Bill Maher destroys the left

Bill Maher recognizes when the left just makes up bullshit.

...
Maher went after the left for refusing to disapprove of those among them who are clearly “insane,” explaining that “their cowardice in not marginalizing their own crazies has been their downfall.”

“I couldn’t get Neil deGrasse Tyson — a genius, scientist, and pre-eminent scientific voice in the media — to agree that it was ridiculous for Scientific American and the Atlantic to be claiming that separating sports by sex doesn’t make sense. Yes, it does,” he said. “Actually it makes perfect sense.”

Conservatives, on the other hand, see that it makes sense to separate sports by sex and refuse to “pointlessly” reinvent society.

“They see gender as only a construct and sex is assigned at birth. And they say, ‘We’re not doing that.’ Transing kids by self-diagnosis with no age limit, no parental notification, and no acknowledgment of social contagion. Not doing it,” he explained.
...
“Asylum now covers any reason for anyone to come to America. Not doing it. Homelessness is a lifestyle. Natural immunity doesn’t count anymore. Whiteness is toxic. Penises in women’s prisons. Welcoming the intifada. We’re not doing it,” he said.

“Stop coming up with radically new and often terrible ideas and then in the next breath insist there be no debate about any of it. That if you don’t see it right away and go along, you’re bad, stupid, and deplorable. As if you were saying, ‘Duh, 2 plus 2 equals 5. Isn’t that obvious?’ Yeah, it’s obvious you can’t add,” he continued.

“You can’t just say s**t: Math is racist; queers for Palestine; looting is cool; healthy at any weight; if the men’s football team played the women’s team, it would be a tie. You can’t just say s**t,” he added.
...
- https://www.theblaze.com/shows/pat-gray-...ust-say-st

LOL Right. Because what wouldn't MAGA do to have someone as sharp-witted and intelligent as Bill on their side? Alas, tis not to be. Bill blasts the right for cherrypicking and half-quoting his editorials...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iTWS2AIeok&t=230s

No one thinks Maher is "on our side." He's just a Bill Clinton Democrat, whose been left far behind by his own ever-radicalizing party. Poor guy.
Sadly, no one on that side wants to hear his criticisms.

Quote:Sadly, no one on that side wants to hear his criticisms.

He hosts a very popular show of open dialogue and scathing monologue to an audience of liberal-leaning fans and a TV audience of millions. Methinks there are a lot of us who want to hear him.

It's more like Lewis Black, you only think it's funny because he's mad. It's not like any of his audience is taking any of it to heart or changing their ways.

We libs understand the difference between satirical stand-up and political hate speech. A vital distinction completely lost in this age of butt hurt sensitivity to what others say about you.

No, you don't. Evidence all the calls for political violence from the left.

(Oct 23, 2025 08:27 PM)Syne Wrote: No one thinks Maher is "on our side." He's just a Bill Clinton Democrat, whose been left far behind by his own ever-radicalizing party. Poor guy.
Sadly, no one on that side wants to hear his criticisms.

Given that CRT (back in the early 1990s) accused the "color-blind" neutrality of Bill Maher's "old-fashioned liberalism" of facilitating structural racism, along with the latter's other policies... It's probably safe to say that the political slot which Maher occupies has unofficially seismic shifted to mild-right classification. He's routinely mocked by and receives catcalls from both the far-left and hard-core progressives. Whereas conservative pundits circulate clips of his show more often in a supportive way.

He's certainly not GOP, but still increasingly alienated as the West Coast celebrities he dwells among, and the progressives in NYC supporting DSA member Mamdani, slide ever further left. Driven by the moral or emotionally runaway need to make themselves more and more distinct from Trump, to create more ideological distance.

#Tenets: First and foremost to CRT legal scholars in 1993 was their "discontent" with the way in which liberalism addressed race issues in the US. They critiqued "liberal jurisprudence", including affirmative action, color-blindness, role modeling, and the merit principle. Specifically, they claimed that the liberal concept of value-neutral law contributed to maintenance of the US's racially unjust social order.

CRT's attack on positive discrimination (affirmative action) might seem inconsistent at first glance. But it probably wasn't about discarding it -- only fixing or enhancing it. Since in practice, positive discrimination benefited both immigrant Blacks and already affluent Blacks more than the struggling, native-born African Americans.

(Oct 25, 2025 09:45 PM)C C Wrote: #Tenets: First and foremost to CRT legal scholars in 1993 was their "discontent" with the way in which liberalism addressed race issues in the US. They critiqued "liberal jurisprudence", including affirmative action, color-blindness, role modeling, and the merit principle. Specifically, they claimed that the liberal concept of value-neutral law contributed to maintenance of the US's racially unjust social order.

CRT's attack on positive discrimination (affirmative action) might seem inconsistent at first glance. But it probably wasn't about discarding it -- only fixing or enhancing it. Since in practice, positive discrimination benefited both immigrant Blacks and already affluent Blacks more than the struggling, native-born African Americans.

Yeah, the crux of CRT, and postmodernism more broadly, is discontent. They may frame it as intellectual critique in academia, but it's really just discontent. People without the inspiration or innovation to create new things whining about those who have, can, and do.