|
Every time Tavis Smiley talked I felt like he was just shilling for an empathy slow clap, because otherwise he was completely off base and sticking to his point when it in no way shape or form could be comparable to what Bill was saying. Bill was never trying to say we are perfect or things are perfectly fine here, but you'd be insane to say things weren't much worse in a Muslim country. We living in a country that is better off can't criticize another until we're at 100% equality? To steal from Adam Carolla's commentary on the episode, just because we're at 92% and they're at 2% it does not mean we are the same/just as bad.
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2011 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 11:39 |
|
|
Adam Carolla's point with Tavis was always him (Tavis) trying to stop us from judging someone else because we're no better when WE ARE CERTAINLY MUCH BETTER THAN ANY MUSLIM COUNTRY IN REGARDS TO TREATMENT OF WOMEN. Otherwise, certainly you can understand the confusion regarding saying we have, "a long way to go" when you look at the advances in the past couple decades. He is certainly not trying to say we're done, in fact the whole line is mostly just leveled at the dick (heh) who needs to let people know we shouldn't have a good time yet because there is a laundry list of things to still do. Sure there is, but for a moment could we look back and be happy with what we've accomplished so far? His gay parenting line is uncomfortable for me to think about but I see what he means, and it has nothing to do with thinking gay people would be bad parents or he wouldn't want them raising his kids period (it barely has anything to do with the couple being gay at all). It is really odd that it caused such an uproar (apparently) to be honest. Also Carolla is great you should really all subscribe to his podcast & buy his book or else you're probably just a dick. Tweak fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Mar 18, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2011 00:31
|
|
|
To be fair he wasn't rich when he made (most) of them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2011 04:44
|
|
|
Because he is funny and usually right plus when he is taken out of context makes further left leaning people than I bothered. He is blunt, like in that interview, and crass, obviously. However I wouldn't say the things he says are completely wrong. quote:Are you actually sexist, or is that just your shtick? And no, I don't really want to go down this road either, but mostly because this is the Real Time with Bill Maher thread (also effort). I do appreciate the, "HEY I WAS REALLY POOR SO" one up though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2011 17:50
|
|
|
The only reason it was brought up was to at least take the "rich" out of "rich white rear end in a top hat" from the post up there. Being rich had nothing to do with (almost) any of his opinions. Also yes you are completely misinterpreting his point but who cares just don't click the next link someone posts about Carolla going on a jag about some idiot named Tavis Smiley. I really don't understand why it was necessary to move the conversation from Tavis to Carolla, although I feel like in the context of the original argument it is slightly ironic.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2011 18:15
|
|
|
Hahaha he doesn't even bring up Math in that article or the book. Listen, that interviewer came preloaded with how she expects "that man show guy" to be, and so did you. Whatever. The lesson we've learned today is you cannot judge. It is IMPOSSIBLE to judge because we're all the same and are no different and everyone can do everything they want because there are NO attributes each human has that are predominant over another human. Regardless of race, creed, or global location we're ALL THE SAME. Cannot judge.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2011 19:27
|
|
|
I'm being pedantic? He's saying in a hole where a team of men are racing a team of women to dig under the English Channel, the men would probably finish first. If a baby is crying a woman is probably going to have an easier time consoling the baby over a man. You've changed his angle 3 times since posting one random interview but I'm being pedantic. He's speaking generally, saying nothing about the person's upbringing world view or previous ability in a similar situation. Strictly speaking, a Kenyan is PROBABLY better off against an Eskimo in the 100m, but yea I guess that has nothing to do with the color of his skin I'M SUCH A PEDANT.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2011 19:59
|
|
|
I'd answer but I can't judge. We're all the exact same after all.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2011 20:08
|
|
|
Intentionally ignoring the garden path is what I would have preferred but ok. QUESTION is that, "forum user [blank]" a SA specific condescending remark? I've seen it used once before (and it was in D&D you LIAR) but I don't know if it was you or not. I really wish I had the book on hand because the interviewer brings up specifically engineering, whereas him having to do hard labor & construction for many years is what leads me to believe he is focusing more on that than design (the genetic portion being strength). Whereas for some reason we've gone from thinking women are too emotional to design bridges, to being terrible at math, to now "a couple of other things" which you don't have off hand because you didn't read the book to see what that chapter is about. It's really no use making heads or tails of Carolla-isms from excerpts or loaded interviews, if you don't listen to him going on 20 minute jags every other week on the same topic honestly yes I see where you are all coming from. But I don't expect anyone to do that, so IN OTHER NEWS WHO IS ON BILL MAHER TONIGHT VVV yais the original point Tweak fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Mar 18, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2011 21:11
|
|
|
So is the issue that you can't claim that Islam is a problem without also including an addendum with all the other societal problems that may exist (and may or may not be related) as well?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
But I would think you could agree that Islam is certainly not helping these countries when it comes to solving their, "preponderance of inequality and violence." I think the argument they have is that it is hindering these particular countries and their ability to change, but when this idea is proposed the immediate response is, "it's not necessary or particularly relevant." Why not?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
I could be wrong, but I don't really interpret them to be saying that by solving Islam, you've solved the middle east. I think they would just like to address the fact that it IS a problem, however big or small in the grand scheme, and needs to be resolved (whatever that means). Because if you don't, it would seem like IF you were able to address, say, oppression of women in the region directly, it could very easily be met with, "well but Islam says..." Is it the ROOT? Probably not. Is it a BARRIER? Probably yes, but that idea is too quickly met with, "you're not helping you Islamaphobe." As an aside, 420DD Butts posted:The problem is that the rampant inequality and fanaticism issues won't be solved by coming up with a solution for Islam. Is this not fanaticism of Islam? I assume you mean fanaticism of anything to the degree that some of them are, and it just happens to be Islam in this case. I can dig it, it just seems weird to say, "The problem of Islamic fanaticism isn't Islam!" when it is at least PART of it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
But I think the argument they would make would be that even if one of those Latin American countries was a Theocracy, the Bible doesn't give directions on how to deal with rival drug dealers like the Quran does on how to deal with people who leave the faith.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
IRQ posted:It's weird that he's so hell bent on saying that it is when he knows drat well christianity has the same basic problems and very openly holds that belief. I think to this point it's probably because he's just at the heart of it trying to make an argument for all religions being a problem, and here is why Islam is a problem: "Just look at the middle east!" I think he would probably like to agree people (there) are the problem, but doesn't want that to detract from the over arching theme of, "stop believing in religion." quote:In short it's a dumb argument because islam isn't just going to up and disappear if people admit/recognize/whatever that Bill is right. Yea this is really where it all falls apart. Like what is the idea? Newspaper headlines across the middle east read one morning, "ISLAM OVER THANKS TO SUPPORT FROM A BUNCH OF AMERICANS WITH HBO!" Tweak fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Oct 8, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Well I'm sure he would focus on them if the media at large would, ISIS is more well known than Abu Sayyaf is (I had to look one up).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
I think they tried very hard to explain to a LIVID Ben Affleck that it wasn't most muslims at all, but still a non trivial amount were. I can't really speak to his polls (British?) about how that Danish cartoonist should have been killed, though. Or the ones questioning whether or not muslims who leave the faith should die or not. And as for Africa, he would probably respond that that is abhorrent and explain to you he's against Christianity as much as any other religion? I'm not sure what the point of that argument is.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
So in his tiers of religions he does not like, since Islam (a religion he does not like) ranks ahead of Christianity (a religion he does not like), this is the proof he's a racist? I don't follow.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
I just don't understand how, while talking about A, because you don't talk about B, it means you can't talk about A either. Also you're a racist for talking about A and not B, regardless of why you came to the conclusion to talk about A. If you care about A so much, talk about B, instead! What?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
So, critic the
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
I also can't picture that panel accepting any reliable source explaining, "no seriously western medicine isn't the devil" without walking away going YEA BUT STILL... When the one guy asked, "what studies show that GMOs are harmful?", why did everyone grown? Genuinely asking, I'm myself not very familiar with their argument, or if there are lots of studies claiming harmful affects. Tell me it wasn't a, "pfft yea that's what they WANT you to believe"-type eye roll. Tweak fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Feb 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
god drat pj orourke is loving awful at both telling jokes and making points
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
i usually begrudgingly agree and follow maher's points to all this, about until the time he suggests islamic terrorists will not only acquire a nuclear weapon but get it into the US let alone detonate it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
he had been pushing the whole, "if you don't get the chicken, be happy with the fish" or whatever the dumb line was, but he did seem to just drop him like a bag of bricks in the last 2-3 weeks
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
with the exception of trump email lists I think most people agree the wikileaks stuff is a whole lot of nothing though?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
edit: at risk of getting into something I'm not qualified for, none of the stuff I read (claiming to be, "sticked to the top of r/the_donald) seemed scandalous, or at worst business as usual. I only wished to say that pointing out that those leaks are pretty much nothing doesn't require some sort of super entrenched dem to defend. If the intent was some sort of equivalency to defending Trump it was just hilariously false.
Tweak fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Oct 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
I mean you could say, "we don't know what he'll really do" since, I guess, he could have been lying about everything he said he would do once in office like he lied about everything he had said/done on the campaign trail. But I have no idea how you could think that people of color, LGBTQ, and women have unfounded fears over what is to come based on what has been promised by him and the party that now stands to control all 3 levels of government (and one for the next couple decades). The only way you could be in one of those groups and think things are going to be fine is if you're confident he and the GOP don't follow through on anything they've promised.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
So what you're saying is your threshold for something to complain about is really, really high? Like, I guess the world didn't fall into complete disarray since November but that doesn't mean there hasn't been plenty of dumb poo poo and in some cases horrible poo poo that has happened to be concerned about.
Tweak fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Feb 16, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
Crusty Nutsack posted:So how bout that woman on the panel tonight I was only half paying attention so I blamed myself for her not making sense until I stopped to listen. Yeesh
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2017 07:57
|
|
|
Zogo posted:
but enough about your posting
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 07:21
|
|
|
Even if that wasn't the exact thing she said about wifi, what about her statement regarding it wasn't completely ridiculous?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
I was wondering last week if Bill had known that the Seattle bus Nazi got (brutally) knocked out roughly an hour and a half after someone posted on reddit that they saw him on the bus. He went to arguable the best block downtown to get knocked out wearing that, while supposedly threatening people. He also showed up in a park downtown about a week later wearing the armband again, but I'm not sure what his progress was at, "civil discourse" that day (get away from my favorite hot dog stand  ).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 11:39 |
|
|
please everyone make sure to list off your jordan peterson diary logs so we can make sure you've consumed enough of his drivel to be able to criticize him
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2018 09:35
|
|