Has this been posted yet:
Bill Maher in 2001, hosting a discussion with with one Black person, an Asian and three Whites about the word "nigger" and how Black people ought to feel about non-Blacks using the term.
Politically Incorrect - "Racist" jokes - David Spade Sarah Silverman Bill Maher
He starts off by,
1. questioning a Black woman's Blackness. ("I wouldnt have known you were Black if you hadnt told me")
2. Claims all Black people use the word "nigga" so he should be able to say it too. Then goes on to say it repeatedly in his Black guest's face because, he argues, since all Blacks use the term, we shouldnt be offended by him saying it.
And people tried to argue that his recent use of the n-word was purely innocent/comedic in nature and nothing more. This makes it VERY clear that he knew
exactly what he was doing and he just doesn't give a fuck..
I don't really see an issue with him hating religion, because Islam and Christianity have been nothing but historically awful tools to oppress minorities. I struggle to rack up sympathy for people who follow and practice religions that have core beliefs saying I shouldn't have the same rights as them. But the rest of his views, and so called "brand" of humour are despicable. Fuck Milo and anti vaxers
There's something interesting in here, so I hope you don't mind me using your post as a launchpad to get some criticisms of Maher I personally have off my chest.
He definitely hates both, that's true. The problem is despite him hating both, Islam seems to get a disproportionate amount of his attention and he clearly levies it as being even worse than Christianity time and time and time and time again. The problem with that is that while extremist terrorism is indeed an extremely serious issue, it ain't Muslims tearing our country apart by the threads back at home. It ain't Muslims who are in power here, nor is it Muslims who, whether it's full-throated endorsement or more of an implicit/subconscious one, fully embrace the Prosperity Gospel/Protestant work ethic and take it to the logical end point to the point where they want to strip away 23+ million people's insurance for the simple crime of being poor. It ain't Muslims trying to strip away the rights of LGBT citizens here at home, but Christians and in particular Evangelicals.
Of course, Maher doesn't
exactly deny this per se, but regardless his priorities are made apparent in how he time and time again focuses on Islam as being some particular evil above Christianity and it's a special attention he doesn't give. When yeah... of course like ISIS-inspired terrorist attacks are terrible and we need to do more to stop them, but perhaps spend a bit more time focusing on the religion that's actively destroying our country back at home and don't rush off to segue to Islam every single chance you get when it's Christian-politicians trying to destroy people's insurance, it's Christian politicians trying to destroy every other kind of welfare including SNAP, WIC, etc, it's Christian politicians trying to destroy LGBT rights, etc. That just doesn't pass the smell test.
And speaking of LGBT rights, I don't buy for a
second that Maher actually gives a single fuck about them. It's true that Maher often cites stuff such as the poor treatment of LGBT individuals by extremely conservative Muslim communities as one of the reasons he despises religion, as you hit on. But then consider for a moment... Why is he then so desperate to prop up people like Milo (and Ann Coulter and Kellyanne Conway before him)? Milo uses his platform to do the
exact thing he claims he hates religions like Islam for:
harassing/trying to oppress minorities. Milo's infamous for doing stuff like getting up on stage and
harassing a transgender woman and trying to make her life hell.
When an extremely conservative/extremist preacher does something like that, Maher takes it out on the entire religion and uses it as a case in point example of why religion is an evil we desperately need to wholly abandon. But when Milo does it, he doesn't
so much as challenge him on his anti-transgender beliefs. Instead, he immediately goes the other direction and just defends it as being part of Milo's "freedom of speech" and that we need to just "challenge and engage him" instead of in way dismissing his freedom of speech or lessening his ability to spread pure hate and toxic.
Like... what? Where's Maher's calls for us to debate conservative Mulsim imams/mullahs in that case? Like,
if it's a matter of freedom of speech, and we shouldn't challenge or limit freedom of speech no matter how hateful that speech is, then shouldn't that go for them as well under Maher's logic? Why is it reserved for people like Milo when the hate they intend to spread is exactly the same (with the only difference being that Milo doesn't have the influence that some of these Muslim figures may have in their home countries, that's certainly not for a lack of trying, and if such individuals being in positions of authority makes them bad, then he should definitely stop trying to prop Milo up as that creates the
exact situation he apparently wants to avoid!).
If, on the other hand, it's indeed a matter of
hate against minorities being wrong regardless of where that hate stems from, whether it's from a religion like Christianity or Islam or some other source, then
why is that principle inconsistently applied? Why is it, that when Muslim preachers spread hate, it's proof that they're the scum of the Earth according to Maher and that we'd be better off if they all just disappeared, but yet
when Milo says the same thing, despite his insistence that he disagrees with Milo's views, that his takeaway message isn't that people like Milo should similarly disappear but rather that unrestricted freedom of speech is the most important thing and that we should debate and engage each other, no matter how hateful the view.
That certainly isn't what he's calling for when it comes to Islam!
So... which is it? Is hate against minorities bad and the reason that religions such as Islam should completely disappear? In which case, why doesn't he hold people like Milo or Ann Coulter to the same standard and instead of talking about hate of minorities emphasizes freedom of speech instead? If discriminating against minorities is proof that these people aren't worth engaging with and that "more extreme action is needed", why doesn't that apply to people like Milo instead? And if freedom of speech is the key issue, then why doesn't he extend the same courtesy to Muslims as well--making it clear that no matter how extreme the language, the solution isn't to use "more extreme action" but rather to engage them and challenge their views, just like he does with Milo?
Why the inconsistency?
Nah, the fact that he claims to care so much about the hate of minorities when the subject is Islam, but immediately changes the subject to "freedom of speech" when someone like Milo or Coulter is on his show and suddenly doesn't give a fuck about the selfsame hate just because the faces have changed and nothing more is proof he doesn't give a fuck. If he really cared, he'd call out that hate when it comes up in all its forms, regardless of who's saying it. That he only loses his shit when it's a Muslim or a matter of religion, but seems like he couldn't care less when someone like Milo says the same thing and switches to "freedom of speech" tells me all I need to know.
Sorry that turned into a lot more of a rant than I anticipated, but I
really needed to get that off my chest and that he pretends he gives a fuck about minorities such as myself when the subject as Islam and tries to use as some type of shield for his bigotry, but then immediately turns around and throws us in a fucking
dumpster as soon as the speaker is Milo really sets me off and it frustrates me that more people haven't picked up on the complete contradiction there and so much as wondered what in the world is going on there.