Bill Maher wants to coach the Democrats (1 Viewer)

[Da Guru]

If the Democrats lose in 2024, it will have more to do with trusting national polls than it will have to do with endorsing liberal legislation.

Mitch Albom who is as liberal as they come said on his show his advice to the Democrat party going forward would be.

1. Stop being so angry and talking about doom and gloom all the time.  Having been around the world it it still a PDG place to be.

2. Get more liberals from the midwest or "flyover" states in postions of power instead of the West Coast-East Coast liberals like Pelosi and Shumer. Said the mindsets are different.

3. Don`t talk down to people as if they don`t understand what is best for them.

Seems like a good start.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Here were the three stories:

I want to come back to this.

When I first watched the Bill Maher clip, I was not trying to estimate the probability that the examples he gave were faithfully represented rather than misleading. I didn't feel like it was my job to fact-check Maher so much as just to understand his point, and his point didn't really depend on the specific facts involved. I assumed without thinking about it that his facts were probably right, but even if they weren't, other facts could be substituted in to make the same point.

It occurs to me that I was doing exactly what I find frustrating when others do it. I know some people who watch Fox News and get outraged about how "the left" is so outrageous because of this cherry-picked example or that one, and they are completely oblivious to the fringe nature of those cherry-picked examples, or of numerous examples of people on the right being equally or more outrageous. "First, stop looking to be outraged," I think to myself as I silently criticize them, "and second, if you're going to be outraged, at least get your facts right."

The Bill Maher clip that I linked to was selling outrage. I saw it as righteous outrage because he was criticizing sentiments that I deemed worthy of criticism. So I didn't bother with fact-checking because the specific facts were incidental -- it was the truthiness of the general attitude that mattered. That is to say, I had basically become the Bill Maher-watching version of a Fox News-watcher that I normally find discreditable.

There are a number of lessons I might learn from this, but here's one that I think is pretty good.

New Rule: Don't be outraged by stuff leftists have done if I've heard about it only from people on the right; and likewise, don't be outraged by stuff people on the right have done if I've heard about it only from people on the left. Wait until I come across outrageous stuff organically before getting into my mode of condemnation. (I'm saying "left" and "right" here as a simplification, but it's more complicated. Maher might lean left as a general matter, but when he criticizes political correctness, he's not really criticizing people on his own side. He's criticizing his opponents regardless of where they fit on a vague left-right pseudo-continuum.)

 

[pollardsvision]

Mitch Albom who is as liberal as they come said on his show his advice to the Democrat party going forward would be.

1. Stop being so angry and talking about doom and gloom all the time.  Having been around the world it it still a PDG place to be.

2. Get more liberals from the midwest or "flyover" states in postions of power instead of the West Coast-East Coast liberals like Pelosi and Shumer. Said the mindsets are different.

3. Don`t talk down to people as if they don`t understand what is best for them.

Seems like a good start.

This is a good start. But I think bigger problem is a lack of unity or clear agenda. It's not even totally their fault. The Republicans are just better at selling their message, and are far more unified. The moderates and extremists Pubs don't really even disagree, they just want to win (I think it's the super rich pulling the wool over the eyes of working class folk, but that's not really relevant).

The Dems, however, have a pretty solid divide between moderates and progressives. 

Even scarier for the Party, ask Dems exactly what they want Biden to accomplish? Those answers will be so scattershot. It was a pretty impressive beatdown of an incumbent, but at the end of the day, he won because he wasn't Trump. 

Like I said, not even totally the Dems fault. They've just been losing the messaging battle for decades. Take healthcare. That would be a good agenda goal. But American's are so committed to private health insurance that even most Democratic Presidential candidates won't even go there. Again, this is 2020. FDR wanted national healthcare. Every other industrialized country has it and prefers it. So, in the US "progressives" are about 80 years behind the rest of the world. People hate how much they spend on healthcare, love their socialized Medicare, but you mention single payer and it's a non-starter. 

I really don't know where the Dems go. It's a divided Party facing some amazing right-wing propaganda. A once in a lifetime candidate like Obama is about the only hope (and even he couldn't get all that much done in the face of party division and the strong right wing sales program). 

Honestly, I don't see anything other than a red tsunami in 2022/2024. 

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

New Rule: Don't be outraged by stuff leftists have done if I've heard about it only from people on the right; 

OOF

 

[Joe Bryant]

I want to come back to this.

When I first watched the Bill Maher clip, I was not trying to estimate the probability that the examples he gave were faithfully represented rather than misleading. I didn't feel like it was my job to fact-check Maher so much as just to understand his point, and his point didn't really depend on the specific facts involved. I assumed without thinking about it that his facts were probably right, but even if they weren't, other facts could be substituted in to make the same point.

It occurs to me that I was doing exactly what I find frustrating when others do it. I know some people who watch Fox News and get outraged about how "the left" is so outrageous because of this cherry-picked example or that one, and they are completely oblivious to fringe nature of those cherry-picked examples, or of numerous examples of people on the right being equally or more outrageous. "First, stop looking to be outraged," I think to myself as I silently criticize them, "and second, if you're going to be outraged, at least get your facts right."

The Bill Maher clip that I linked to was selling outrage. I saw it as righteous outrage because he was criticizing sentiments that I deemed worthy of criticism. So I didn't bother with fact-checking because the specific facts were incidental -- it was the truthiness of the general attitude that mattered. That is to say, I had basically become the Bill Maher-watching version of a Fox News-watcher that I normally find discreditable.

There are a number of lessons I might learn from this, but here's one that I think is pretty good.

New Rule: Don't be outraged by stuff leftists have done if I've heard about it only from people on the right; and likewise, don't be outraged by stuff people on the right have done if I've heard about only from people on the left. Wait until I come across outrageous stuff organically before getting into my mode of condemnation. (I'm saying "left" and "right" here as a simplification, but it's more complicated. Maher might lean left as a general matter, but when he criticizes political correctness, he's not really criticizing people on his own side. He's criticizing his opponents regardless of where they fit on a vague left-right pseudo-continuum.)

Thanks @Maurile Tremblay. I do agree with you about trying to get a broader sense of news. But that's tough. Neither side wants to highlight the extreme things their side says. They want to highlight the "ridiculous" things the "other" side says. 

It's interesting as i didn't see it as selling outrage much at all. I saw it as "The Democrats have a problem when half the country doesn't like us and we can either write them off as irredeemable or we can try to see what's up".

The specific examples to me weren't the important part. For instance, I'm all for a business like the hockey team deciding who they want on their team. The interesting conversation there is what's deemed "too much". And how much the talent of the player factors into the equation. Antonio Brown and the Raiders/Patriots/Buccaneers have been navigating that line. 

Back to Maher, I thought it was things like "Drop latinx". Or do better in explaining the messaging in "defund the police". Or "lighten up" with regard to the person who was shaken by the joke about the women's lingerie floor. Or the woman who railed on Biden for kissing the back of her head. But I get it. It's a fine line sometimes. 

I agree with him that it's a "common sense" thing. And to me, that takes nuance. And thought and understanding. 

And mostly, I agreed with him and Obama on the closing part, "This idea of purity and you're never compromised, and your always politically woke and all that stuff - you should get over that quickly". 

To me that was his point.

 

[Joe Bryant]

And to add, I could do a video with nearly the exact same format addressed to Republicans. 

 

[Rich Conway]

I think the idea of "we need to use common sense" is entirely backward, specifically because everyone defines "common sense" differently.  For that matter, 25-year old me, 35-year old me, and 45-year old me each defined common sense pretty differently.  At some level, "we need to use common sense" is essentially an argument that we shouldn't carefully review facts, shouldn't look deeper into issues, shouldn't consider nuance, and should instead make decisions based on emotions and "what feels right".

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think the idea of "we need to use common sense" is entirely backward, specifically because everyone defines "common sense" differently.  For that matter, 25-year old me, 35-year old me, and 45-year old me each defined common sense pretty differently.  At some level, "we need to use common sense" is essentially an argument that we shouldn't carefully review facts, shouldn't look deeper into issues, shouldn't consider nuance, and should instead make decisions based on emotions and "what feels right".

Thanks @Rich Conway  That's interesting as I see the opposite. When I think of common sense it's looking MORE into something with MORE nuance. It's not using a "one size fits all" rule and instead looking deeper.

Common sense is why I don't worry about Joe Biden kissing the back of a woman's head but I'd see it differently if it were Louis CK doing that. 

Common sense is considering what people think about the word Latinx. Starting with actual Latino people. 

Common sense is realizing "defund the police" is bad messaging when there's actually a ton more to it. 

Plus a zillion more things. 

You're right of course that like with anything, we'll never have unanimous agreement on what everyone agrees is common sensical. But that's going to be with pretty much anything. 

 

[Zow]

I think the idea of "we need to use common sense" is entirely backward, specifically because everyone defines "common sense" differently.  For that matter, 25-year old me, 35-year old me, and 45-year old me each defined common sense pretty differently.  At some level, "we need to use common sense" is essentially an argument that we shouldn't carefully review facts, shouldn't look deeper into issues, shouldn't consider nuance, and should instead make decisions based on emotions and "what feels right".

I take it as a nicer way of saying, "I'm right, and I'm so obviously right that you lack any sort of minimal modicum of intelligence for not agreeing with me." 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It's interesting as i didn't see it as selling outrage much at all. I saw it as "The Democrats have a problem when half the country doesn't like us and we can either write them off as irredeemable or we can try to see what's up".

There was also an element of "look at how dumb Democrats are being about this stuff," which is what I mean by outrage. It helps that the criticism is coming from a Democrat, because that gives it a veneer of self-reflection rather than merely criticizing one's out-group. But when Maher criticizes political correctness, it's not really self-reflection.

 

[BoerumHill]

Joe quoting the Palmist today. Ya know, the guy who wrote the Book of Palms.

I’m sure someone will point out that’s how the Anglican Church pronounces it as well. IMO Too Corinthians would have been more presidential.

 

[Navin Johnson]

Joe quoting the Palmist today. Ya know, the guy who wrote the Book of Palms.

I’m sure someone will point out that’s how the Anglican Church pronounces it as well. IMO Too Corinthians would have been more presidential.

FTR, I think they are both scum but Book of Palms by a guy who has had a life long speech impediment is more acceptable than Two Corinthians from a guy who is leading the Religious Right around by the nose.

 

[BoerumHill]

FTR, I think they are both scum but Book of Palms by a guy who has had a life long speech impediment is more acceptable than Two Corinthians from a guy who is leading the Religious Right around by the nose.

John 11:35

 

[BladeRunner]

John 11:35

Time 7:29

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

I think Pelosi's rule not allowing gendered language and the mind boggling prayer ending with "Amen and Awomen." are pretty good examples of the types of things Maher was warning against.

 

[Amused to Death]

I agree with basically all of it.

"Latinx" is dumb. "Defund the police" is terrible messaging. Hypersensitive wokeness is a turnoff. Looting should not be defended or excused. Obsessions with intersectionality are tedious. And people do vote based on that kind of stuff and the image it projects rather than on substantive policy.

Obama and Biden have given no succor to any of that stuff, but the whole party still gets tarred by it.

I alluded to this type of rhetoric in the "healing" thread. I'm all for ending this type of "wokeness". See also: Pelosi trying to ban gender terms in the House.

 

[Rich Conway]

I think Pelosi's rule not allowing gendered language and the mind boggling prayer ending with "Amen and Awomen." are pretty good examples of the types of things Maher was warning against.

The prayer thing was dumb.  I really don't have an issue with removing gendered language from official government documents.  I'm not suggesting we necessarily need to spend millions to retroactively scrub old documents, but I don't see a downside to simply not using such terms going forward.  Not using them doesn't hurt anyone and if it prevents some from feeling slighted, then why not?  It's not "woke", it's simply being courteous at zero cost.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

The prayer thing was dumb.  I really don't have an issue with removing gendered language from official government documents.  I'm not suggesting we necessarily need to spend millions to retroactively scrub old documents, but I don't see a downside to simply not using such terms going forward.  Not using them doesn't hurt anyone and if it prevents some from feeling slighted, then why not?  It's not "woke", it's simply being courteous at zero cost.

It is "woke". And pointless. And hypocritical. It's exactly the type of empty virtue signaling that makes one embarrassed for the left.

 

[Rich Conway]

It is "woke". And pointless. And hypocritical. It's exactly the type of empty virtue signaling that makes one embarrassed for the left.

How is it pointless?  If there are people that get slighted when we use such language, not using it stops those people from feeling slighted.  It would only be pointless if "no one feels slighted by such language".  I can guarantee you that is not the case.

How is it hypocritical?

More to the point, I'm curious how eliminating such language hurts anyone or costs anyone anything?

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

How is it pointless?  If there are people that get slighted when we use such language, not using it stops those people from feeling slighted.  It would only be pointless if "no one feels slighted by such language".  I can guarantee you that is not the case.

How is it hypocritical?

More to the point, I'm curious how eliminating such language hurts anyone or costs anyone anything?

It's pointless because it's not going to accomplish a single thing. Changing the language to prevent anyone feeling "slighted" because someone in congress said the word "mother" is exactly the type of thing Maher was talking about.

It's hypocritical because Pelosi herself uses the "offensive" words.

From her bio:

Speaker of the House, focused on strengthening America's middle class and creating jobs; mother, grandmother, dark chocolate connoisseur.

 

[Rich Conway]

It's pointless because it's not going to accomplish a single thing. Changing the language to prevent anyone feeling "slighted" because someone in congress said the word "mother" is exactly the type of thing Maher was talking about.

It's hypocritical because Pelosi herself uses the "offensive" words.

From her bio:

Speaker of the House, focused on strengthening America's middle class and creating jobs; mother, grandmother, dark chocolate connoisseur.

One of us is misunderstanding the intent of the proposal (it could be me).  As I understand it, the point is to stop using gendered language in official House documentation.  For instance, we would stop writing things like "He who submits form 1040 and pays more taxes than required shall be entitled to a refund."  Someone could feel slighted by that in official legislation.  Changing it to "A person who..." costs nothing to anyone.  Doing so is not hypocritical, it's just common courtesy.

That is entirely different than me or you making a statement like "I am a father."  I am a father.  It's not wrong of me to say so and no one feels slighted by me making such a statement about myself.

 

[Moonlight]

Maher was saying a long time ago that Trump would not leave peacefully if he lost reelection. I'll give him credit for being the first person I heard say this.

Democrat and Republican guests would scoff at the idea when he brought it up

 

[AAABatteries]

Maher was saying a long time ago that Trump would not leave peacefully if he lost reelection. I'll give him credit for being the first person I heard say this.

Democrat and Republican guests would scoff at the idea when he brought it up

There’s been a lot of discussion about that in the PSF too.  I’m shocked to find out the Trump supporters were wrong and Trump incited a riot on our Capitol building in hopes of staying in power.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Another good one from Maher LINK

 

[Shula-holic]

Another good one from Maher LINK

Watched this earlier today.  Whether I agree with him on opinions, he does seem to be able to delineate fact from opinion.

 

[tonydead]

I'm going to start watching Real Time again now it's not going to be all about Trump. At least he can let go and move on. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

On progressophobia: https://youtu.be/fB9KVYAdYwg

 

[Ghost Rider]

On progressophobia: https://youtu.be/fB9KVYAdYwg

Wow, he hit that one out of the park.  He was dead right on almost everything.  

That doesn't change the fact that we are still very divided as a society, but this idea that certain things are worse now than they've ever been is a load of crap. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

Wow, he hit that one out of the park.  He was dead right on almost everything.  

That doesn't change the fact that we are still very divided as a society, but this idea that certain things are worse now than they've ever been is a load of crap. 

I agree, but when I was watching I was thinking "who really believes this?  I know he brought up K.Hart.... 

 

[The General]

Wow, he hit that one out of the park.  He was dead right on almost everything.  

That doesn't change the fact that we are still very divided as a society, but this idea that certain things are worse now than they've ever been is a load of crap. 

He should have Kevin Hart on his show to explain. Best thing about Maher’s show is he used to have a wide range of guests on.

 

[ekbeats]

On progressophobia: https://youtu.be/fB9KVYAdYwg

The only thing I could think of while watching this is how much of a dinosaur Maher sounded like.  Today’s Liberals don’t care about all that progress.  What Maher hasn’t yet realized is that the goal of Liberalism today isn’t fairness and equality.  Those words are actually micro aggressions.  Today’s Liberalism is more about power, nihilism and anarchy.  They want to tear down the current system which is why they are so fixated on things like removing statues and rewriting history.

 

[jm192]

He really knocks it out of the park.

And I think when we refuse to acknowledge progress has been made--that the United States in 2021 is the most corrupt, evil, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. that it's ever been--people get conversation fatigue.  

We'll never make it better if this isn't viewed as progress.  And if your message is that we're worse off than where we were 200 years ago--you start to see the other side as just unreasonable--and you can't make progress working with unreasonable people.

 

[KarmaPolice]

The only thing I could think of while watching this is how much of a dinosaur Maher sounded like.  Today’s Liberals don’t care about all that progress.  What Maher hasn’t yet realized is that the goal of Liberalism today isn’t fairness and equality.  Those words are actually micro aggressions.  Today’s Liberalism is more about power, nihilism and anarchy.  They want to tear down the current system which is why they are so fixated on things like removing statues and rewriting history.

I see you and BR are drinking the same Kool-Aid.  

Just odd that you guys bother to hang around a board that is supposedly a large majority of people you guys post like you despise.  

 

[The Commish]

Probably the first time I've ever nodded along with Bill through an entire monologue.  I need to do a better job of being clear and acknowledging where we've come to as I fight to help others progress further.  I need to remind myself of the things he says here and include them in my discussions as qualification for my statements too because he's correct.  

 

[The Commish]

The only thing I could think of while watching this is how much of a dinosaur Maher sounded like.  Today’s Liberals don’t care about all that progress.  What Maher hasn’t yet realized is that the goal of Liberalism today isn’t fairness and equality.  Those words are actually micro aggressions.  Today’s Liberalism is more about power, nihilism and anarchy.  They want to tear down the current system which is why they are so fixated on things like removing statues and rewriting history.

This nonsense is as true as "today's conservatism is more about white supremacy, authoritarianism, white nationalism and fascism".  Pretty bad fishing attempt all around 1/10.

 

[bigbottom]

On progressophobia: https://youtu.be/fB9KVYAdYwg

Spot on.

Edit:  But I do think he overstates how many people ignore the progress we’ve made. 

 

[Sea Duck]

On progressophobia: https://youtu.be/fB9KVYAdYwg

I don't know a whole lot about American progressivism of yesteryear, but isn't aggressive hyperbole generally a better tactic than passivism?

 

[ekbeats]

This nonsense is as true as "today's conservatism is more about white supremacy, authoritarianism, white nationalism and fascism".  Pretty bad fishing attempt all around 1/10.

https://newrepublic.com/article/158346/willful-blindness-reactionary-liberalism

 

[bigbottom]

He really knocks it out of the park.

And I think when we refuse to acknowledge progress has been made--that the United States in 2021 is the most corrupt, evil, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. that it's ever been--people get conversation fatigue.  

We'll never make it better if this isn't viewed as progress.  And if your message is that we're worse off than where we were 200 years ago--you start to see the other side as just unreasonable--and you can't make progress working with unreasonable people.

The counterpoint to that is that there are those  who rely on the progress that has been made to argue that there is no longer a need for further progress. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don't know a whole lot about American progressivism of yesteryear, but isn't aggressive hyperbole generally a better tactic than passivism?

I doubt it. If those were the only two options (I don't think they are), I believe passivism would be less counterproductive.

 

[Shula-holic]

I agree, but when I was watching I was thinking "who really believes this?  I know he brought up K.Hart.... 

Well our President called Georgia voting laws Jim Crow when they are less restrictive than his home state.  That's a perfect example of how words are all hyperbole these days.  Granted, he's old enough to remember Jim Crow days, but it doesn't take much beyond a 3rd grade education in history to see how Georgia today is a better place for people of color than it was during Jim Crow days.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I agree, but when I was watching I was thinking "who really believes this?  I know he brought up K.Hart.... 

Kevin Hart has over 36 million followers on Twitter.  This country is loaded with people who take what their favorite celebrities or athletes say as gospel (a friend's 2nd wife once fully admitted that she voted for Obama in 2008 simply because she loved Dave Matthews, and he had endorsed Obama), so I am guessing more people than you think. 

 

[Roy L Fewks]

I agree with what Maher said in his latest video but are we all going to just ignore the fact that the video on page 1 is from 2019 and that the Dems didn't take his advice at all???

 

[the moops]

I agree with what Maher said in his latest video but are we all going to just ignore the fact that the video on page 1 is from 2019 and that the Dems didn't take his advice at all???

And since then the dems have taken control of the senate and the white house

I do like his take though - even though most of his jokes are super corny

 

[wikkidpissah]

the 76% of blacks, 44% of whites who are "hopeful" really brought it home. USA is on a pitiable course to be sure, but it still engineers more opportunity and prosperity than anyplace else. it'll be a few years yet before we're climbing the wall to Mexico

but we're building deficient humans, generations of people who no longer have a way to see how selfish, boojie & effete they are. it will be a long time before a child will reach adulthood in this country without the ethics of sucker media being the great roadblock between them and their humanity.

the thing its doing to them presently is showing them that the quickest and cheapest way to being a hero is by claiming vicitimhood. those in victim categories are presently conferred immunity from logic and effort, so media keeps lowering the bar on what victimization is so that all their customers can consider themselves noble & heroic so that they can sell them whatever the noble & heroic are seeing & hearing & wearing & driving these days.

i don't believe in evil as an entity. hundreds of times in discussion forums have i quoted psychologist FCAlford's conception: "Doing evil is an attempt to transform the terrible passivity and helplessness of suffering into activity” Now, the latter half of that description is starting to trouble me since more & more people with the luxury to wonder are putting themselves into that category.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Finally.  Maher gets back to the fear mongering the left will love him for. LINK

 

[dkp993]

Finally.  Maher gets back to the fear mongering the left will love him for. LINK

Obviously you’ve missed the last 4 years from the right about the left hating America and are Socialist/Marxists.  

Fear Mongering is politics 101 these days.  Can’t politic without it anymore it seems like.  

 

[Joe Mammy]

I like Maher and agree with most of his stuff. I hope his closing line does, "scare the #### out of you."

 

[KarmaPolice]

Finally.  Maher gets back to the fear mongering the left will love him for. LINK

So which part wasn't true? 

 

[dkp993]

So which part wasn't true? 

Well first off basically all of his monologue is a future prediction so at this point none of it’s true.