Saturday, February 18, 2017

Bill Maher commits lese majestie against Progressive Liberalism.

Bill Maher demonstrates a real commitment to real liberalism by permitting ungood badthought guest to appear on his show, saying "If Mr. Yiannopoulos is indeed the monster Scahill claims—and he might be—nothing could serve the liberal cause better than having him exposed on Friday night.”

Good for Maher, who I usually find to be as welcome as a cold sore, although I have to grudgingly admit that he does seem to be the last liberal believer in a kind of free speech, albeit a free speech where he packs the room with people who agree with him..

On the other hand, this Daily Beast column is shocked - shocked! - by such a refusal to conform to progressive liberalism and repeatedly insinuates that Maher has let down the Good People by not pressing Milo on such objective and timeless questions as whether Amy Schumer is funny:

//We have both been disbarred at Berkeley,” said Maher, addressing how Yiannopoulos apparently “makes liberals crazy—for that part of liberalism that has gone off the deep-end.”

“You’re literally the only good [liberal],” replied a toadying Yiannopoulos. “Your side has gone insane. The Democrats are the party of Lena Dunham. These people are mental, hideous people. The more that America sees of Lena Dunham, the fewer votes the Democrat Party’s ever going to get.”

“Let’s not pick on fellow HBO stars,” said Maher.

Yiannopoulos then singled out Amy Schumer and Sarah Silverman as “people who used to be funny before they contracted feminism,” before Maher, instead of pressing his guest, decided to change the subject again.

“Let’s talk about your humor,” said an extraordinarily accommodating Maher, “because I think a lot of people do miss your humor. And I’m a guy who always defends jokes, right up to the point where they pointlessly hurt people.” //

Interesting possibility: what if Maher agrees with Milo on these points?

Obviously that's inconceivable to the writer of the Daily Beast post.


Anonymous said...

"he does seem to be the last liberal believer in a kind of free speech"

That's just a pathetic and stupid thing to say, Mr. Bradley. Its one of the idiotic straw men regarding political liberalism you trot out in post after post. Its akin to calling all conservatives racist or declaring a judge is bias because he's of Mexican heritage. I find it depressing that you can't see how much such statements are hurting the larger nation and widening the gulf between people of differing views on political matters. Its also beyond me how someone who 'claims' to have a "Catholic bias" regularly spouts such hateful nonsense. Then I suppose saying you have a "Catholic bias" and actually having such a bias can be mutually exclusive. Badly done sir, badly done.

Anonymous said...

By the way, Mr. Bradley, is it it fair to label all conservatives as haters of free speech when they use actual laws to silence speech? Take this moronic conservative example from the state that gave us Anita Bryant:

"Information saves lives. That’s not a complicated idea, especially when it comes to medical care. A doctor’s educated advice can make all the difference to a patient who may not fully appreciate health or safety risks.

Florida lawmakers seemed to think otherwise. In 2011, they passed a law barring doctors from talking to their patients about one specific topic: whether the patients keep firearms at home. Health care practitioners who violated the gag rule faced fines of up to $10,000 and the possible loss of their medical licenses.

As the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit held on Thursday in striking down the key parts of the law, this is an obvious violation of the First Amendment, which generally prohibits restrictions on speech based on what’s being said. It was also just plain dumb. Studies show that guns in the home lead to an increased risk of injury and death, and that people who speak to their doctors about gun-storage practices are three times as likely to store guns safely later."

Who links to me?