What do you think of Bill Maher?

[DEXMachina]

FYI: Bill Maher is an American political comedian who centers his material on making fun of religions and the US conservatives.

Despite his occupation, I have found quite a lot of sense and logic in his dialogues, and would like you guys to voice your opinions on him. Honestly, I am not sure how seriously I should take him and his views when he is on stage.

Here is one of Bill Maher's segments "New Rules" in which he starts off with small, mostly funny statements, then continues with a more serious criticism of the status quo.



Bill has plenty more vids over youtube, check them out for additional information.

 

[Netheralian]

I don't mind him wrt religious arguments, but C0nc0rdance raised some interesting points here (see about 3:45).

 

[Nautyskin]

Maher throws fish to seals. Nothing more.

You should never use this man as a source of information, nor consider him anything other than cheap entertainment.

 

[DTBeast]

when talking about religion and maybe politics, I tend to agree with him. When talking about health matters (he denies germ theory and is anti-vax), Animal Rights (He is a PeTA member), or diet (he is somewhere in the vegitarian/vegan/raw foodie spectrum) I disagree strongly.

while he has seen through religion, he hasn't really applied critical thinking to all aspects of his life

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

I'm a big fan of his. I think he's hilarious and he occasionally makes a good observation. However, he's not a critical thinker and believes many things that are ridiculous. Like the Daily Show, I watch him because he's highly entertaining...

For example, he analogized the Republican's blind and incessant opposition to anything the Democrats support to a scenario where if Obama were to find a cure for cancer, they would find some argument to be pro-cancer...

You'll see it here, starting with the story of the republican congressman defending BP, at time index 1:20

 

[Yfelsung]

He's figured out religion and politics as well as anyone with the ability to think properly, other than that he's kind of odd. I mean, the man dated Ann Coulter. How he could spend more than 5 minutes with that woman without punching her straight in the mouth is beyond me.

 

[MRaverz]

He's certainly an interesting character and a fairly entertaining comedian. However, intellectually there are some major flaws - for example, his film 'Religulous' contains the old 'Jesus = Horus' fallacy and I've heard that he denies Germ Theory.

With Maher, I tend to take everything he says with a slightly larger dash of salt.

 

[lrkun]

He has a nice video called religulous. It's worth watching.

 

[Nautyskin]

For example, he analogized the Republican's blind and incessant opposition to anything the Democrats support to a scenario where if Obama were to find a cure for cancer, they would find some argument to be pro-cancer...

Maybe they just don't want to alienate the people who are pro-cancer ...

 

[ShootMyMonkey]

When it comes to religion, and the creation v. evolution garbage, global warming, the general overall attitudes about science, politics, I'd generally find him agreeable. He is, by in large, awesome here, especially because he doesn't just offer platitudes but explains his position quite often.

Medicine, he's generally just outright wrong. The only agreeable statement he's made about medicine, IMO, was his statement that the largest health problems in America are the products of idiotic behavior. Occasionally, he'll say some okay things about the problems of health *insurance* which I find to be of mixed value, but these are largely political positions rather than anything to do with actual medicine. It often seems to me that his problem with medical science seems to be a projection of his problems with 1) the health insurance industry in the U.S., and 2) the inefficiency and seemingly controlling nature of the FDA. He sees these as reprehensible on many levels, and I think there are some bits of truth in what he says about those, but then he extends that out to the generalization that everything that medical establishment and pharmaceutical corporations do are amoral activities in the name of the almighty buck first before the health of the populace.

I find his association with PETA a bit weird, because the kinds of things he actually says on his show about animal rights are pretty mundane and don't go as extremist as I would normally associate with PETA. He seems to go not too much further than saying things like "let's stop using aphorisms of referring to people as 'animals' when they act like assholes." He doesn't come off as wingnutty or underweight to be a raw-foodist, nor even a hard-nosed vegan FWICT, so I'm guessing he's a vegetarian if he's connected with PETA. He's done commercials for PETA speaking against cruel treatment in factory farming, but I haven't heard him go off on tirades about "meat is murder" and so on.

The thing is that he does write his material with a pretty nice razor wit, and I often find myself being amused with his expression of points even when I ultimately disagree with the point he's making. Overall, though, I'm a fan in any sense.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I'm going to paraphrase from this guy and say, "I don't usually find him funny. I don't mean 'that's not funny that's offensive,' I mean he tells a joke and I don't laugh."

There's just something a little desperate about his humor, like a kid yelling "look at me!"

 

[Nautyskin]

There's just something a little desperate about his humor, like a kid yelling "look at me!"

Indeed. Truth in both this:



and this:

 

[DeathofSpeech]

Who can say they haven't been wrong recently?

Personally I don't rely upon him for news. I find him entertaining. I found Religulous entertaining and insightful.
I'm not going to toss Bill out with the bathwater because he has an unswept pile of batshit in his attic.
He's a comedian... it isn't as though he's a PhD microbiologist.

The premise of the OP is almost "ZOMG look what the village idiot got up to!"

I happen to find his particular brand of village idiot more entertaining than most because he is occasionally thought provoking.
Well, that and as a political comedian, he is often LESS of a village idiot than some of the news commentators.

"Hey, look at me..." has often demonstrated its value as a replacement for honest work. We build sports arenas as monuments to the fact.

Does this make him more, or less, ridiculous than Lady Gaga?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I'm always a little disappointed when comedians and other entertainers take their act beyond its place as entertainment and get into more direct advocacy. The sort of thing where they start taking the attention they get seriously, and start to believe that they have Important Things To Say. It is usually at that point that they start believing that their wittiness and (often superficial) insight in one area confer legitimacy on their opinions on every random subject that they can think of.

If they are libertarian-type contrarians it is even worse, because those people tend to have the same gigantic blind spots as religious people, except shifted towards economics or certain political views. Penn & Teller are great fun, until the issue is political and they turn preachy about magical and nonexistent "free market solutions" for everything. Christopher Hitchens is a sharp writer and skewers religious stupidity, but he's never met a war he didn't like and he hates Muslims so much that he had to be waterboarded himself before he would believe that it was torture. Bill Maher is a funny guy who gets to the heart of a lot of the political stupidity that is wrecking the world, but he's smoked so much pot that he thinks that science-based medicine and "Big Pharma" are in as big of a conspiracy as the 9/11 idiots that he dismisses.

I like that Jon Stewart has a similar gig, but he always rejects the notion of having any real power over opinions or events. That's how he keeps his show from ever getting preachy, and avoids putting his personal views on random subjects out there to be taken serious just because people like him and listen to him.

 

[Prolescum]

I'm always a little disappointed when comedians and other entertainers take their act beyond its place as entertainment and get into more direct advocacy. The sort of thing where they start taking the attention they get seriously, and start to believe that they have Important Things To Say. It is usually at that point that they start believing that their wittiness and (often superficial) insight in one area confer legitimacy on their opinions on every random subject that they can think of.

If they are libertarian-type contrarians it is even worse, because those people tend to have the same gigantic blind spots as religious people, except shifted towards economics or certain political views. Penn & Teller are great fun, until the issue is political and they turn preachy about magical and nonexistent "free market solutions" for everything. Christopher Hitchens is a sharp writer and skewers religious stupidity, but he's never met a war he didn't like and he hates Muslims so much that he had to be waterboarded himself before he would believe that it was torture. Bill Maher is a funny guy who gets to the heart of a lot of the political stupidity that is wrecking the world, but he's smoked so much pot that he thinks that science-based medicine and "Big Pharma" are in as big of a conspiracy as the 9/11 idiots that he dismisses.

I like that Jon Stewart has a similar gig, but he always rejects the notion of having any real power over opinions or events. That's how he keeps his show from ever getting preachy, and avoids putting his personal views on random subjects out there to be taken serious just because people like him and listen to him.

Whilst I agree that once a comedian steps into advocacy it can be an issue, I can certainly understand ambivalence toward big pharma; they don't exactly have a glowing history of honesty, which I would hope is his beef... As a recent example. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to link something I could read. *

I don't have an opinion on this Maher fellow as I don't watch much TV, but American political comedy mostly makes my eyes roll. On their own. I like Doug Stanhope, he's funny.

​

* edit: I've just noticed the video near the top. Stupid Prole.

 

[DeathofSpeech]

I'm always a little disappointed when comedians and other entertainers take their act beyond its place as entertainment and get into more direct advocacy. The sort of thing where they start taking the attention they get seriously, and start to believe that they have Important Things To Say. It is usually at that point that they start believing that their wittiness and (often superficial) insight in one area confer legitimacy on their opinions on every random subject that they can think of.

My objection would be the obverse... that they can be perfectly, honestly wrong and if the audience gives them weight without reason that the audience is to blame.

If they are libertarian-type contrarians it is even worse, because those people tend to have the same gigantic blind spots as religious people, except shifted towards economics or certain political views. Penn & Teller are great fun, until the issue is political and they turn preachy about magical and nonexistent "free market solutions" for everything. Christopher Hitchens is a sharp writer and skewers religious stupidity, but he's never met a war he didn't like and he hates Muslims so much that he had to be waterboarded himself before he would believe that it was torture. Bill Maher is a funny guy who gets to the heart of a lot of the political stupidity that is wrecking the world, but he's smoked so much pot that he thinks that science-based medicine and "Big Pharma" are in as big of a conspiracy as the 9/11 idiots that he dismisses.

I like that Jon Stewart has a similar gig, but he always rejects the notion of having any real power over opinions or events. That's how he keeps his show from ever getting preachy, and avoids putting his personal views on random subjects out there to be taken serious just because people like him and listen to him.

I enjoy Penn & Teller too and my brain shuts down right about the same place that you draw the line as well, but it's an opinion. The acceptance or rejection of that opinion by the audience is for the audience.

Jon Stewart is one of my favorites as well, not because he doesn't have a personal emotional bias himself, but because his bias for politics is approximately congruent with mine. He takes equal pleasure in making anyone look silly who does something bone headed regardless of which party they represent. He has a natural position in which he can have the appearance of objectivity, because his entire routine is based upon him appearing reasonable in the face of insane stupidity in the wings.

I don't disagree that he seems actually more reasonable, just that his reasonableness represents his positional bias.

 

[Macabre215]

I'll take Stephen Colbert over him any day. I can't get enough of that thick, intelligent satire.

 

[televator]

I'm always a little disappointed when comedians and other entertainers take their act beyond its place as entertainment and get into more direct advocacy. The sort of thing where they start taking the attention they get seriously, and start to believe that they have Important Things To Say. It is usually at that point that they start believing that their wittiness and (often superficial) insight in one area confer legitimacy on their opinions on every random subject that they can think of.

If they are libertarian-type contrarians it is even worse, because those people tend to have the same gigantic blind spots as religious people, except shifted towards economics or certain political views. Penn & Teller are great fun, until the issue is political and they turn preachy about magical and nonexistent "free market solutions" for everything. Christopher Hitchens is a sharp writer and skewers religious stupidity, but he's never met a war he didn't like and he hates Muslims so much that he had to be waterboarded himself before he would believe that it was torture. Bill Maher is a funny guy who gets to the heart of a lot of the political stupidity that is wrecking the world, but he's smoked so much pot that he thinks that science-based medicine and "Big Pharma" are in as big of a conspiracy as the 9/11 idiots that he dismisses.

I like that Jon Stewart has a similar gig, but he always rejects the notion of having any real power over opinions or events. That's how he keeps his show from ever getting preachy, and avoids putting his personal views on random subjects out there to be taken serious just because people like him and listen to him.

You've summed it up pretty well for the most part, but I do have to slightly disagree. Just being "the funnyman" 24/7 doesn't always get things done. Sometimes you need to be serious and actually act out something. I'm not saying every comedian need s to try to "teach" the world, but at least sometimes make their preferences clear and open to scrutiny, while being open to changing their minds when they are blatantly wrong about something.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Actually, Stewart can be very good when he's serious.