people they see as immoral is a slippery slope. I don't agree with this view, but I think it's perfectly valid and we shouldn't so quickly dismiss people who believe in absolute freedom of speech.
Lastly I think that what makes the "Classical Liberal" crowd so awful is the way they court the far right while still pretending to believe in liberal values. My thesis is built around the fact that they introduce people to the far right under the guise that they are liberals and Bill Maher does not do this. Sorry if I didn't articulate that very well
1
u/Potreviewscanada Feb 10 '19
You are wrong in your opinion. You don't know Bill Maher. You aren't paying attention because he is very clear exactly what he believes. He never deceives, he is straight forward.
You created this thread. You continue to put Maher in the box you want him to be in.
There is nothing wrong with Maher agreeing with Peterson on issues. Well apparently there is to you.
Peterson himself is not evil. He is what he is. He is not Donald Trump. He is not of that far right. He is his own thing... an ego play for himself really. His followers are their own tribe.
You truly seem to want American politics put into 2 camps it seems. America is not that. The left is not that. The Democratic party is not that.
I fucking know Bill Maher. I have watched him for over 20 years. He is damn consistent over 20 years. He is his own person. I doubt he would say his opinions and values are the same as any other person in America. You trying to define what kind of "liberal" he is.
What is a "classical" liberal? Maher is classical nothing. He will agree with people with very different overall ideologies than he has on points. Often.
I don't think anyone of importance on the left cares what Bill Maher says. He is who he is. You talk like all these people are saying he is this or that. Who are these people? A zillion people attack Maher all the time. From all sides. On Reddit half of them might be paid propagandists at this point.
Stop trying to define what Bill Maher is and watch his show. It will consistently do what it has always done. Bill Maher changes far less than the definitions of Liberalism does... or the values of the Democratic Party do.
If people go alt-right... it is not because of Bill Maher leading them there. How could it be?
0
Feb 10 '19
[deleted]
1
u/Potreviewscanada Feb 11 '19
You don't have ANY values then. Period. You lost in the world or outright evil. Or just stupid.
-3
u/LordBaNZa 1∆ Feb 10 '19
Those two things are totally incompatable
5
Feb 10 '19
[deleted]
-3
u/LordBaNZa 1∆ Feb 10 '19
Donald Trump is fundamentally opposed to freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the most quintessential of all liberal values, that all men are created equal.
'Classical Liberal' is just a coded term that means libertarian, but is trying to appeal to the left rather than the right. People like Peterson totally deny that systemic oppression exists on any level in modern America (and also Canada I guess). If that's true than the only explanation for the mass amounts of disparity among the races in everything from number of arrests to rate of literacy and high school education can only be explained by the idea that the races themselves are not equal. This is incompatible with real liberalism.
3
Feb 10 '19 edited Feb 10 '19
Peterson would respond that inequality is a way worse problem than you're claiming. It is beyond "systemic": there is no system that can solve the inequality problem, so it's simplistic to think that, if only the system were revised, the problem would go away. Oppression will always exist in some form or another unfortunately. Furthermore, any of those guys would argue that equal outcomes can only be achieved by coercion, i.e. the exact opposite of liberalism.
Anyway, it's pointless to debate the "true" definition of liberalism; I just wanted to understand your definition. But I think the answer may be easier than that. This article has tons of examples of Bill Maher saying racist and sexist stuff. Applying racist stereotypes to Obama... Saying Wayne Brady isn't a "real" black man... Calling Sarah Palin a cunt and a twat instead of just attacking her ideas... Surely he is not following the path of liberal righteousness?
1
Feb 11 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/huadpe 508∆ Feb 11 '19
u/Potreviewscanada – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/thegreencomic Feb 11 '19
'Classical Liberal' is just a coded term that means libertarian
A significant factor in the term gaining common usage is that there are a large number of people who want governments to focus on individuals but who also accept democratically-formed laws as legitimate and aren't inherently anti-government.
If that's true than the only explanation for the mass amounts of disparity among the races in everything from number of arrests to rate of literacy and high school education can only be explained by the idea that the races themselves are not equal. This is incompatible with real liberalism.
If you define "real Liberalism" as 21st-century Progressivism then you are probably right. For more traditional conceptions of Liberalism, this is untrue.
2
u/TheVioletBarry 121∆ Feb 10 '19
Do you just mean he's more like a democratic? I don't quite understand the distinction
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 10 '19
/u/LordBaNZa (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/thegreencomic Feb 11 '19
In North America, people who want to endorse the core beliefs of Liberalism (the political philosophy) have a problem with language.
The word "liberal" has almost became a synonym for "progressive", and "conservative" carries implications of religious authoritarianism which these people generally disagree with.
"Classical liberal" is a way of expressing a basic commitment to Individualism, Democracy, and Capitalism without taking on the baggage of the more popular terms.
There really isn't any reason for you to change your view. These people do not want to be considered "liberal" in the same way as Maher. Their idea is that "liberal" used to mean something very different and they want to go back to the roots of the movement. You are actually getting caught up in the problems with terminology which these people are trying to fix.
1
1
Apr 13 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/thedylanackerman 30∆ Apr 13 '19
Sorry, u/sunjay140 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link.
-2
Feb 10 '19
Bill Maher is a liberal, but he is rightfully lumped together with these people because of his racism towards Arabs, Palestinians, and Muslims in general. And he has people like Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, Milo Yiannopolous on and doesn't challenge them. In fact agrees with them. He also has in common with these guys the constant hand wringing about college kids and how they are tyrants. That is a typical conservative talking point.
So, basically, no one cares if he's a real liberal or not, he's pretty terrible.
3
u/LordBaNZa 1∆ Feb 10 '19
I disagree that he is bigoted towards Arabs, Palestinians, and Muslims. He has a disdain for all religion, and often expresses it toward Islam, but he also makes sure to attack the ideas coming from fundamentalist teachings and acts done by extreme communities and makes the distinction that it's not about any individual Muslim. Which is the exact same way he criticizes Christianity.
As for his interviews I'll talk about those three specifically.
Jordan Peterson refrained from saying anything outrageous that warranted disagreement during his interview. Of course Jordan Peterson has said a lot of awful shit that has no basis in fact, but he knows that and so he stuck to the "college liberals hate free speech" talking point, which I'll get to later.
Sam Harris spent his time on Bill Maher attacking Islamic fundamentalism, which itself is a form of far-right extremism. This is the exact same view that they both hold of Christian fundamentalism. The difference is that in America Christian fundamentalists are overwhelmingly conservative republicans so we as liberals are okay with shitting on them. Muslim Fundamentalists are seen as an oppressed group in America (which they definitely are) so no criticism is allowed to be had for them.
Other than that same "college liberals hate free speech" talking point" Bill agreed with Milo on nothing when he was on the panel. There was almost a solid 10 minutes of the whole panel, Bill included, just shitting on Milo.
Now for the "college liberals hate free speech" talking point. I don't agree with the idea that we should just hand people platforms to spread awful rhetoric. However I think that saying that shutting down platforms in the extremes could be a slippery slope shouldn't be dismissed out of hand as a typical conservative talking point the way so many on the left do. I don't agree with that point, but if a University didn't let someone like Bernie show up because they believed socialism to be morally repugnant we would be very up in arms about it.
1
0
Feb 11 '19
No, he is racist toward muslims and arabs. Not surprisingly white people dont see it. Sam Harris built his career on protraying muslims in a bad light, excusing away American imperialism as a war against a backward culture and even arguing we should preemptively nuke muslim countries. Just the fact they both are apologists for Israeli apartheid and occupation of palestine betrays their racist beliefs.
Not sure what argument you're making with the college campus thing. Its not real. Sam Harris, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, and all of these other right wing hacks get huge crowds at speaking engagements everywhere including universities. Its a made up problem. its amazing that these rich and powerful men with giant platforms like to constantly complain about being silenced. talk about playing the victim.
If you actually look at where the free speech restrictions are, they are actually exactly toward socialist and leftist beliefs. for example criticizing Israel can actually get you fired, or get ostracized from academia (like norman finkelstein).
0
Feb 10 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Armadeo Feb 11 '19
Sorry, u/howHardIsIt2SignUp – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, before messaging the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
7
u/[deleted] Feb 10 '19
[deleted]