Bill Maher is back, and this week he has a particularly good comedy bit: “New Rule: Eyeroll Activism.” His topic is similar to Ricky Gervais’s scathing remarks at the 2020 Golden Globes in that both men excoriate Hollywood for its virtue signaling, with Maher beginning with the wearing of anti-ICE pins at the Golden Globes. And since Hollywood is identified with the Democratic Party, Maher claims that this virtue-signaling, in which celebrities weigh in on political issues they know little or nothing about—but thinking that their “star power” gives them extra credibility—is said to turn off the average viewer. Maher argues that such “Golden Globe activism” actually works against liberals.
Here are the two money quotes. First, referring to ideological lapel pins:
“Get out of here with your virtue-signaling body ornaments. They are just crucifixes for liberals, because every time I see one I think, ‘Jesus Christ!'”
and to the signalers:
“I know it’s very important to you that you feel you’re making a difference, so let me assure you that are. You’re making independents vote Republican.”
The longer (23-minute) overtime segment with guests Marjorie Taylor Greene and MS Now host and former congressman Joe Scarborough, is not as funny, but Maher gets into it with Scarborough about attitudes towards America, and also shows a bit of the attitude that gets Maher labeled as an anti-vaxer. He seems to be pretty ignorant of the science attesting to the safety and efficacy of vaccinations.
I always think back to the “Seinfeld” episode where Kramer does the AIDs walk or run, but doesn’t want to wear the ribbon and hilarity ensues.
I watched it last night and all I could think was,that it sounded so tone deaf coming from Bill Maher, a celebrity himself. All he really said was that he doesn’t openly like causes.
You missed the part where called himself out too?
When did he do that?
And he gives voice to people who are very different from him, and has discussions. In that way he’s very different from many other celebrities. He goes out of his way to have discussion with people like the two on this show.
I think there’s a difference that you seem unwilling to perceive.
Comedians are celebrities who give opinions, funny opinions hopefully, but opinions nonetheless. As for interviews or conversations with guests, that is where he differs, sometimes we’ll and sometimes poorly. He’s trying to position himself in the middle politically and sometimes he succeeds, but not always.
He’s not positioning himself “in the middle”. Rather he’s positioning himself “apart”, opposed to the authoritarianism that both parties have come to embrace. I think he’s great (though yes, when it comes to his views on medicine and public health, it’s embarrassing).
I contemplate how much Maher had to discipline himself to refrain from commenting on his show on Wanda Sykes’s sweet burblings about him at the Golden Globe awards. Perhaps he will consider congenially inviting Wanda Sykes on his show, giving her the “opportunity” to congenially accept or decline.
Hollywood was better when their stars had a bit of detachment from the public, which created a mystique. Too much exposure of these entertainers and their “views” has unfortunately revealed many of them to be obnoxious, insufferable dim bulbs.
For instance, Mark Ruffalo, when attempting to speak on contemporary issues, looks and sounds more like Lawrence Orbach from that SCTV skit “Half Wits” than he does a serious and intelligent person.
well at least none of the golden globe beautiful people wore kente scarves and knelt on the floor for 60 seconds. I mean nobody would be that cringey would they?
You missed last week’s new rule on the media bubble which, if anything, was even better and more important, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h2KNyqWXhU
“Labeled as an anti-vaxxer”? He is a full on unapologetic anti vaccine evangelist. Has said don’t get a flu shot because it’s not “effective” enough. Spent the entire Covid pandemic “both siding” the science. Just because you (and I) fully support his views on bad behavior of both the left and right and applaud his support of Israel, doesn’t mean his own brand of “doing his own research” doesn’t lead him to support some factually wrong and pretty harmful scientific views.
In the long segment, Maher didn’t take a side, inviting both guests to make their points. This is entertainment, not science. There is no plausible reason to think that multiple vaccines could produce late-life “damage”, any more than all those natural infections should. There is no way to exclude this possibility and I’m not sure it is even worth trying. You can’t just look at “damage” without looking at the morbidity (and a few deaths) prevented by vaccination, harm which children would suffer were they not vaccinated. Those who think that the current schedule is “outrageous” and somehow dangerous will not be dissuaded by any amount of evidence, any more than flat-earthers and “sovereign citizens” are. So let their children get these infections. Who cares? They aren’t our kids.
With influenza, Canada’s nursing unions are anti-vaxxers, too. They are steadfast in their opposition to hospital management’s attempts to require nurses to get vaccinated every fall to reduce absenteeism at a crunch time and to protect their frail elderly patients. (Medical licensing regulators generally expect doctors to take whatever steps public health authorities recommend to preserve their availability and protect patients. Unions are different.) Hospitals vary in how vigorously they fight vax grievances against them. Some think it is worth trying, even though they usually lose at labour arbitration and human rights tribunals. Others take the advice of their medical epidemiologists that it’s not a hill worth dying on.
The weakness for management’s case is that vaccination is not that effective even to the nurse vaccinated, just as you quote Maher, and is not clearly beneficial in reducing contagion among elderly patients even if vaccinated. Granted, this is an outcome that is difficult to test, especially since influenza vaccine efficacy varies so widely, from 10% to 70%, from year to year. You can’t do historical controls comparing a mandated year to a previous voluntary year. Vaccination uptake at the last hospital I worked at rarely exceeded 60%. Helpful, but not going to give herd immunity with a modestly effective vaccine against an infection with a large R-naught.
I’d be more worried if any professional clown was skeptical about polio, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and meningitis vaccines for children. MMR and Covid, well, we’ve been over that enough, I think.
The accurate term for the stuff Maher is scrutinizing, is – IMHO :
Political prostitution
That sounds rude, but hopefully that is clear … hopefully this term, with discernment, separates chaff from wheat in the nebulous blend of stuff everyone is saturated with on a regular basis. I think this is how it works so well – concealing itself with the thought-terminating cliché “everything is political”.
IOW – Maher certainly has directly political projects, but has some sort of guiding principle to separate his projects from base prostitution.
I would have liked the camera to pan over to Taylor Greene when he compared ribbons to crosses.
In the program, I caught Taylor Greene criticizing Don Lemmon for harassing worshippers in the church. I thought that was a bit rich when she harassed a Parkland student on the way to school for being a paid actor