So I've noticed!
Maybe the lord god Obama created a "Mainstream Culture" Czar and we just missed the press release that announced it!! Yeah, that must be it.
And the Right Wing are Racist!?!?!?!?
- Thread starter chefdennis
- Start date
Maybe the lord god Obama created a "Mainstream Culture" Czar and we just missed the press release that announced it!! Yeah, that must be it.
Good grief, people. Bill Maker's views are certainly not mainstream, which is what he was referring to in that quote. But the man himself is absolutely a part of the mainstream of American culture. At least the above quote was quoted in full and in context, so anyone with any semblance of reading comprehension will easily be able to discern the true thoughts and meanings. If you stop reading when the bold type stops, well, then you won't get it.
The list of controversial comments might be longer than you think.
"We are a nation that is unenlightened because of religion. I do believe that. I think that religion stops people from thinking. I think it justifies crazies... I think religion is a neurological disorder..."
Bill Maher: Christians have neurological disorder
"But I've often said that if I had -- I have two dogs -- if I had two retarded children, I'd be a hero. And yet the dogs, which are pretty much the same thing --
[ Laughter ]
What? They're sweet. They're loving. They're kind, but they don't mentally advance at all."
Bill Maher's Comments
To tie everything together, this quip from his show in Mar. 5, 2010:
"When we see crazy, senseless deaths like this, we can only ask why, why, why couldn't it have been Glenn Beck?" So joked Bill Maher Friday evening on HBO's "Real Time.
Bill Maher Wishes Glenn Beck Had Been Killed at Pentagon Thursday | NewsBusters.org
My first post was directed solely toward Maher's comment about 9/11 and how its inappropriate nature seemed to fit his schtick. I just came up with these examples with a quick Google search, and I'll bet there's plenty more, probably in quantity to rival that of Beck. Maybe his show should have been called Socially Obnoxious instead of Politically Incorrect.
Perhaps it's fair to say that Maher is part of the liberal mainstream of the current American culture. It would be interesting to see the size and demographic makeup of his audience, compared to that of comparable entertainers, both liberal and conservative.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Correct.
It leaves him out of the mainstream within the (political) subset .... and clearly in the mainstream as part of the cultural mainstream as a whole ....
Well, actually .... you would be wrong on that count as well ....
I am somewhat aware of Mr. Maher as a comedian and a show host (honest assessment) but my knowledge of his political views is not anything coming close to what could be described as completely familiar .... nowhere near it ....
What knowledge I do have of him comes mainly from having watched Politically Incorrect a good bit when it was airing on ABC - my mother (who was a staunch Republican and fairly conservative) watched the show on a regular basis, and I was often there when she did. She died back in 1998 ....
Beyond that I have not been a regular viewer, but have been somewhat aware of Mr. Maher's career .... enough to know that he has been successful at what he does ..... to the point of becoming fairly broadly known and recognizable to many ...
Further, I could say that I have been aware that he has been somewhat difficult to categorize politically, and that at least a number of his views seem not to fit the mold that other of his views would suggest that he should fit into ...
I would not say that I am familiar with all, or even anything approaching many, of his views (political, or otherwise ....)
I am not a fan per se, or a regular viewer .....
Yes, that may well be true - however it has no bearing on whether he is in the cultural mainstream ... (although I do fully understand that you erroneously believe that it does
)The fact is, the very premise you are operating on clearly indicates that you don't understand the phenomena that I am referring to ..... even in the slightest ...
That's entirely correct - the cultural mainstream exists - and is what it is, regardless of whatever my views about it are, or might be - it is a reality that exists independent of whatever opinions and considerations I might have about it.
Of course, that also means that it exists independent of whatever opinions and views you, or anyone else, might hold about it. (Sorry, what's good for the goose ....)
Nope - although I certainly have my own observations, conclusions, and thoughts about it ......
Well, you are indeed missing much ..... but I don't believe that there were any memos involved .....
Not at all ... simply because for the possibility of presumptuous to exist, your characterizations above would have to be accurate ..... and they are not .....
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Just to provide a little context .... that you .... ahem .... so convienently left out ...... the comments of Bill Maher's you quoted above were made in response to Dinesh D'Souza's - a prominent conservative - statement that contrary to Bush's assertions, the 9/11 terrorists were not, in fact, cowards, but warriors:
On Politically Incorrect's September 17 show, Maher's guest Dinesh D'Souza disputed Bush's label, saying the terrorists were warriors. Maher agreed, and according to a transcript replied "We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly".
White House press secretary Ari Fleischer denounced Maher, warning that "people have to watch what they say and watch what they do."
Yeah .... "watch what you say" .... perhaps maybe check in with the White House for approval and authorization before you open your yap ..... frickin' Nazis .....
Maher almost immediately apologized, and explained that he had been criticizing U.S. military policy, not American soldiers. He pointed out that whether the attacks were cowardly was irrelevant to whether they were morally right or wrong.
Of course, actually supplying enough context to provide for real understanding wouldn't have fit with the agenda, now would it ?
Maybe, but I don't think so. There's certainly gonna be a list of things that someone, somewhere, can come up that they don't agree with him on, but truly controversial and way out there? No, I don't think so. Controversial makes news, and he doesn't make that kind of news very often.
You don't even know what his schtick is. You've never seen the guy, yet you've made up your mind that you don't like him. He's liberal about some things, conservative about some things, but the biggest problem you're gonna have with him is that he's pragmatic about most things. Liberals and Conservatives are rarely pragmatic about anything.
Googling for quotes is not even close to being the same as actually watching the show.
I'll take that bet.
I dunno, maybe. It wouldn't be a very accurate title for the show, tho.
I honestly don't remember the numbers or his demographic breakdown from his show on ABC, other than it was a rather wide audience and routinely won the time slot. Getting at actual demographics for shows on HBO are a little more difficult, but he's been picked up for his ninth season on HBO, which wouldn't happen without wide support of subscribers. I also don't think you can really find a comparable entertainer anywhere else on television. His show is rather unique.
If you watch the show (more than once, duh) you'll see that he bashes both Liberals and Conservatives. One thing he says in that we have essentially a one-party system in this country because both parties are the same in practice, bowing to the corporations and special interest groups that helped elect them. And in the meantime, they all forget about the goals they had as candidates and work to maintain the status quo demanded by those who helped to get them elected.
Like I said, he makes people think, even those who do not agree with him. But if you're too stuck on his view of religion (to the exclusion of all else that is thought provoking) and how it keeps people from thinking, then you're gonna have a hard time with him.
It's hard to supply enough context to provide real understanding, much less have any real understanding of it at all, when you haven't even seen the show.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Indeed ....
And if I were to just hazard a guess, I'd bet that most here that are commenting (negatively, in one way or another) on Maher have probably never watched any of his shows, and are solely basing their opinions on some (likely slanted) reportage of a dubious nature (from someplace like Newsmax or WorldNutDailey ...) of something that he has said at one time or another, that they themselves personally disagree with ....
Ahhh yes .... forget the direct personal observation .... since afterall, there's just nothing like ..... having someone else look for you .... and then tell you what to think about what you didn't see ....
Last edited:
jimby82
Veteran Expediter
Ok, then
1. Define cultural mainstream.
2. Show how (in your opinion) this leaves Mr. Maher as "clearly in the mainstream as part of the cultural mainstream as a whole ...."
1. Define cultural mainstream.
2. Show how (in your opinion) this leaves Mr. Maher as "clearly in the mainstream as part of the cultural mainstream as a whole ...."
Let's take just one example of Maher's insensitive, ignorant and inflammatory statements - the one above. For those that are so much more enlightened than I am, please explain the context in which the above declaration is (a) appropriate and (b) intended to be anything but controversial. If nothing else it demonstrates Maher's complete ignorance of the subject matter. Maybe he should spend some time with people who have to deal with handicapped children - but that wouldn't create enough public ire to draw the necessary attention.
There are actually people besides myself who are not Maher cheerleaders, and it's not hard to find them. The following is an article that was written in 2001, just before the ax was lowered on his program.
Maher’s Final Half Hour - Jonah Goldberg - National Review Online
Granted, I'll say again that I never saw that show but that's not to say I've never seen him or never listened to some of his material; that's the reason I never watched his show. For those who did and claim some sort of social cultivation as the result, you're lucky - you can still benefit from his style of mental stimulation on HBO.
The comments about dogs and children were inappropriate and in poor taste. No one, including Maher himself, ever said anything any differently. When you make jokes, sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. That one didn't. I once made a joke here about the Special Olympics and some people here just went bonkers over it. They didn't even care whether or not it was funny, and it was. But because it wasn't politically correct, funny didn't matter to them.
Still, there is nothing off limits as far what can and cannot be made fun of - the trick is doing it right, and at the right time. When it's done right, it's funny, and when it's done wrong, it's really bad. Someone asserting that handicapped children should somehow be off limits to comedy, well, that's the politically correct thing to do. But they absolutely can be made fun of, and were on a regular basis until people started whining about being politically correct about it all.
It's gotten to the point where you can't make fun of anything, because someone's widdle feelwings might get hurt. So, yeah, he's all kinds of controversial because he's politically incorrect and doesn't set out to try and offend as few people as possible. He's up front and honest, instead, and makes fun of everything that needs to be made fun of.
He's made like 3 or 4 genuinely controversial comments, and for some reason (well, because you clearly would rather be told what to think instead of watching the show and doing your own thinking) you want to hang on to those comments and use it as the basis of categorizing him as someone who makes controversial statements just to stir up controversy. The problem with that viewpoint is that it's dead wrong. The Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs and Rachael Madows and Keith Olbermans are well defined and easily delineated, and try as you (and others) will, you cannot so easily classify Bill Maher or his show. Those who try to do so show their ignorance. Funny thing is, I'm not even all that much of a fan of Bill Maher, but I am a fan of what he does and how he does it on the show, even though I disagree with a lot of what he says. His panelists generally include one die-hard conservative, one die-hard liberal, and one wild card. Ariana Huffington has been his most frequent panelist, for example. I wouldn't exactly call her liberal. But she and others like her are on the show to speak their mind and offer their views, so that people get to hear many viewpoints and they can then make up their own mind on the issues. Those who already know everything will learn very little from listening to other viewpoints, however, so they tend to not like the show.
The article above is now quite dated, but clearly was written by a religious conservative. It's interesting how religious conservatives view him, particularly those who haven't seen his show on even a semi-regular basis. He's very much pro God, but at the same time very much anti organized religion. He makes fun of religion, all religion, and the religious conservatives go ballistic and view it as an attack, and immediately consider anything and everything he has to say as being irrelevant, without even paying attention to what he says (other than when he bashes the stupid things that have resulted from organized religion, they're all over that).
People want to pigeon-hole him as a liberal, because he's not a staunch conservative, yet he's neither. He's a pragmatist, and will bash whatever doesn't make good sense. Religious conservatives don't like him, because of his stance on religion, and therefore they refuse to even listen to whatever else he has to say about anything. That's the epitome of a closed mind.
So until you have actually watched the show at least 2 or 3 times, nothing you can say here about him or the show, nor any amount of cut-n-paste of what other people think about him or the show, will give you any credibility about your comments. All you're doing is parroting what others think, and allowing yourself to be told by others what to think.
I say offend 'em all. Make 'em feel alive.
A chicken and an egg are lying naked and sweaty in bed together. The chicken takes a drag on a cigarette and says, "Well, I guess that answers that, then."
Still, there is nothing off limits as far what can and cannot be made fun of - the trick is doing it right, and at the right time. When it's done right, it's funny, and when it's done wrong, it's really bad. Someone asserting that handicapped children should somehow be off limits to comedy, well, that's the politically correct thing to do. But they absolutely can be made fun of, and were on a regular basis until people started whining about being politically correct about it all.
It's gotten to the point where you can't make fun of anything, because someone's widdle feelwings might get hurt. So, yeah, he's all kinds of controversial because he's politically incorrect and doesn't set out to try and offend as few people as possible. He's up front and honest, instead, and makes fun of everything that needs to be made fun of.
He's made like 3 or 4 genuinely controversial comments, and for some reason (well, because you clearly would rather be told what to think instead of watching the show and doing your own thinking) you want to hang on to those comments and use it as the basis of categorizing him as someone who makes controversial statements just to stir up controversy. The problem with that viewpoint is that it's dead wrong. The Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs and Rachael Madows and Keith Olbermans are well defined and easily delineated, and try as you (and others) will, you cannot so easily classify Bill Maher or his show. Those who try to do so show their ignorance. Funny thing is, I'm not even all that much of a fan of Bill Maher, but I am a fan of what he does and how he does it on the show, even though I disagree with a lot of what he says. His panelists generally include one die-hard conservative, one die-hard liberal, and one wild card. Ariana Huffington has been his most frequent panelist, for example. I wouldn't exactly call her liberal. But she and others like her are on the show to speak their mind and offer their views, so that people get to hear many viewpoints and they can then make up their own mind on the issues. Those who already know everything will learn very little from listening to other viewpoints, however, so they tend to not like the show.
The article above is now quite dated, but clearly was written by a religious conservative. It's interesting how religious conservatives view him, particularly those who haven't seen his show on even a semi-regular basis. He's very much pro God, but at the same time very much anti organized religion. He makes fun of religion, all religion, and the religious conservatives go ballistic and view it as an attack, and immediately consider anything and everything he has to say as being irrelevant, without even paying attention to what he says (other than when he bashes the stupid things that have resulted from organized religion, they're all over that).
People want to pigeon-hole him as a liberal, because he's not a staunch conservative, yet he's neither. He's a pragmatist, and will bash whatever doesn't make good sense. Religious conservatives don't like him, because of his stance on religion, and therefore they refuse to even listen to whatever else he has to say about anything. That's the epitome of a closed mind.
So until you have actually watched the show at least 2 or 3 times, nothing you can say here about him or the show, nor any amount of cut-n-paste of what other people think about him or the show, will give you any credibility about your comments. All you're doing is parroting what others think, and allowing yourself to be told by others what to think.
I say offend 'em all. Make 'em feel alive.
A chicken and an egg are lying naked and sweaty in bed together. The chicken takes a drag on a cigarette and says, "Well, I guess that answers that, then."
I think this horse is just about dead enough, but let me just add a few random comments / opinions:
- I've seen enough of Maher's clips, quotes, snippets of his shows to have formed an opinion: he's a jerk and I have never seen any point in staying up that late to watch his show. I feel the same for Jon Stewart, and I've seen plenty of his stuff because my wife never misses The Daily Show. My added exposure to him has only confirmed my initial impression. Same goes for The View.
- There are others that share my opinion about Maher, and we don't tell each other what to think. The Goldberg article only supports or enforces my attitude toward Maher, which was formed long before I found that piece on the web. Using another's written material to support a position isn't exactly unusual, and credit to the author was properly given.
- Speaking of the author of the article (Jonah Goldberg), what would make someone assume he's a religious conservative? Maybe because he's Jewish? Sounds like an uninformed assumption.
- Since I watch so little TV it doesn't take much for a show to get culled - especially if it's late night. Maher has never piqued my interest enough to stay up and check him out; neither has Conan O'Brien or Jimmy Kimmell, nor did Ted Koppel or Tom Snyder.
- But considering so much claptrap has been made about Maher, I'll give his HBO program a try this weekend - maybe on the Tivo. However, I doubt my opinion will change to any great degree.
Last edited:
Which American "mainstream culture" anyway? I would be willing to bet Obama's millions that "mainstream culture" means something far different in Idaho or South Dakota than it does on NYC or Chicago. I won't even go to far into which one of those
"mainstream cultures" is more normal!
Let's see, which area are the majority of the people living there most likely to know where food really comes from?
There are no real criteria for determining the degree to which a TV program is "mainstream" other than its Nielsen ratings. Although Maher's show on HBO has been renewed for its ninth year, keep in mind that he's buried in a time slot (11PM Friday) where the competition is minimal. The number of people who watch his program is a fraction of the audience prime time programs attract. His show last Friday drew 769,000 viewers compared to over 2.1 Million viewers who saw Glenn Beck that day (source: Nielsen). Maher does have a following of loyal fans, but whether or not his appeal could be considered "mainstream" is questionable.
Nielsen ratings cannot even determine the degree to which a TV program is a part of the mainstream, since the Nielsen's are becoming less and less of a factor in things, mainly because they cannot accurately account for Tivo and other shifted viewing. They try, but even Nielsen admits to falling short. (I was a Nielsen Family once. It's really weird. Each Nielsen Family represents an insane number of people, so you have an insane amount of control on ratings. Most Nielsen Families do the deal for a month, then a new family (be it an actual family or just an individual) gets picked. My niece also worked for them recently, for 2 years. They have one of two major data centers in Elizabethtown, KY, of all places.)
Real Time with Bill Maher is actually shown four times on Friday night on four different HBO channels. It is then shown fourteen times on Saturday on a plethora of HBO options. Ten times on Sunday, eight on Monday, two on Tuesday, eight on Wednesday, and six on Thursday. That's 52 broadcast hours, except that many of those are doubled up with regular and HD broadcasts. But taking into account the HD doubling up, it's still 27 different time slots per week for people to watch the show - no staying up late required. Nielsen doesn't account for all of these different time slots, and even if they did it wouldn't matter. The cable and satellite networks, though, they know what channels the receivers are tuned to, and for how long. They know.
Actually, it's 10PM, and then immediately plays again at 11PM, but that doesn't matter. Premium cable channels are not designed to, nor are expected to, "compete" in a given time slot with traditional network and basic cable channel programs.
For a given time slot, sure, but over the course of 27 aggregated time slots throughout the week, probably not. Prime Time television shows are more of a weekly "event" where, unless you want to miss it, you accommodate your schedule (or record it for later viewing), and the networks use those ratings for revenue. That kind of thing doesn't happen on premium channels like HBO, where the importance of the audience numbers of a specific viewing in relation to other networks is unimportant.
It's questionable only if you look at things with blinders on. Meaning, for example, the liberal wackos on MSNBC have a loyal following, sometimes with relatively large numbers (for cable), and while the hosts themselves are a part of the mainstream (meaning that lots of people are aware of them and what they say at least has some impact on the culture), their appeal cannot be considered a mainstream appeal at all. They are followed by a bunch of people who all think the same way, which isn't necessarily in the mainstream. The same can be said for the conservative end of things, where hosts like Beck and Limbaugh are certainly part of the mainstream culture, their appeal cannot be considered mainstream, since their appeal is primarily geared towards the ultra conservative, which isn't necessarily the mainstream. HBO itself, for that matter, is most definitely a part of the American mainstream culture, but a particular HBO show almost certainly isn't.
But Bill Maher, on the other hand, while having some strong political and social opinions, still has a far wider mainstream appeal than do those who only appeal to the far left or the far right. Maher appeals to some of those people, and to those who are more centric and pragmatic about what makes sense and what doesn't make sense, irrespective of political persuasion. Last week's show, for example, gave us two different Obama supporters that hammered Obama over his conducting of politics as usual, instead of the change he promised. It doesn't matter if you are conservative or liberal, it's something you cannot argue with, because it's true. Hosts like Limbaugh and Beck would (and do) put their own spin on it, and the goobers at MSNBC put their spin on it, and both sides ignore what's really there. Maher and his guests cut through all the crap (most of it, anyway) to get to what's real.
I don't watch his show religiously, but I do generally end up seeing most of all of it by the end of each week. While listening, I often end up saying to myself, "What a load of crap," about Maher and his guests, but they usually end up hitting on some interesting points. The show makes you think, unlike shows like Beck and Olberman, which make you feel like you've just been to a Tony Robins concert or an Amway meeting where you've been pumped up and told how to think.
We recently did Nielsen for a month. Every hour of every day was accounted for and if you watched the second rerun of the seventh showing of ______ (Maher in this case) it was accounted for. Same goes for Hannity and his other time slot showings as well as Antiques Roadshow rebroadcast, a show I like. I have no idea whether they incorporate the rebroadcasts into the overall ratings for a show or not but suspect they do. Even my local news rebroadcast could have been written in. It did require the participant to write in the booklet and I'm sure not everyone reports accurately. I wouldn't mind doing it again but since it took half a century to get the first turn I doubt I'll get a second turn at that rate.
I would have thought the same thing, and did for a long time, until my niece clarified things. She did two things there, one was call people and ask them to be a Nielsen Family, and the other was compile the view records.
If, say, a local news broadcast was shown at 10PM, and then repeated at 2AM, each time slot gets its own ratings and they are not combined. Same with Bill Maher's show, where each of the 27 different time slots gets a rating, and they are not combined to give the total ratings of the show. The ratings are 100% about advertising revenue, which is why each time slot for a repeated show has the ratings kept separate, because advertisers pay different rates for different ratings. And it's also why ratings for shows on premium cable, which have no advertising, are meaningless. Premium networks get the ratings for a given show directly from the cable and satellite providers, since digital receiver and converter boxes report what is being watched, anyway. Internet TV (like Hulu and others) are also factored in.
Tivo and DVR's have really messed with the ratings, as people rarely account for those accurately. When I said it was weird, the weird part for me was that it was all hand recorded, and not recorded by some kind of electronic device. The industry knows full well that there are a ton of shows that aren't watched during the week, but are recorded and then watched on "Tivo Night", which is Friday night. "Tivo Night" shows are dramatically under reported, which is just fine with the advertisers, since their commercials are being watched without them having to pay full price. Of course, a lot of people fast forward through those commercials, too.
Turns out, if you work in television in any way, you can't participate. When Nielsen calls people to see if they want to be a Nielsen Family, the computer dials numbers and they really have no idea who they are calling, nor the number that the computer has dialed. One time my niece talked to a lady about doing it, and the lady said he'd love to, but can't, since she owns a television production company and is on television. It was Oprah. Too funny.
She did say that Oprah had mentioned that this was the third time she had been called over the years, so maybe you'll get another call. I've one been called just the one time. There is a minimum time frame that you have to wait before you can do it again, but I can't remember what it is. Two years comes to mind, but I'm not sure. When I did mine it was more than 20 years ago.
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
and here I thought white was the minority?
Your statement sounds like something out of a J Jackson/Sharpton speech..you believe that (in my opinion) crap?
people are only kept down due to their own in ability to get up...
Read it again, OVM... carefully this time. The man has a point.