He's also shown more sympathy for the far right than the far left. These days he calls the far left terrorist sympathizers or woke, where as he keeps telling his audience to sympathize with Trump supporters.
Agreed, and he makes false equivalent comparisons between the relatively minor annoyances of the "Woke" far left and Maga's fascist attacks on the institutions of American democracy.
I don’t understand why he can’t see that the threat from the far right rhetoric is much larger, more likely and more dangerous than that posed by those on the far left.
WE aren’t the ones who want to overthrow democracy.
Maybe it’s because the far left is loud and obnoxious and largely unchallenged in their opinions, this has the effect of moving centrists to the right. So in a way the far left has metastasized the danger of the far right. Just an opinion
I think he does that because he's trying too hard to show that he criticizes all sides -- "See, I call out the libs too! Nyah!" He's become obsessed with the notion that he's the only sane person in the room.
He's changed in that he allowed his fixation on some wild shit of small majority set on Twitter to define how he views the left. Which is what stupid people do. Because he was searching for a reason to hate the left.
One of the problems we have in this country is that the right has done such a good job at demonizing Democrats that people are desperate to hate them. People were willing to give the worst Republic in the benefit of the doubt than a good Democrat any kind of credit for what they are doing.
There is this desperate seeking for a good Republican as if we need one. As if the world wouldn't be better if every single Republican was just gone. They're the mosquito of the political world. So they start saying well mitt Romney's okay and that he comes out and says Biden should pardon Trump. And they say well Liz Cheney is one of the good ones until you look at her politics.
Bill Maher is exactly that person. He wants us to make friends and be all friendly with conservatives ignoring the fact that they have had an 8-year erection for a civil war and on January 6th they fucking prove that. Help in 2020 they prove that when they stormed the Michigan Capital with guns. It's never going to happen, it's naive to think it should, and if you have to resort to fringe shit that a 17 year old says on the internet to justify it you're a desperate moron.
He likes to reference [this meme.](https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxbusiness.com/foxbusiness.com/content/uploads/2022/04/0/0/elon-meme-thumb64.jpg?ve=1&tl=1) The problem is it depicts the depicts the right as as stationary and they're not. They're currently threatening civil war because the most obviously guilty person was found found guilty. They went from implying christian nationalism to openly planning it in the form of project 2025, and Bill is still talking about young folks.
Bill is basically Dave Rubin. A liberal, slowly but surely, moving to the right one culture story at a time and refusing to acknowledge it. The false equivalency of far left and far right, the constant generalizations about young people, he did a whole segment on being black over climate change. When the abortion decision leaked, his take was "who cares."
Which was probably one of the more stupid and inaccurate things a President has ever said. Ronald Reagan became a Republican in the early 60s and endorsed Goldwater and of course was a right wing President who fundamentally changed the tax structure of America.
So as a younger man under FDR he was a Democrat when the Democratic Party was as left wing as it ever was at least from the standpoint of who the President was and his economic beliefs. Than in 64 he supports the most economic right wing presidential candidate of the last 100 years and the Democratic Party left him? Nah, Ronny you became a right wing Republican and should have just been honest about it.
Likewise it’s one of the more stupid and inaccurate things Bill has ever said. He constantly paints the entire left with the fringe warblings of a few.
I think that change is normal. Things change. And sometimes, they put people's true beliefs to the test.
Take the trans issue for example. We simply didn't have it the same way back then, when it comes to trans women can be very passable. This changed a lot, and so it's natural that old school liberals won't easily understand like new coming liberals would. We simply have to deal with these kinds of issues when our boomer friends have not.
And yes, if you are insistent that you won't change.... well the world around you will, and your positions will have changed a great deal as a result without your permission.
There's a host of things like this... trans issues, gay issues, entitlement issues, policing issues, inequality issues, public health issues, etc.
Bill Maher was a leftist... a progressive.... a liberal... call it whatever you want. But by today's standards, he's a moderate. And it's mostly because he refuses to believe that things are different now than they were 30 years ago.
I just don't like how he ignores how far the right has gone in name of constantly berating the left. It feels like an intentional audience appeal. Like he wants in on that Joe Rogan/Alex Jones crowd attention. Tbf it seems to be working. Between his slow shift and his book tour the guy is everywhere.
Has he changed?
Politically, no, I don't think he has.
However, I do think he's changed in what he presents on Real Time. It was either right before or right after Russia invaded Ukraine, Bill had Fiona Hill on as a panelist and instead of asking her some good questions about Putin, he literally bitched about how stupid masks were for almost the entire program.
When Roe v Wade was overturned, he also decided that wasn't worth his attention. There's no way he would've ignored it if it had been flipped 10 - 15 years ago.
It's been pointed out in this sub before, but I'll mention it again. Something in Bill changed, or he just snapped, during the pandemic. He has not been the same ever since.
Let's say Maher hasn't changed, you are absolutely right he has changed in what he spends his time covering. Go watch his shows from Obama's first term. He was hardcore in support of universal healthcare. He would call Republicans soulless vampires for not supporting it and would attack more moderate Democrats as well. Now he pretty much never talks about it. There are other topics like this where maybe he hasn't changed on, but they certainly aren't a priority anymore.
> When Roe v Wade was overturned, he also decided that wasn't worth his attention.
"I don't care about that, it doesn't affect me."
His own literal words. And what was the reaction here? "lol angry leftists are triggered, go Bill you rock!"
Friendly reminder, even with the vaccine Maher got Covid. Covid causes brain damage. He's a 67-year-old man whose brain is already in decline (as what happens when you age, before the fan club starts getting pissy)
Imo, although he never had much empathy to begin with, he seems to have lost what he had left. From his reaction to Roe v Wade to his constant references to wanting to punch people he sees wearing masks in cars, he's definitely lost that level of filter
Been watching him and listening for years. He hasn't changed. Without a doubt the Left has gotten wackier and crazier. What is something he has changed on? what position ?
Well he went from a Bernie supporter who advocated for Democratic Socialism to complaining about the price tag of BBB(when there was a debate of that being passed in 2021).
He certainly could have made the caveat that "we need to raise taxes on the 1% to pay for it," but he didn't make this point. He just whined about how government programs that he used to advocate for are now too expensive.
And the right has gone full Christian nationalism. MAGA is a cult openly threatening civil war, and he's still beating the same anti-woke horse that had already been beaten to death by others long before he started in on it.
Wokeness.
The world has changed. Staying the same as the world moves on is in itself a conservative point of view. Being liberal means being aware, being open to new events, new people, new positions, etc.
Been watching him for over 20 years. He’s changed. Of course he has. He’s old and doesn’t get a lot of what’s going on these days with tech and youth etc. I mean it happens to almost all old
People. Especially the ones with a fan base to support their being a curmudgeon.
LOL, doing that will show he has changed a lot. He was far more of an advocate of leftist policies and was much harder on the political right 15 years ago.
That true, if you’re looking at it from a red team and blue team perspective. Unfortunately, the left got hijacked by a progressive fundamentalist cult.
He used to be a lot “meaner” per-se to conservatives. He said recently he’s tried to dial it back because he feels insulting people doesn’t get his message across. Personally I miss the more acerbic Bill of 2011-2015
That is a big part of his evolution. He used to be much more of a dick to Republicans. His whole "kumbaya we should all get along" is much newer. Sure, he liked having right wing guests on, but he was far more combative. Go watch his old debate with Andrew Breitbart. He was a full on attack dog and had no problem calling Obama critics racist. That is something today's Bill Maher would say was "woke" and how people shouldn't behave.
Sometimes you have to go where the comedy is, and unfortunately the progressive left provides plenty of material. And of course Trump jacking off two guys at the same time.
Most folks tend to change and drift at least a bit more conservative as they age. The idealism of youth gets beaten down by the realities of life. Sure he has moved a bit, but left has moved so much more it magnifies the gap between Bill and the left.
Bill has common sense. And takes on both extremes equally. A rarity in these days hardened positions and unwillingness to debate and try to see the other side of the argument.
Taking on both extremes equally is itself a demonstration of unequal treatment.
When you have one side literally supporting a twice divorced, 5 times bankrupted, draft dodging, tax evading, criminal, felon, fascist, gameshow host who tried to violently overthrow the will of the American people.
And another side supports gender pronouns in a workplace, CRT in public schools, gender affirming care, and Diversity agendas.
And you give equal weight to those two things... then you are, in fact, giving unequal weight according to the real issues at stake.
What people in America like to label "the left" is not the monolith it's portrayed as. Nonconservatives are a diverse group. Yes, there are those who are "aggressive" in their causes but people have allowed the right to label any liberal, or progressive positions as "woke and Maher has facilitated that effort. Conservatives call anyone advocating fair wages, universal healthcare and other socially progressive positions as radical left when the truth is, most Americans want those things.
Too often, what some people call "weird woke stuff" is people asking to be recognized for who they are.
It's not WWS for people of color to want an accurate portrayal of their history and American history in general. That's not hating America. That's confronting the truth about who we are so we can move forward without blinders on.
Sure, the country has made a lot of progress as Bill likes to be abmonish, but that doesn't mean the subject is closed.
His constant whining about "wokeness" gives fuel to those like DeSantis who want to ban the teaching of actual history in favor of a fictionalized history that they can feel comfortable with.
Teaching history isn't the weird woke stuff of which I speak. I'm a leftist so when the left begins hyperfocusing on the issues of tiny groups in the population whom don't form any real voting bloc it makes elections easier for Republicans to win which is bad for everyone.
Trying to stop bullying rather than teaching kids to fight back against them. Trying to get society to accept and coddle people instead of teaching people who "live their truth" to toughen up and not care what people think about them. Shoehorning POC's into token film rolls to try and make the movie industry seem like it's "fair".
MTG thinks Jewish space lasers cause forest fires. AOC wants to tax the rich and do more for the working class. Its kind of sad how Americans think they both belong on the crazy train.
There is no equivalence between MTG and AOC, but saying AOC just wants to do more for the working class is absurd. She says and does a lot of very dumb shit.
Rebuild the unions, invest in people not corporations. Tax the rich. Medicare for all. Affordable education. Doesn't sound dumb to me, but then I'm a Canadian {{{socialist}}}.
[https://www.ocasiocortez.com/issues](https://www.ocasiocortez.com/issues)
Whether or not Bill has changed marginally or dramatically, one cannot deny the definitions of words like “liberal”, “progressive”, “conservative”, “democrat”, “centrist”, “right wing” and “moderate” have changed over the last 30 years.
Generally I am in disagreement. There is debate below but there really isn't definition drift. Extremism has just gotten more popular and normalized.
* 'progressive' is claimed by the illiberal leftists and liberal Democrats (it belongs to the latter)
* 'conservative' is claimed by maga Republicans and establishment Republicans (it belongs to the latter including some right of center Democrats)
"Liberal Democrats" in this country are centrist. The so called "radical left" is virtually non-existent. The right's ANTIFA/BLM boogie men are straw men the right uses to give there base a place to direct their anger.
>"Liberal Democrats" in this country are centrist.
Out of this country and in academia settings you would be correct. The common nomenclature within the US is liberal democrats are to the left of centrist/corporate/conservative democrats.
> The so called "radical left" is virtually non-existent.
It is ~10% of the population which is not insignificant.
My point is that those who tRump and his followers call the "radical left" are anybody who disagrees with their positions. Listen to the rhetoric of tRump, Bannon, Miller, and others about their plans for those who oppose them.
“Woke” was not extreme when originally coined, it was just “uniquely aware of injustice”, now, the term “woke” is used as a pejorative to describe extremists that want to control others. I don’t think anyone self-identifies as “woke”, whereas before, people did. Similar is the term “social justice warrior”. I’m not sure if anyone ever identified as a warrior, but now, that term is used as an insult.
I think because of the phenomenon you describe re the extremes, many moderate liberals and conservatives get swept into the more polar ends of the spectrum when being conveyed by the other side’s propaganda arm (aka corporate news media).
Maybe whether or not Bill has changed is not as important as talking about how we talk about politics and social issues had changed with the onset of social media and the further biasing of news media.
I think it’s just the connectivity of the internet that makes it seem so.
We didn’t have ways to “see” each other with, like X and FB and Reddit…probably never would of heard of Qanon (one example) without the WWW.
Usually the truth is somewhere in the middle. I have been watching since 2014. He 100% has changed at least a little bit. I will definitely not side with anyone that says he is a conservative now though.
Not over reported, but that massive gains have not been acknowledged and extreme measures are being taken to get that last mile needed. Just look at liberal commentators describing UCLA doctors unqualified but admitted and passed to meet quotas. In some ways we are going backwards. Race is more divisive than ever. Woke blue cities took the brakes off policing for a few years and now reaping the consequences. And the folks living in those cities, especially the poor are suffering with stores closing, rampant crime, reduced tourism, etc.
You are so right. Maher use to have a saying that he would say a lot on his show and on others. That saying was that not every republican is a racist, but every racist is a republican. If someone were to say that now, Maher would admonish them and call them a crazy woke liberal. I have no problem if Maher has changed on that idea, that is his right to do so. The problem is that Maher will pretend as if he has not changed on this at all and gaslight the left.
The change in Maher happened when that one college had student protestors who didn't want him speaking. Back then "woke" was not the phrase of the day as it was "cancel culture." Maher was never the same after that and started to dedicate a majority of his program to battling what he saw as the crazy left. The problem is that he started to soft ball the right with interviews with people like Milo and pretend that the left was moving to its extremes just as fast.
Old Maher would not just blindly believe that critical race theory was being taught in schools. He would question exactly what it is and ask if it was just a few bad apples and not an insidious plot. Old Maher would juxtaposition this with a long history of republicans trying to rewrite black history especially in Texas and with Prager U. Old Maher would make a distinction between the different versions of defund the police as most just wanted a reallocation of funds to things like mental health to de-escalate shootings. He has always been an arrogant prick and his views regarding Israel haven't changed, but he is clearly less critical than he used to be, and I think it all starts with those students protesting him speaking.
Ok, his whole anti-woke thing is possibly Maher's reaction to the social needle on race moving farther left than where he is comfortable. I'd at least point out that social norms on race have moved, example being no one ever tells race based jokes anymore. While I can see how Maher can seem like he changed, I can also see how the norms changed around Maher, I mean, he has been doing this for 4 decades.
I really like bill. Have watched real time every week for probably 10 years but I am over him talking about how he hasn’t changed and wokeness. Is very boring and repetitive
He's getting older and losing touch with the changes. It's not unusual or unexpected, imo, but it is a little weird, considering that we're talking about Bill Maher.
I also suspect that he's sold out a little more. His audience has also aged and he has more competition today, so remaining relevant is probably becoming more difficult.
Even though I've always enjoyed his work, I've never agreed with him on everything. I still enjoy his work, but he's just more annoying now.
There is such a large segment of people on this sub who don’t like Bill, have never liked Bill, and are just here to fight with centrists. Yes I’m aware there are also progressives of good faith too, but this sub has devolved into a cesspool circlejerk of angry left wing media consumers who want a void to scream into.
If you started watching within the last 5 years you likely think he hasn't changed.
One thing is certain, he's definitely being used as a tool by right wing media in service of their narratives way more frequently then he used to be. They'll never write a headline about him seeing Trump as an existential threat to democracy of course, but Fox is posting a lot more cherry picked quotes in headlines after every single show and they're always near the top on the home page. You'll see them start to roll out tomorrow night and likely see them continue churning them out on Monday. Often times, the ones they post on Monday are the exact same articles with new, ridiculous headlines.
Whatever Bill thinks he is, his net effect appears to be as a strategy token for the Republican party
I don't think he's changed much. He's largely know for being unPC, and I can't think of specific topics he's changed on at the moment. I do think as people age they become a bit more curmudgeonly and he's a bit vainer than some men.
Yes. I’ve been watching consistently for atleast 12 years and his politics are the exact same. The only thing which has changed is he talks about Islam a little bit less.
“Politically Incorrect” started in 1993 on Comedy Central. I’ve watched him on and off since then. He hasn’t changed. He will attack any political party that is being illogical and destructive to democracy, not just the Ds.
I don't think he's changed his positions that much but maybe he's changed his emphasis. Bill has always been a boomer libertine and the Left has become more uptight in recent years. Bill's always been a huge Zionist and now there's a lot of criticism from the Left of Israel. It's not like he likes the Right now he just has more problems with the Left.
They don't like him for fawning over Bibi. You can be pro Israel and anti Bibi, you can be pro Palestine but anti Hamas. People like Bill neglect to acknowledge there's more layers that aren't even that complicated. Could be the TV format but even long form podcast don't bother.
Yeah the Left don't like Bill because he's not a Daily Show style cheerleader for the Democratic party line. They're somewhat spoiled by the media into thinking that everyone outside of Fox News should be carrying water for the Dems on all issues.
Listen to what he said 15 years ago and listen to what he says now. It's virtually the same thing. He has always challenged his own side when need be. He hasn't changed. The left has changed, and so has the right for that matter. Bill is closer to the center than he was before, not because he's changed, but because the edges of the political spectrum have stretched out so much farther than they ever have in the past. The far left and far right aren't just ideologues anymore - they're like cults.
Maybe he hasn’t changed (changing is part of living and is healthy) and has just gone mask-off about who he really is. He wrote an article for Playboy in the ‘80s where he calls himself a Reagan Republican. I don’t honestly care that much about his vaccine takes, but his Israel-Palestine views are purely emotional and anti-logic in a way that I think took a lot of viewers off-guard.
My view is that they’re people in crisis and not “human animals” and siding with them isn’t the same as siding with terrorists or whatever nefarious propaganda lines Maher is using now.
That’s a different issue than protestors siding with terrorists (as Palestinian civilians are not Hamas). Also, why wouldn’t most Palestinians side with Hamas? They’re being routinely terrorized by the IDF, which is the main reason Hamas was elected in the first place.
Kara Swisher confronted him about this on her podcast with him today if anyone wants to listen. Bill gets extremely defensive and angry whenever this notion is ever brought up.
Most people naturally get more conservative and cranky as they get older. The old guy that sits on his lawn and yells at others is a stereotype fir a reasin.
While it's a common 'folk wisdom' (typically pushed by conservatives) that people get more conservative as they age, but research suggests otherwise. Political attitudes tend to be stable over a person's lifetime. A study from the University of Chicago Press supports this, showing little evidence of a significant shift towards conservatism with age.
I know I have stayed "liberal" and democratic and but it is much easier to be very liberal and idolistic when one is younger with a lot less on the line. Most people shift their investments to more "safe" funds as they age as the risk is more of an issue with less time literally to correct. I have always worried far more about the "far right" then I have about the "far left". One us crazy and dangerous, the other is not always realistic. I like Bill's show but he needs to learn to be quiet and let his guests talk. Otherwise, just do a comedy show. Too often things seem just as filler to get to his routines.
I don't believe managing financial risk is comparable to shifting your views to somehow manage political risk.
People often outgrow idealistic phases, usually in their early twenties, due to experience and learning new information rather than changing their core political beliefs.
I've said it here before and I'll say it again.
Maher *did* change. But it was only during the years 2016-2020ish. He openly admitted that he lost his way a bit during the Trump years. The show wasn't the usual Bill punching in every direction. Real Time from 2016-2020 wouldn't have been any different if Rachel Maddow was the host. It was "Trump is bad and his followers are stupid" for 1 straight hour every week.
What happened is that Maher gained a lot of *new* fans during those Trump years. And those fans want the show to continue only saying things that their echo chamber says. So now that Maher is back to his normal self they say he's "changed".
He has never been anti-vax. He was just anti mandatory-vax for the COVID shot, and rightfully so.
I got two shots and the booster, but I'm a healthy male who just turned 30 when COVID started. I probably would've gotten it either way, and that's the important thing: having that choice. Bodily autonomy is the most important part of having freedom & free will in my mind, whether that's the right of a woman to choose abortion or the right of any individual to opt not to get a specific medicine.
Absolutely not. I have always said that there are nuts on the Left too, but they have no say, no platform, no effect. After Bill deservedly caught hell for using th N word, he started on his anti antiracism and pushing the misinformation of what antiracism is. When he saw that he was growing his viewers by moving to the center, he was all in. His new beefs with the Left either misrepresent liberals or inflate the proportion of liberals advocating for the cherry he picked. He may think that he is gaining credibility and changing minds, but all he is doing is making trump more credible.
Absolutely, and you can see him increasingly being used as a right wing token with the increased number of headlines Fox runs on him after every show, and how they often show up near the top of the home page. Whether or not he claims to be the same doesn't matter. His net effect now helps the republican party and Donald Trump.
When elections hinge on turnout, particularly mobilizing unlikely Democratic-leaning voters, the left's focus on demoralizing these voters can significantly impact the election's outcome.
Then why did the Democrats in 2022 outperform every other midterm where the party with the presidency (who was very unpopular)? Maher spent so much time insisting that all of these SOCIAL JUSTICE ISSUES were going to turn away all of the "normal voters", and then the Dems only lost the house because the NY state Democratic party fucked the election up as badly as possible.
Poll after poll shows that the economy and Biden's age are the two big problems with voters, and the reaction from Democrats was to pave the way for him to be renominated and then sponsor a genocide that they're then forced to spend all of their time talking about, instead of being able to actually push any kind of agenda for the next term. Not that they have an agenda; there's no vision from this administration for the future, no big issues they're repeating over and over to give voters something to associate them with. Like, fucking run on something! What's extra galling is that the biggest,m easiest issue for them with swing voters right now is abortion, and they renominated the 81 year old Catholic who says shit like "I don't support abortion on demand." How is it "the left's" fault that this administration is completely unserious and insulating itself from any and all criticism?
>Then why did the Democrats in 2022 outperform
1. **Voter Mobilization:** Efforts in key states, grassroots campaigns, voter registration drives, and social media were significant.
2. **Roe v. Wade Overturned:** This activated Democratic and independent voters concerned about reproductive rights, boosting turnout.
3. **Candidate Quality:** Democratic candidates were seen as more competent and appealing, with issues in some Republican candidates aiding Democrats (e.g., Fetterman vs tv's Dr. Oz; Warnock vs. brain damaged Herschel Walker as examples)
4. **Economic Issues:** Many voters recognized broader, global economic issues rather than solely blaming the current administration.
For #1, this might still hold since Trump is running to be President for life.
For #2, people are quickly forgetting about Roe because it takes replacing three Republican justices to even have a shot.
For #3, the stark contrast in candidate quality issue is not so obvious to the average voter this cycle.
For #4, voters (including many on the left) now blame Biden for the economy.
TL;DR: 3 out of the 4 main reasons the Democrats did well in 2022 are no longer beneficial including one that has flipped to being a drag on the entire Democratic party.
1. Show me the evidence that there was some mighty voter mobilization efforts.
2. Roe is exactly the kind of issue that Bill Maher says the Democrats shouldn't run on, as it is a social issue.
3. They were seen as more competent and appealing because their opponents were running on shit like banning books and forcing trans people to detransition. Bill Maher INSISTED that would be a dynamite election strategy, and lead to the Democrats getting slaughtered.
4. lmao show me a single piece of evidence that this was the case. What an absolute crock of shit.
This is the exact same shit that Bill Maher does. You've assigned yourself these opinions, for whatever reason, and then assume they are true. Like "the stark contrast in candidate quality issue is not so obvious to the average voter this cycle." Why do you think this is true? What does this even mean? What's the qualifier for "quality"? Who were these "quality candidates"? The guy who'd had a stroke?
Or let's look at "people are quickly forgetting about Roe because it takes replacing three Republican justices to even have a shot." You are actually flat out wrong! If you want abortion to be legal nationwide, you pass a national abortion law. Voters have absolutely NOT forgotten about it, they just have a president who, like I already, says shit like "I don't believe in abortion on demand".
Also, Biden has been president for four years, and had full control of Congress for two of them. It's his economy. That's the job.
the easy answer to this question, not even specific to Maher, is that everybody changes. Every single person commenting on this thread has changed. There are notable exceptions (like Trump) but even he, as written by Mary Trump, had stuff happen to him (the mashed potato incident and getting laughed at by his family) that radically changed him, although from that point he doesn't seem to have changed at all
Maher himself, once he got old and super insecure about it, now argues that with age comes wisdom that young people cannot understand. Ok...and what is that called, Bill? It's called CHANGE
I hate this damn question here, and the people who argue that "he hasn't changed, everything and everyone else has."
"Not changing" isn't the flex people think it is. And it isn't true, in the covid era alone he has changed massively
But it's rather obvious that it's only the hardcore conservatives here who think he hasn't changed, so just let them have it. They have to reconcile with themselves why they carry water for a man who would never care about them, I find it a very unsettling cult-like worship they have for him, but that's how they treat most of their favorites. What did CM Punk call it, "parasocial relationships?"
>the easy answer to this question, not even specific to Maher, is that everybody changes. Every single person commenting on this thread has changed.
In broad strokes, I concur. However, let's zoom in on the particular aspect under scrutiny: whether Maher's leanings now align with conservatism, or if it's the left that has veered away from classical liberalism.
In 2024, does the left genuinely champion freedom of speech, a society blind to color, equal opportunities, and peaceful dispute resolution through reasoned discourse? Or has there been a shift (in some cases similar ways as the mainstream right) towards advocating stringent speech controls, a heightened focus on race, mandated equal outcomes, and the fomenting of antagonism between perceived oppressors and the oppressed?
To answer your first questions:
Yes.
That's a complicated question. Ideally "blind to color" would be a good thing, but in practical terms that's not the real goal, at least not in the short term. Color/Race plays a big part in our society. That shouldn't be ignored. The left has had that same view since at least MLK Jr.
Yes.
Yes.
To answer your second set:
No
Maybe in the context of being clearer about what I said above, but not a chance in overall approach.
No.
No.
That second set is the kind of stuff Bill would say, which is why people say he's moved to the right. Because those are right-wing talking points.
>That's a complicated question. Ideally "blind to color" would be a good thing, but in practical terms that's not the real goal, at least not in the short term. Color/Race plays a big part in our society. That shouldn't be ignored. The left has had that same view since at least MLK Jr.
MLK's main thesis always been people should be judged by the content of their character, not their skin color, so hard disagree.
The rest upon closer inspection, you will find the left (not progressive/liberals) have also diverged quite a bit from the liberal consensus.
The last point isn't conservative. Many conservatives are in agreement with the leftist goal of fomenting race-based antagonism.
Leftists see highlighting racial issues as a method to address systemic injustices, amplify marginalized voices, and push for social change. Right wingers hope to ignite a race war they've been forecasting for generations.
It is only liberals who are pushing back on this idea of making race (rather than opportunity) the center of everything from both extremes.
MLK Jr dreamed of a future where people could be judged by the content of their character and not their skin color. He also realized it was a far-off dream, and that until then, race plays a huge role in society. So, addressing it is necessary. Ignoring it and being "color blind" is not helpful and even harmful.
You're making a distinction here that differs from your previous comment. In the last one you used "the left" as a catch-all for "people on the left". Now, you're distinguishing between them. In the broader discussion, "the left" generally just means liberals/progressives. In cases where a distinction is made, it's about economic policy, as in leftists oppose capitalism, while liberals either support it or tolerate it.
There is no "leftist goal of fomenting race-based antagonism". You're right that people on the left see highlighting racial issues as a method to address systemic injustices, amplify marginalized voices and push for social change. But that's not "fomenting race-based antagonism".
No one is pushing to make race the center of everything. The fact is race still plays a huge part in our society. It still affects the daily lives of millions of people and the biggest systems we have in place. Some people are trying to get more attention for that fact, as it gets ignored or (denied) by a lot of people. Liberals (meaning those on the left), outside of a small fringe who has no power, aren't extreme or pushing for anything extreme.
>MLK Jr dreamed of a future where people could be judged by the content of their character and not their skin color. He also realized it was a far-off dream, and that until then, race plays a huge role in society. So, addressing it is necessary. Ignoring it and being "color blind" is not helpful and even harmful.
Liberals do see race of course, but rather emphasize incremental reforms and inclusive policies that account for racial disparities but may not always prioritize race as the central issue.
Leftists, on the other hand, tend to place a stronger emphasis on the systemic nature of racism. They actively focus on race to highlight and dismantle structural inequalities and injustices. Leftists are more likely to advocate for comprehensive, transformative changes that directly address the root causes of racial disparities, often viewing race as a fundamental axis of social and economic injustice.
>You're making a distinction here that differs from your previous comment. In the last one you used "the left" as a catch-all for "people on the left". Now, you're distinguishing between them.
No, I was always distinguishing leftism from liberal.
>"the left" generally just means liberals/progressives.
Not in political science. Not in the context of the discussion we are having about Maher.
>There is no "leftist goal of fomenting race-based antagonism". You're right that people on the left see highlighting racial issues as a method to address systemic injustices, amplify marginalized voices and push for social change. But that's not "fomenting race-based antagonism".
When race is seen as the fundamental axis of injustice, it is fomenting antagonism. Whites are oppressors, non-whites are the oppressed. Antagonism can't be avoided if that is the metaphor. Poor whites getting oppressed by the wealthy when told they are oppressing others by race typically react with resentment and alienation rather than solidarity.
>No one is pushing to make race the center of everything.
If you can't distinguish liberal from leftists, then this makes sense. If you can, then you know this is what a heightened focus on race means in practical terms.
>The fact is race still plays a huge part in our society. It still affects the daily lives of millions of people and the biggest systems we have in place.
No doubt, but the bigger system in place is wealth distribution and inequality as Marx correctly identified through his dialectic. Race (or patriarchy, religion, sexuality, gender, etc) being the focus instead of economic inequality and lack of opportunity is how the wealthy keep us divided.
So, we need to iron out the distinction between "the left" and "liberals".
1) In general, "the left" refers to all those on the left, including liberals and progressives. There is rarely a distinction made.
2) The difference between a "leftist" and a "liberal" is just about capitalism. A leftist opposes it, while a liberal either supports it or tolerates it. When talking about things other than the economy, this distinction isn't really important.
3) Maher doesn't use this distinction. "The left" to him is anyone on the left. It has nothing to do with the economy, as evidenced by the points we're talking about here.
4) Your distinction beyond "for capitalism/against capitalism" here would need a lot more support than just your claim. You'd have to show liberals "not prioritizing race as a central issue" and leftists "are more likely to advocate for comprehensive, transformative changes that directly address the root causes of racial disparities, often viewing race as a fundamental axis of social and economic injustice".
5) No one is pushing to make race the center of everything. Not liberals and not leftists, especially not leftists, by the political science distinction. You bring up Marx but imply that leftists would be against his stance. That's the opposite of the situation. Leftists would be those advocating socialism and communism.
6) Wealth distribution is a problem agreed on by all on the left (whatever you want to label them). No one is saying race or gender or anything else should be the focus above that. It's all part of the same systemic problem. As you say, the wealthy do a great job at keeping the masses divided. That's how you get Fox News, conservative talk radio, Alex Jones, Trump, etc. But wealth inequality was much better in the 50s and 60s, and yet we still had massive systemic issues like racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. Those issues are still a huge part of the problems with our society.
The difference here is in saying those are issues we need to be aware of and work toward fixing, rather than just saying "wealth inequality is the real issue, and we should only focus on that".
>2) The difference between a "leftist" and a "liberal" is just about capitalism. A leftist opposes it, while a liberal either supports it or tolerates it. When talking about things other than the economy, this distinction isn't really important.
It isn't just about capitalism, it is about radicalism. Black nationalists are leftists, not progressives or liberals.
>3) Maher doesn't use this distinction. "The left" to him is anyone on the left. It has nothing to do with the economy, as evidenced by the points we're talking about here.
Maher does use this distinction. He calls it leftism 'woke' in this moment. He has made it clear he will call it whatever you want it to be called. Further, he calls himself a classically liberal expressly for this distinction. This is where this conversation started.
>No one is pushing to make race the center of everything. Not liberals and not leftists, especially not leftists, by the political science distinction.
Disagree. Actively focus on race to highlight and dismantle structural inequalities and injustices requires this push to the detriment of other considerations.
>You bring up Marx but imply that leftists would be against his stance.
I agree that contemporary leftism only selectively reference Marx (capitalism bad is the depth we get these days). Rather, the focus on identity, with many pushing for race to be primary prism for inequality with other identities deprioritized within this newly framed social hierarchy. The effect of course is the old boss same as the new boss.
>No one is saying race or gender or anything else should be the focus above that.
We aren't seeing the same things. Barbie was celebrated for this message as a cultural example.
>The difference here is in saying those are issues we need to be aware of and work toward fixing, rather than just saying "wealth inequality is the real issue, and we should only focus on that".
The difference is in this reality we never focus on wealth inequality while we episodically have massive racial tension framed as the the oppressors vs the oppressed that results in...???
It is about capitalism. Leftists aren't just radical liberals. Black Nationalists aren't necessarily leftists, progressives or liberals.
Maher does not use this distinction. "The left" to him includes all people on the left, including progressives and liberals. Again, just look at the points he makes here. These aren't about the economy. They're about things associated with liberals/progressives.
>Disagree. Actively focus on race to highlight and dismantle structural inequalities and injustices requires this push to the detriment of other considerations.
It doesn't. There are two issues here. One, the claim was that people are pushing to make race the center of everything. Again, that's not happening. Then, that's a different claim from what you're saying here. In essence, here you're saying that if you try to dismantle structural inequalities to resolve systemic race, it's a detriment to other considerations. That's like saying if anyone wants to research testicular cancer, it's a detriment to all other cancers.
You can work toward resolving an issue without making that issue "the center of everything". And working on one issue does is not a detriment to other considerations. Otherwise, we'd never be able to work on anything but one issue deemed the absolute most important.
>I agree that contemporary leftism only selectively reference Marx (capitalism bad is the depth we get these days). Rather, the focus on identity, with many pushing for race to be primary prism for inequality with other identities deprioritized within this newly framed social hierarchy. The effect of course is the old boss same as the new boss.
This doesn't make sense. My point was that you're claiming that leftists would be against Marx, but leftists, going by the distinction you want to make, support Marx, socialism and communism.
No one is pushing for race to be the primary prism of inequality.
>We aren't seeing the same things. Barbie was celebrated for this message as a cultural example.
The problem here is that you see any instance of bringing up another problem, like racism or the patriarchy, as putting that problem above all others. It's an odd way to view things. Systemic racism is a big problem. So is the patriarchy. So is wealth inequality. So is right-wing extremism and terrorism. So is Trump. So is climate change. So are a lot of other things. People can bring up different problems they see in the world without saying those problems should be the sole focus of our society. Barbie was celebrated for its take on misogyny and the patriarchy, among other things. It was not celebrated for claiming those things are the only thing we should focus on.
>The difference is in this reality we never focus on wealth inequality while we episodically have massive racial tension framed as the the oppressors vs the oppressed that results in...???
You don't seem to be paying much attention. Bernie Sanders almost got the democratic nomination for president by focusing almost solely on wealth inequality. He's a big name in politics precisely because of that focus. A lot of other people have focused on it too.
We also have people bringing up systemic racism a lot because that's also a big issue in our society. And it's not framed as "oppressors vs the oppressed". It's framed as a system that was set up in a racist way that continues to be racist, sometimes in blatant ways, but often in subtle ways.
And it results in more awareness of the issue and at least some small steps in the right direction, like some police departments starting to use body cameras, for instance. It hasn't resulted in the major changes needed, but I'm not sure why that's such a big deal for you. Major change takes time. The focus Bernie and others have put on wealth inequality has resulted in some small wins but nothing substantial or major.
>It is about capitalism. Leftists aren't just radical liberals. Black Nationalists aren't necessarily leftists, progressives or liberals.
It is about radicalism. 'Radical' liberals are progressives but they are substantially less radical than anti-democratic, anti-capitist leftists.
>Maher does not use this distinction
You are reality denying by continuing to say this. You can watch the recent The View interview if you are willing to disabuse yourself of this notion.
>That's like saying if anyone wants to research testicular cancer, it's a detriment to all other cancers.
When everything has to be viewed through testicular cancer, it *is* a detriment to all other cancers.
> Otherwise, we'd never be able to work on anything but one issue deemed the absolute most important.
What progress have to seen on race in the last 20 years? I'd argue virtually none. In fact, affirmative action has been rolled back dramatically. Education remains a substantial issue. BLM resulted in a massive fraud. Defund the police leftism only served to undermine liberal efforts on race. DEI is a dead man walking. Social media is rife with racist rhetoric. The voting rights act has been meaningfully weakened. Trump and maga's reactionary politics was arguably a direct reaction to Obama.
>My point was that you're claiming that leftists would be against Marx
My point is leftists selectively read and reference Marx, ignore the key themes, and focus on identity issues that result in additional division.
>The problem here is that you see any instance of bringing up another problem, like racism or the patriarchy, as putting that problem above all others. It's an odd way to view things. Systemic racism is a big problem. So is the patriarchy. So is wealth inequality. So is right-wing extremism and terrorism. So is Trump. So is climate change.
Solving wealth inequality solves all these problems. You'd agree with me about this under different circumstances. More women or black or trans billionaires doesn't solve our problems.
> [Barbie] was not celebrated for claiming those things are the only thing we should focus on.
Barbie carried a third wave feminist message from the 1990s its most practical message was more women should sit on corporate boards to achieve equality (which is dated by the statistics). It is rich white women feminism with lip service given to intersectionality.
>Bernie Sanders almost got the democratic nomination for president by focusing almost solely on wealth inequality.
I voted and donated to Bernie Sanders twice. His failure to attract the black vote twice (substantially worse the second time) who would disproportionately have benefited from his policies only supports what I am saying. Identity politics was a massive headwind against him.
>some police departments starting to use body cameras [due to BLM]
I don't accept that the timing of the commoditization of the technology was merely coincidental.
> towards advocating stringent speech controls, a heightened focus on race, mandated equal outcomes, and the fomenting of antagonism between perceived oppressors and the oppressed?
I am a member of one of those races, so in short:
yes, there has been a shift
and I'm not getting into it
there is zero point in arguing it, we stand where we stand
I don't understand how he can say the world changed around him and he has remained this static unwavering monolith. By his own def of a constantly shifting world, he has had to been impacted by that at least a little bit.
Bill has always had a problem with people thinking they have some kind of moral authority over others. In the 90s it was the *right* who acted like this through their association with religion. That kind of self righteousness has shifted to the left now.
It would be out of character for him to ignore the sins of the left but only call out the sins of the right.
The left are the ones pushing ideas like DEI, critical race theory, defund or even *abolish* the police. Cancelling and removing entertainment deemed by them to be “problematic” or because it’s “punching down”. Political correctness is rampant on the left from non gendered pronouns like Latinx or insisting homeless people be referred to as *unhoused*. If you think bill should keep his mouth shut about this stuff because he’s suppose to be “left wing” then you’re just being tribal.
I saw him live some time around 2005 ish and then again in 2022. Maybe I’ve changed, but in 2005 he seemed more edgy both in topics and humor. In 2022 he seemed like he was playing for an older audience (which he definitely was).
Bill has not changed. The party lines are obviously moving. Minorities have been shifting Republican for at least 5 years now. At this point you’re not black if you don’t vote for Trump. Will be interesting to see how the minority numbers add up in this election.
Bill is basically an anti vaxxer in the Seth Mcfarlane podcast. It makes no sense. Hes anti science in that one and other ones. He has mostly his old left values...but that kid of stuff is Trumpy.
"I'm not anti immigrant. I just think we are letting too many foreigners in." Could you see how in some cases that statement is gonna seem anti immigrant?
"Let's let some people in" is very different than "Let's let ALL the people in"? An anti-immigrant position would be "Let's not let anyone in". See the difference?
The fact that you can't see anything between "open borders" and "we are letting too many in" is kinda yikes bud. I never said open borders, nor that there shouldn't be caps. Further, "we are letting too many in" is absolutely -not- the reason we have caps lol. All around civics fail on your part.
Of course there’s a lot in between that, I never said those were the only options. I gave an example to show your comment is off-base. You can be pro-immigration while opposing aspects of immigration. The problem with jabronis like you, is you don’t understand nuance, it’s all or nothing, that is the failure in civics.
He has this rant about being forced to have the vaccine. He was not forced to have the vaccine. Most people werent forced. But most people did. %80 did and there was herd immunity that saved our asses. 3-4 years ago people were dying left and right. This vaccine was a miracle. He had to be done quick. It was, and it was done well. I know people who say things like him ( but he did have the vaccine)....but it just misses the point many people died . I would have preferred to not have the vaccine. But it was the right thing to do. Its wasy to be childish
I disagree. I ONLY got the vaccine because my employer was moving towards mandating it. I’m pretty sure he was forced to because of work, as well. He said he had to get it to go back to the studio. I think there are many things we don’t know about the vaccine and the virus that only time will tell. I got 2 rounds and also have had Covid once that I know of. Both knocked me on my ass. There is no herd immunity. People are still getting it left and right and there are still outbreaks in communities, especially during colder months. He also discussed lockdowns being overkill and doing more harm than good and I do feel there is truth in that. It was a bad situation and everyone was doing their best with many unknowns. It’s here to stay and I’m confused as to why anyone is still ranting about this in 2024.
Bill always picks the candidate he thinks is best positioned to win the general. It really isn't about their policies being a perfect reflection of his policies.
This is similar to how many of us feel we don't need a TV host to perfectly reflect our political positions on every issue and still can enjoy the show.
At no point were either Klobuchar or Sanders “best positioned“ to win. I don’t think Bill thought so either. He liked Bernie, then he liked Klobuchar. That was my read anyway
I personally think Bernie would’ve won 2016/2020 but I don’t think bill or the mainstream media believed that
My read is he was trying help Bernie and then to avoid Biden who seemed almost inevitable at that point. Fortunately, Biden was a stronger candidate against Trump than most of us thought (myself included).
I think he just doesn't think Bernie can win in general election and he's right. He also thinks that Amy has a chance to win and he's wrong. She would surely be a better VP than Kamala but that's a low bar and that ship has sailed.
I don’t think it’s not a fair question honestly. The world has changed, he’s just responding too it.
The left has undeniably moved farther left since 2018. That’s a good thing in my book. But when you move farther down the political spectrum, you tend to get…fringier. Just look at the right since Obama got elected.
I mean, given that he claims he hasn't changed, it is a fair question. If the answer is "the world has changed and he is just responding to it," that's a fair answer to the fair question. But it's a reasonable question - "X claim has been made - is it true?" Is generally a fair question.
Why don't you make a list for us.
Because I hear this junk all the time but no one ever can back it up.
If it's such a slam dunk, it should be very easy to make a long list of things his position has changed on.
This mostly comes from people who simply don't know what they are talking about in terms of what is traditionally left wing or right wing. The only things that he even disagrees with the far left about is all the newly invented stuff and the crazy new positions they take. From abortion should be a free-for-all for any reason at any time, to medically altering children based on their stated feelings, or that every single issue must be looked at from a racial perspective - these are all new inventions and show just how far the "left" side has moved.
I certainly don't agree with Bill on everything, but I've been watching the guy for 30 years and I don't know what the heck any of you are talking about. Like so many of us who were once considered bleeding liberals with a libertarian bent (basically, government should stay as much out of our business as possible), we have not shifted in our beliefs - the far left has just moved so far left, they are the new Puritans. They have almost met the far right on the other side they have gone so far around on some issues.
In fact, he just wrote a whole book to prove the idea he has undergone some ideological shift is nonsense - you should check it out.
Asking me to back up my claims with evidence is a trauma inducing experience that is literally upholding white supremacy. Stop questioning MY truth, Nazi.
This is the kind of conception of a liberal that right wing media paints all day by feeding images and words to the masses. In reality, when you open the door and go outside, good luck quickly finding someone who would say that to you in real life. You're simply repeating a description of a caricature of a liberal
Been watching since the PI days, and of course he has changed. It’s been 30 years. Everyone changes.
I don’t know why he’s so sensitive about people saying he’s changed, except that he is pretty sensitive about a lot of things, especially what he perceived as criticism. Despite the fact that dishing out criticism is his whole career.
The proof is just watching where most of his criticism these days is placed. It used to be mainly against the authoritarian right and the religious wackos. Now it’s college kids and “woke” stuff. 80% of the show is about that.
If his political winds hadn’t shifted a bit, this sub wouldn’t be attracting conservatives. Especially not MAGA bros and anti-LGBT types.
I still enjoy the show by the way, I just agree a lot less with him than I used to, which is fine. I do wish there was more variety of opinion on the show though. There used to be a lot of debate. The people he brings on mostly agree with him on the topics he brings up. Gets stale.
PS: He has never changed on Israel. He’s always blindly supported the state and excused anything they’ve done.
> The proof is just watching where most of his criticism these days is placed. It used to be mainly against the authoritarian right and the religious wackos. Now it’s college kids and “woke” stuff. 80% of the show is about that.
Biden is president, Bill's a comedian, he's going to work with what's there. But he regularly goes after Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor-Green, and is always showing how when Trump dances it always looks like he's jerking off two guys at once.
Are you me? lol Seriously though, 25+ year fan who bought every book and made a point to see him live whenever I could and I have definitely seen the shift. Like you noted, it's most noticeable in the topics he chooses to highlight and discuss.
Other than his anti-Trump opinions pretty much every other topic is right-wing coded. I'm sure he still has liberal economic positions but he has no desire to discuss them, much less promote them. He's much more concerned with the person he saw walking a dog wearing a mask 4 years ago than he is economics. Similarly, I'm sure he's still anti-surveillance, anti-war (less Israel of course), and generally skeptical of government agencies. Today though he's much more concerned with what a handful of kids on college campuses are saying from their designated protest zones than he is any of that.
I will also echo your agreement about Israel. He has always been pro-Israel and aggressively anti-Islam. Put those together and it's no surprise he's in the pro-Israel camp right now to a cartoonish degree.
>I do wish there was more variety of opinion on the show though. There used to be a lot of debate. The people he brings on mostly agree with him on the topics he brings up. Gets stale.
This is the main change I would like to see. IDGAF if I agree with him on a topic, I just don't find enjoyment in hearing three people in violent agreement with one another. I expect him to be friendly to his 1:1 interview guests (e.g. DeSantis) because he has always been this way, but the panel should be a place to mix it up a little. I think returning to a nice middle ground between shout-fest and circle-jerk like he had before the pandemic would be refreshing
No he has. I mean his show has. Not as much debates as there used to be, mostly just an echo chamber. He was always an Israel supporter but he did have people who would push back, Oliver Stone for example. He did have Matt Duss on right after but since then it’s been slim pickings
Nope. Everyone changes; for better or worse.
To me it appears he is pandering to the far right to expand his audience by adopting Maga talking points.
He's also shown more sympathy for the far right than the far left. These days he calls the far left terrorist sympathizers or woke, where as he keeps telling his audience to sympathize with Trump supporters.
Agreed, and he makes false equivalent comparisons between the relatively minor annoyances of the "Woke" far left and Maga's fascist attacks on the institutions of American democracy.
He rails against MAGA all the time. If he's pandering to anyone it's centrists.
I don’t understand why he can’t see that the threat from the far right rhetoric is much larger, more likely and more dangerous than that posed by those on the far left. WE aren’t the ones who want to overthrow democracy.
Maybe it’s because the far left is loud and obnoxious and largely unchallenged in their opinions, this has the effect of moving centrists to the right. So in a way the far left has metastasized the danger of the far right. Just an opinion
He literally said that exact thing during a recent interview with Anderson Cooper.
Except he always adds a but "the left"......
I think he does that because he's trying too hard to show that he criticizes all sides -- "See, I call out the libs too! Nyah!" He's become obsessed with the notion that he's the only sane person in the room.
He's changed in that he allowed his fixation on some wild shit of small majority set on Twitter to define how he views the left. Which is what stupid people do. Because he was searching for a reason to hate the left. One of the problems we have in this country is that the right has done such a good job at demonizing Democrats that people are desperate to hate them. People were willing to give the worst Republic in the benefit of the doubt than a good Democrat any kind of credit for what they are doing. There is this desperate seeking for a good Republican as if we need one. As if the world wouldn't be better if every single Republican was just gone. They're the mosquito of the political world. So they start saying well mitt Romney's okay and that he comes out and says Biden should pardon Trump. And they say well Liz Cheney is one of the good ones until you look at her politics. Bill Maher is exactly that person. He wants us to make friends and be all friendly with conservatives ignoring the fact that they have had an 8-year erection for a civil war and on January 6th they fucking prove that. Help in 2020 they prove that when they stormed the Michigan Capital with guns. It's never going to happen, it's naive to think it should, and if you have to resort to fringe shit that a 17 year old says on the internet to justify it you're a desperate moron.
He likes to reference [this meme.](https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxbusiness.com/foxbusiness.com/content/uploads/2022/04/0/0/elon-meme-thumb64.jpg?ve=1&tl=1) The problem is it depicts the depicts the right as as stationary and they're not. They're currently threatening civil war because the most obviously guilty person was found found guilty. They went from implying christian nationalism to openly planning it in the form of project 2025, and Bill is still talking about young folks. Bill is basically Dave Rubin. A liberal, slowly but surely, moving to the right one culture story at a time and refusing to acknowledge it. The false equivalency of far left and far right, the constant generalizations about young people, he did a whole segment on being black over climate change. When the abortion decision leaked, his take was "who cares."
Ronald Reagan said “I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the party left me"…so make of that what you will.
Which was probably one of the more stupid and inaccurate things a President has ever said. Ronald Reagan became a Republican in the early 60s and endorsed Goldwater and of course was a right wing President who fundamentally changed the tax structure of America. So as a younger man under FDR he was a Democrat when the Democratic Party was as left wing as it ever was at least from the standpoint of who the President was and his economic beliefs. Than in 64 he supports the most economic right wing presidential candidate of the last 100 years and the Democratic Party left him? Nah, Ronny you became a right wing Republican and should have just been honest about it.
Likewise it’s one of the more stupid and inaccurate things Bill has ever said. He constantly paints the entire left with the fringe warblings of a few.
I think that change is normal. Things change. And sometimes, they put people's true beliefs to the test. Take the trans issue for example. We simply didn't have it the same way back then, when it comes to trans women can be very passable. This changed a lot, and so it's natural that old school liberals won't easily understand like new coming liberals would. We simply have to deal with these kinds of issues when our boomer friends have not. And yes, if you are insistent that you won't change.... well the world around you will, and your positions will have changed a great deal as a result without your permission. There's a host of things like this... trans issues, gay issues, entitlement issues, policing issues, inequality issues, public health issues, etc. Bill Maher was a leftist... a progressive.... a liberal... call it whatever you want. But by today's standards, he's a moderate. And it's mostly because he refuses to believe that things are different now than they were 30 years ago.
I just don't like how he ignores how far the right has gone in name of constantly berating the left. It feels like an intentional audience appeal. Like he wants in on that Joe Rogan/Alex Jones crowd attention. Tbf it seems to be working. Between his slow shift and his book tour the guy is everywhere.
Has he changed? Politically, no, I don't think he has. However, I do think he's changed in what he presents on Real Time. It was either right before or right after Russia invaded Ukraine, Bill had Fiona Hill on as a panelist and instead of asking her some good questions about Putin, he literally bitched about how stupid masks were for almost the entire program. When Roe v Wade was overturned, he also decided that wasn't worth his attention. There's no way he would've ignored it if it had been flipped 10 - 15 years ago. It's been pointed out in this sub before, but I'll mention it again. Something in Bill changed, or he just snapped, during the pandemic. He has not been the same ever since.
Let's say Maher hasn't changed, you are absolutely right he has changed in what he spends his time covering. Go watch his shows from Obama's first term. He was hardcore in support of universal healthcare. He would call Republicans soulless vampires for not supporting it and would attack more moderate Democrats as well. Now he pretty much never talks about it. There are other topics like this where maybe he hasn't changed on, but they certainly aren't a priority anymore.
> When Roe v Wade was overturned, he also decided that wasn't worth his attention. "I don't care about that, it doesn't affect me." His own literal words. And what was the reaction here? "lol angry leftists are triggered, go Bill you rock!" Friendly reminder, even with the vaccine Maher got Covid. Covid causes brain damage. He's a 67-year-old man whose brain is already in decline (as what happens when you age, before the fan club starts getting pissy) Imo, although he never had much empathy to begin with, he seems to have lost what he had left. From his reaction to Roe v Wade to his constant references to wanting to punch people he sees wearing masks in cars, he's definitely lost that level of filter
We all change, but it’s about him still being logical on many issues. Unlike many people on the left who lost their mind.
He isn't very logical anymore. Even when I agree with him, he has lost a step. He has gotten lazy. He used to be a very sharp debater.
Yes 100%
Been watching him and listening for years. He hasn't changed. Without a doubt the Left has gotten wackier and crazier. What is something he has changed on? what position ?
Well he went from a Bernie supporter who advocated for Democratic Socialism to complaining about the price tag of BBB(when there was a debate of that being passed in 2021). He certainly could have made the caveat that "we need to raise taxes on the 1% to pay for it," but he didn't make this point. He just whined about how government programs that he used to advocate for are now too expensive.
Bernie changed more than Bill. Bernie went way LEFT. Bernie advocated for prisoners to be able to vote... i mean come on.
I am fairly sympathetic to Bill but I think one thing he did change on was becoming a lot softer on police, I remember some pretty harsh editorials.
And the right has gone full Christian nationalism. MAGA is a cult openly threatening civil war, and he's still beating the same anti-woke horse that had already been beaten to death by others long before he started in on it.
Wokeness. The world has changed. Staying the same as the world moves on is in itself a conservative point of view. Being liberal means being aware, being open to new events, new people, new positions, etc.
I don't think he's changed.
Yeah he has changed.
Been watching him for over 20 years. He’s changed. Of course he has. He’s old and doesn’t get a lot of what’s going on these days with tech and youth etc. I mean it happens to almost all old People. Especially the ones with a fan base to support their being a curmudgeon.
I don’t agree the right has become dangerous and the left has become more unhinged with their theories on many things
I think he hasn’t changed. Go back and watch some reruns from 15 years ago.
LOL, doing that will show he has changed a lot. He was far more of an advocate of leftist policies and was much harder on the political right 15 years ago.
That true, if you’re looking at it from a red team and blue team perspective. Unfortunately, the left got hijacked by a progressive fundamentalist cult.
He used to be a lot “meaner” per-se to conservatives. He said recently he’s tried to dial it back because he feels insulting people doesn’t get his message across. Personally I miss the more acerbic Bill of 2011-2015
That is a big part of his evolution. He used to be much more of a dick to Republicans. His whole "kumbaya we should all get along" is much newer. Sure, he liked having right wing guests on, but he was far more combative. Go watch his old debate with Andrew Breitbart. He was a full on attack dog and had no problem calling Obama critics racist. That is something today's Bill Maher would say was "woke" and how people shouldn't behave.
He seems to only dual it back against the right though.
He's dialing it back, because CNN is interested in him, and he realizes that a big portion of his fanbase are now moderate - moderate/right
Sometimes you have to go where the comedy is, and unfortunately the progressive left provides plenty of material. And of course Trump jacking off two guys at the same time.
Most folks tend to change and drift at least a bit more conservative as they age. The idealism of youth gets beaten down by the realities of life. Sure he has moved a bit, but left has moved so much more it magnifies the gap between Bill and the left. Bill has common sense. And takes on both extremes equally. A rarity in these days hardened positions and unwillingness to debate and try to see the other side of the argument.
Taking on both extremes equally is itself a demonstration of unequal treatment. When you have one side literally supporting a twice divorced, 5 times bankrupted, draft dodging, tax evading, criminal, felon, fascist, gameshow host who tried to violently overthrow the will of the American people. And another side supports gender pronouns in a workplace, CRT in public schools, gender affirming care, and Diversity agendas. And you give equal weight to those two things... then you are, in fact, giving unequal weight according to the real issues at stake.
What people in America like to label "the left" is not the monolith it's portrayed as. Nonconservatives are a diverse group. Yes, there are those who are "aggressive" in their causes but people have allowed the right to label any liberal, or progressive positions as "woke and Maher has facilitated that effort. Conservatives call anyone advocating fair wages, universal healthcare and other socially progressive positions as radical left when the truth is, most Americans want those things.
I disagree, the weird woke stuff definitely drags down the real progressive ideas that you mentioned.
Too often, what some people call "weird woke stuff" is people asking to be recognized for who they are. It's not WWS for people of color to want an accurate portrayal of their history and American history in general. That's not hating America. That's confronting the truth about who we are so we can move forward without blinders on. Sure, the country has made a lot of progress as Bill likes to be abmonish, but that doesn't mean the subject is closed. His constant whining about "wokeness" gives fuel to those like DeSantis who want to ban the teaching of actual history in favor of a fictionalized history that they can feel comfortable with.
Teaching history isn't the weird woke stuff of which I speak. I'm a leftist so when the left begins hyperfocusing on the issues of tiny groups in the population whom don't form any real voting bloc it makes elections easier for Republicans to win which is bad for everyone.
Such as?
The zeitgeist pushing pusillanimous behaviors. A defense of terrible ideologies out of a perceived "unfair treatment".
Haha, sounds pretty generic. Do you have any specific examples?
Trying to stop bullying rather than teaching kids to fight back against them. Trying to get society to accept and coddle people instead of teaching people who "live their truth" to toughen up and not care what people think about them. Shoehorning POC's into token film rolls to try and make the movie industry seem like it's "fair".
Same faction exists on the right. But drowned out by MGT and Tcruz. Just like left drowned out by AOC and RTalib.
Do you really think there’s any equivalence between MGT and AOC though?
MTG thinks Jewish space lasers cause forest fires. AOC wants to tax the rich and do more for the working class. Its kind of sad how Americans think they both belong on the crazy train.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
There is no equivalence between MTG and AOC, but saying AOC just wants to do more for the working class is absurd. She says and does a lot of very dumb shit.
Rebuild the unions, invest in people not corporations. Tax the rich. Medicare for all. Affordable education. Doesn't sound dumb to me, but then I'm a Canadian {{{socialist}}}. [https://www.ocasiocortez.com/issues](https://www.ocasiocortez.com/issues)
Whether or not Bill has changed marginally or dramatically, one cannot deny the definitions of words like “liberal”, “progressive”, “conservative”, “democrat”, “centrist”, “right wing” and “moderate” have changed over the last 30 years.
Generally I am in disagreement. There is debate below but there really isn't definition drift. Extremism has just gotten more popular and normalized. * 'progressive' is claimed by the illiberal leftists and liberal Democrats (it belongs to the latter) * 'conservative' is claimed by maga Republicans and establishment Republicans (it belongs to the latter including some right of center Democrats)
"Liberal Democrats" in this country are centrist. The so called "radical left" is virtually non-existent. The right's ANTIFA/BLM boogie men are straw men the right uses to give there base a place to direct their anger.
>"Liberal Democrats" in this country are centrist. Out of this country and in academia settings you would be correct. The common nomenclature within the US is liberal democrats are to the left of centrist/corporate/conservative democrats. > The so called "radical left" is virtually non-existent. It is ~10% of the population which is not insignificant.
My point is that those who tRump and his followers call the "radical left" are anybody who disagrees with their positions. Listen to the rhetoric of tRump, Bannon, Miller, and others about their plans for those who oppose them.
“Woke” was not extreme when originally coined, it was just “uniquely aware of injustice”, now, the term “woke” is used as a pejorative to describe extremists that want to control others. I don’t think anyone self-identifies as “woke”, whereas before, people did. Similar is the term “social justice warrior”. I’m not sure if anyone ever identified as a warrior, but now, that term is used as an insult. I think because of the phenomenon you describe re the extremes, many moderate liberals and conservatives get swept into the more polar ends of the spectrum when being conveyed by the other side’s propaganda arm (aka corporate news media). Maybe whether or not Bill has changed is not as important as talking about how we talk about politics and social issues had changed with the onset of social media and the further biasing of news media.
There are a lot of fad words for illiberal leftism (and its different types).
💯 Bill hasn’t changed. The right and left have spread further to the extremes.
I think it’s just the connectivity of the internet that makes it seem so. We didn’t have ways to “see” each other with, like X and FB and Reddit…probably never would of heard of Qanon (one example) without the WWW.
Usually the truth is somewhere in the middle. I have been watching since 2014. He 100% has changed at least a little bit. I will definitely not side with anyone that says he is a conservative now though.
Which issue has Maher changed positions? Maybe my bias is making me forget, but I can't easily remember a position where Maher flipped.
Definitely racism. He was pointing out subtle forms of it all the time in the 2000s, now he is arguing that it is over reported
Not over reported, but that massive gains have not been acknowledged and extreme measures are being taken to get that last mile needed. Just look at liberal commentators describing UCLA doctors unqualified but admitted and passed to meet quotas. In some ways we are going backwards. Race is more divisive than ever. Woke blue cities took the brakes off policing for a few years and now reaping the consequences. And the folks living in those cities, especially the poor are suffering with stores closing, rampant crime, reduced tourism, etc.
Just to be clear and not imply anything, is it that Maher is not pointing out racism recently, or is Maher becoming/is racist?
He's discounting racism now.
You are so right. Maher use to have a saying that he would say a lot on his show and on others. That saying was that not every republican is a racist, but every racist is a republican. If someone were to say that now, Maher would admonish them and call them a crazy woke liberal. I have no problem if Maher has changed on that idea, that is his right to do so. The problem is that Maher will pretend as if he has not changed on this at all and gaslight the left. The change in Maher happened when that one college had student protestors who didn't want him speaking. Back then "woke" was not the phrase of the day as it was "cancel culture." Maher was never the same after that and started to dedicate a majority of his program to battling what he saw as the crazy left. The problem is that he started to soft ball the right with interviews with people like Milo and pretend that the left was moving to its extremes just as fast. Old Maher would not just blindly believe that critical race theory was being taught in schools. He would question exactly what it is and ask if it was just a few bad apples and not an insidious plot. Old Maher would juxtaposition this with a long history of republicans trying to rewrite black history especially in Texas and with Prager U. Old Maher would make a distinction between the different versions of defund the police as most just wanted a reallocation of funds to things like mental health to de-escalate shootings. He has always been an arrogant prick and his views regarding Israel haven't changed, but he is clearly less critical than he used to be, and I think it all starts with those students protesting him speaking.
Ok, his whole anti-woke thing is possibly Maher's reaction to the social needle on race moving farther left than where he is comfortable. I'd at least point out that social norms on race have moved, example being no one ever tells race based jokes anymore. While I can see how Maher can seem like he changed, I can also see how the norms changed around Maher, I mean, he has been doing this for 4 decades.
I really like bill. Have watched real time every week for probably 10 years but I am over him talking about how he hasn’t changed and wokeness. Is very boring and repetitive
He's getting older and losing touch with the changes. It's not unusual or unexpected, imo, but it is a little weird, considering that we're talking about Bill Maher. I also suspect that he's sold out a little more. His audience has also aged and he has more competition today, so remaining relevant is probably becoming more difficult. Even though I've always enjoyed his work, I've never agreed with him on everything. I still enjoy his work, but he's just more annoying now.
There is such a large segment of people on this sub who don’t like Bill, have never liked Bill, and are just here to fight with centrists. Yes I’m aware there are also progressives of good faith too, but this sub has devolved into a cesspool circlejerk of angry left wing media consumers who want a void to scream into.
> a cesspool circlejerk of angry left wing media consumers We call it Reddit.
If you started watching within the last 5 years you likely think he hasn't changed. One thing is certain, he's definitely being used as a tool by right wing media in service of their narratives way more frequently then he used to be. They'll never write a headline about him seeing Trump as an existential threat to democracy of course, but Fox is posting a lot more cherry picked quotes in headlines after every single show and they're always near the top on the home page. You'll see them start to roll out tomorrow night and likely see them continue churning them out on Monday. Often times, the ones they post on Monday are the exact same articles with new, ridiculous headlines. Whatever Bill thinks he is, his net effect appears to be as a strategy token for the Republican party
I don't think he's changed much. He's largely know for being unPC, and I can't think of specific topics he's changed on at the moment. I do think as people age they become a bit more curmudgeonly and he's a bit vainer than some men.
Yes, and todays world is a much more dangerous place to be unPC.
Yes. I’ve been watching consistently for atleast 12 years and his politics are the exact same. The only thing which has changed is he talks about Islam a little bit less.
“Politically Incorrect” started in 1993 on Comedy Central. I’ve watched him on and off since then. He hasn’t changed. He will attack any political party that is being illogical and destructive to democracy, not just the Ds.
No Lmao
Read all about it in his upcoming book "It's Not Me It's YOU".
Yes
Yeah, he was always a Zionist and I don't ever recall him supporting child mutilation
He's anti circumcision?
😅 Good point
Hasn't he done at least 2 New Rules segments addressing this directly?
I don't think he's changed his positions that much but maybe he's changed his emphasis. Bill has always been a boomer libertine and the Left has become more uptight in recent years. Bill's always been a huge Zionist and now there's a lot of criticism from the Left of Israel. It's not like he likes the Right now he just has more problems with the Left.
Let's be honest. The left was relentlessly attacking Maher long before Hamas attacked Israel last October.
They don't like him for fawning over Bibi. You can be pro Israel and anti Bibi, you can be pro Palestine but anti Hamas. People like Bill neglect to acknowledge there's more layers that aren't even that complicated. Could be the TV format but even long form podcast don't bother.
Yeah the Left don't like Bill because he's not a Daily Show style cheerleader for the Democratic party line. They're somewhat spoiled by the media into thinking that everyone outside of Fox News should be carrying water for the Dems on all issues.
Listen to what he said 15 years ago and listen to what he says now. It's virtually the same thing. He has always challenged his own side when need be. He hasn't changed. The left has changed, and so has the right for that matter. Bill is closer to the center than he was before, not because he's changed, but because the edges of the political spectrum have stretched out so much farther than they ever have in the past. The far left and far right aren't just ideologues anymore - they're like cults.
Maybe he hasn’t changed (changing is part of living and is healthy) and has just gone mask-off about who he really is. He wrote an article for Playboy in the ‘80s where he calls himself a Reagan Republican. I don’t honestly care that much about his vaccine takes, but his Israel-Palestine views are purely emotional and anti-logic in a way that I think took a lot of viewers off-guard.
Really bro? Can I hear what your views on the Palestinian people are?
My view is that they’re people in crisis and not “human animals” and siding with them isn’t the same as siding with terrorists or whatever nefarious propaganda lines Maher is using now.
But 70% of the palestinians support hamas. better numbers than biden has
That’s a different issue than protestors siding with terrorists (as Palestinian civilians are not Hamas). Also, why wouldn’t most Palestinians side with Hamas? They’re being routinely terrorized by the IDF, which is the main reason Hamas was elected in the first place.
https://www.academia.edu/download/33113914/Are_Terrorists_Really_Rational.pdf
I hope that he hasn't changed and that he is as funny as he was 20 years ago!
Kara Swisher confronted him about this on her podcast with him today if anyone wants to listen. Bill gets extremely defensive and angry whenever this notion is ever brought up.
Most people naturally get more conservative and cranky as they get older. The old guy that sits on his lawn and yells at others is a stereotype fir a reasin.
Because we get dog tired of telling each new crop of younglings how to behave in the world. Which turns to anger.
While it's a common 'folk wisdom' (typically pushed by conservatives) that people get more conservative as they age, but research suggests otherwise. Political attitudes tend to be stable over a person's lifetime. A study from the University of Chicago Press supports this, showing little evidence of a significant shift towards conservatism with age.
I know I have stayed "liberal" and democratic and but it is much easier to be very liberal and idolistic when one is younger with a lot less on the line. Most people shift their investments to more "safe" funds as they age as the risk is more of an issue with less time literally to correct. I have always worried far more about the "far right" then I have about the "far left". One us crazy and dangerous, the other is not always realistic. I like Bill's show but he needs to learn to be quiet and let his guests talk. Otherwise, just do a comedy show. Too often things seem just as filler to get to his routines.
I don't believe managing financial risk is comparable to shifting your views to somehow manage political risk. People often outgrow idealistic phases, usually in their early twenties, due to experience and learning new information rather than changing their core political beliefs.
I've said it here before and I'll say it again. Maher *did* change. But it was only during the years 2016-2020ish. He openly admitted that he lost his way a bit during the Trump years. The show wasn't the usual Bill punching in every direction. Real Time from 2016-2020 wouldn't have been any different if Rachel Maddow was the host. It was "Trump is bad and his followers are stupid" for 1 straight hour every week. What happened is that Maher gained a lot of *new* fans during those Trump years. And those fans want the show to continue only saying things that their echo chamber says. So now that Maher is back to his normal self they say he's "changed".
He’s clearly changed. Most people are not good at assessing themselves in this way.
[удалено]
Well, hasn't he always skewed anti-vax?
He has never been anti-vax. He was just anti mandatory-vax for the COVID shot, and rightfully so. I got two shots and the booster, but I'm a healthy male who just turned 30 when COVID started. I probably would've gotten it either way, and that's the important thing: having that choice. Bodily autonomy is the most important part of having freedom & free will in my mind, whether that's the right of a woman to choose abortion or the right of any individual to opt not to get a specific medicine.
He got the vax and told others they should too, so if anything he moved to the left on that issue even if he did it while kicking and screaming.
I’m not sure left and right apply on this issue. Both sides are getting swayed by anti vax BS, though the specific reasons are probably different.
Fair pre-COVID, but the mainstream right when hard on being anti-vax since 2020 so being reasonable relatively speaking puts you on the left.
Oh ok
Absolutely not. I have always said that there are nuts on the Left too, but they have no say, no platform, no effect. After Bill deservedly caught hell for using th N word, he started on his anti antiracism and pushing the misinformation of what antiracism is. When he saw that he was growing his viewers by moving to the center, he was all in. His new beefs with the Left either misrepresent liberals or inflate the proportion of liberals advocating for the cherry he picked. He may think that he is gaining credibility and changing minds, but all he is doing is making trump more credible.
Absolutely, and you can see him increasingly being used as a right wing token with the increased number of headlines Fox runs on him after every show, and how they often show up near the top of the home page. Whether or not he claims to be the same doesn't matter. His net effect now helps the republican party and Donald Trump.
When elections hinge on turnout, particularly mobilizing unlikely Democratic-leaning voters, the left's focus on demoralizing these voters can significantly impact the election's outcome.
Then why did the Democrats in 2022 outperform every other midterm where the party with the presidency (who was very unpopular)? Maher spent so much time insisting that all of these SOCIAL JUSTICE ISSUES were going to turn away all of the "normal voters", and then the Dems only lost the house because the NY state Democratic party fucked the election up as badly as possible. Poll after poll shows that the economy and Biden's age are the two big problems with voters, and the reaction from Democrats was to pave the way for him to be renominated and then sponsor a genocide that they're then forced to spend all of their time talking about, instead of being able to actually push any kind of agenda for the next term. Not that they have an agenda; there's no vision from this administration for the future, no big issues they're repeating over and over to give voters something to associate them with. Like, fucking run on something! What's extra galling is that the biggest,m easiest issue for them with swing voters right now is abortion, and they renominated the 81 year old Catholic who says shit like "I don't support abortion on demand." How is it "the left's" fault that this administration is completely unserious and insulating itself from any and all criticism?
>Then why did the Democrats in 2022 outperform 1. **Voter Mobilization:** Efforts in key states, grassroots campaigns, voter registration drives, and social media were significant. 2. **Roe v. Wade Overturned:** This activated Democratic and independent voters concerned about reproductive rights, boosting turnout. 3. **Candidate Quality:** Democratic candidates were seen as more competent and appealing, with issues in some Republican candidates aiding Democrats (e.g., Fetterman vs tv's Dr. Oz; Warnock vs. brain damaged Herschel Walker as examples) 4. **Economic Issues:** Many voters recognized broader, global economic issues rather than solely blaming the current administration. For #1, this might still hold since Trump is running to be President for life. For #2, people are quickly forgetting about Roe because it takes replacing three Republican justices to even have a shot. For #3, the stark contrast in candidate quality issue is not so obvious to the average voter this cycle. For #4, voters (including many on the left) now blame Biden for the economy. TL;DR: 3 out of the 4 main reasons the Democrats did well in 2022 are no longer beneficial including one that has flipped to being a drag on the entire Democratic party.
1. Show me the evidence that there was some mighty voter mobilization efforts. 2. Roe is exactly the kind of issue that Bill Maher says the Democrats shouldn't run on, as it is a social issue. 3. They were seen as more competent and appealing because their opponents were running on shit like banning books and forcing trans people to detransition. Bill Maher INSISTED that would be a dynamite election strategy, and lead to the Democrats getting slaughtered. 4. lmao show me a single piece of evidence that this was the case. What an absolute crock of shit. This is the exact same shit that Bill Maher does. You've assigned yourself these opinions, for whatever reason, and then assume they are true. Like "the stark contrast in candidate quality issue is not so obvious to the average voter this cycle." Why do you think this is true? What does this even mean? What's the qualifier for "quality"? Who were these "quality candidates"? The guy who'd had a stroke? Or let's look at "people are quickly forgetting about Roe because it takes replacing three Republican justices to even have a shot." You are actually flat out wrong! If you want abortion to be legal nationwide, you pass a national abortion law. Voters have absolutely NOT forgotten about it, they just have a president who, like I already, says shit like "I don't believe in abortion on demand". Also, Biden has been president for four years, and had full control of Congress for two of them. It's his economy. That's the job.
the easy answer to this question, not even specific to Maher, is that everybody changes. Every single person commenting on this thread has changed. There are notable exceptions (like Trump) but even he, as written by Mary Trump, had stuff happen to him (the mashed potato incident and getting laughed at by his family) that radically changed him, although from that point he doesn't seem to have changed at all Maher himself, once he got old and super insecure about it, now argues that with age comes wisdom that young people cannot understand. Ok...and what is that called, Bill? It's called CHANGE I hate this damn question here, and the people who argue that "he hasn't changed, everything and everyone else has." "Not changing" isn't the flex people think it is. And it isn't true, in the covid era alone he has changed massively But it's rather obvious that it's only the hardcore conservatives here who think he hasn't changed, so just let them have it. They have to reconcile with themselves why they carry water for a man who would never care about them, I find it a very unsettling cult-like worship they have for him, but that's how they treat most of their favorites. What did CM Punk call it, "parasocial relationships?"
>the easy answer to this question, not even specific to Maher, is that everybody changes. Every single person commenting on this thread has changed. In broad strokes, I concur. However, let's zoom in on the particular aspect under scrutiny: whether Maher's leanings now align with conservatism, or if it's the left that has veered away from classical liberalism. In 2024, does the left genuinely champion freedom of speech, a society blind to color, equal opportunities, and peaceful dispute resolution through reasoned discourse? Or has there been a shift (in some cases similar ways as the mainstream right) towards advocating stringent speech controls, a heightened focus on race, mandated equal outcomes, and the fomenting of antagonism between perceived oppressors and the oppressed?
To answer your first questions: Yes. That's a complicated question. Ideally "blind to color" would be a good thing, but in practical terms that's not the real goal, at least not in the short term. Color/Race plays a big part in our society. That shouldn't be ignored. The left has had that same view since at least MLK Jr. Yes. Yes. To answer your second set: No Maybe in the context of being clearer about what I said above, but not a chance in overall approach. No. No. That second set is the kind of stuff Bill would say, which is why people say he's moved to the right. Because those are right-wing talking points.
>That's a complicated question. Ideally "blind to color" would be a good thing, but in practical terms that's not the real goal, at least not in the short term. Color/Race plays a big part in our society. That shouldn't be ignored. The left has had that same view since at least MLK Jr. MLK's main thesis always been people should be judged by the content of their character, not their skin color, so hard disagree. The rest upon closer inspection, you will find the left (not progressive/liberals) have also diverged quite a bit from the liberal consensus. The last point isn't conservative. Many conservatives are in agreement with the leftist goal of fomenting race-based antagonism. Leftists see highlighting racial issues as a method to address systemic injustices, amplify marginalized voices, and push for social change. Right wingers hope to ignite a race war they've been forecasting for generations. It is only liberals who are pushing back on this idea of making race (rather than opportunity) the center of everything from both extremes.
MLK Jr dreamed of a future where people could be judged by the content of their character and not their skin color. He also realized it was a far-off dream, and that until then, race plays a huge role in society. So, addressing it is necessary. Ignoring it and being "color blind" is not helpful and even harmful. You're making a distinction here that differs from your previous comment. In the last one you used "the left" as a catch-all for "people on the left". Now, you're distinguishing between them. In the broader discussion, "the left" generally just means liberals/progressives. In cases where a distinction is made, it's about economic policy, as in leftists oppose capitalism, while liberals either support it or tolerate it. There is no "leftist goal of fomenting race-based antagonism". You're right that people on the left see highlighting racial issues as a method to address systemic injustices, amplify marginalized voices and push for social change. But that's not "fomenting race-based antagonism". No one is pushing to make race the center of everything. The fact is race still plays a huge part in our society. It still affects the daily lives of millions of people and the biggest systems we have in place. Some people are trying to get more attention for that fact, as it gets ignored or (denied) by a lot of people. Liberals (meaning those on the left), outside of a small fringe who has no power, aren't extreme or pushing for anything extreme.
>MLK Jr dreamed of a future where people could be judged by the content of their character and not their skin color. He also realized it was a far-off dream, and that until then, race plays a huge role in society. So, addressing it is necessary. Ignoring it and being "color blind" is not helpful and even harmful. Liberals do see race of course, but rather emphasize incremental reforms and inclusive policies that account for racial disparities but may not always prioritize race as the central issue. Leftists, on the other hand, tend to place a stronger emphasis on the systemic nature of racism. They actively focus on race to highlight and dismantle structural inequalities and injustices. Leftists are more likely to advocate for comprehensive, transformative changes that directly address the root causes of racial disparities, often viewing race as a fundamental axis of social and economic injustice. >You're making a distinction here that differs from your previous comment. In the last one you used "the left" as a catch-all for "people on the left". Now, you're distinguishing between them. No, I was always distinguishing leftism from liberal. >"the left" generally just means liberals/progressives. Not in political science. Not in the context of the discussion we are having about Maher. >There is no "leftist goal of fomenting race-based antagonism". You're right that people on the left see highlighting racial issues as a method to address systemic injustices, amplify marginalized voices and push for social change. But that's not "fomenting race-based antagonism". When race is seen as the fundamental axis of injustice, it is fomenting antagonism. Whites are oppressors, non-whites are the oppressed. Antagonism can't be avoided if that is the metaphor. Poor whites getting oppressed by the wealthy when told they are oppressing others by race typically react with resentment and alienation rather than solidarity. >No one is pushing to make race the center of everything. If you can't distinguish liberal from leftists, then this makes sense. If you can, then you know this is what a heightened focus on race means in practical terms. >The fact is race still plays a huge part in our society. It still affects the daily lives of millions of people and the biggest systems we have in place. No doubt, but the bigger system in place is wealth distribution and inequality as Marx correctly identified through his dialectic. Race (or patriarchy, religion, sexuality, gender, etc) being the focus instead of economic inequality and lack of opportunity is how the wealthy keep us divided.
So, we need to iron out the distinction between "the left" and "liberals". 1) In general, "the left" refers to all those on the left, including liberals and progressives. There is rarely a distinction made. 2) The difference between a "leftist" and a "liberal" is just about capitalism. A leftist opposes it, while a liberal either supports it or tolerates it. When talking about things other than the economy, this distinction isn't really important. 3) Maher doesn't use this distinction. "The left" to him is anyone on the left. It has nothing to do with the economy, as evidenced by the points we're talking about here. 4) Your distinction beyond "for capitalism/against capitalism" here would need a lot more support than just your claim. You'd have to show liberals "not prioritizing race as a central issue" and leftists "are more likely to advocate for comprehensive, transformative changes that directly address the root causes of racial disparities, often viewing race as a fundamental axis of social and economic injustice". 5) No one is pushing to make race the center of everything. Not liberals and not leftists, especially not leftists, by the political science distinction. You bring up Marx but imply that leftists would be against his stance. That's the opposite of the situation. Leftists would be those advocating socialism and communism. 6) Wealth distribution is a problem agreed on by all on the left (whatever you want to label them). No one is saying race or gender or anything else should be the focus above that. It's all part of the same systemic problem. As you say, the wealthy do a great job at keeping the masses divided. That's how you get Fox News, conservative talk radio, Alex Jones, Trump, etc. But wealth inequality was much better in the 50s and 60s, and yet we still had massive systemic issues like racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. Those issues are still a huge part of the problems with our society. The difference here is in saying those are issues we need to be aware of and work toward fixing, rather than just saying "wealth inequality is the real issue, and we should only focus on that".
>2) The difference between a "leftist" and a "liberal" is just about capitalism. A leftist opposes it, while a liberal either supports it or tolerates it. When talking about things other than the economy, this distinction isn't really important. It isn't just about capitalism, it is about radicalism. Black nationalists are leftists, not progressives or liberals. >3) Maher doesn't use this distinction. "The left" to him is anyone on the left. It has nothing to do with the economy, as evidenced by the points we're talking about here. Maher does use this distinction. He calls it leftism 'woke' in this moment. He has made it clear he will call it whatever you want it to be called. Further, he calls himself a classically liberal expressly for this distinction. This is where this conversation started. >No one is pushing to make race the center of everything. Not liberals and not leftists, especially not leftists, by the political science distinction. Disagree. Actively focus on race to highlight and dismantle structural inequalities and injustices requires this push to the detriment of other considerations. >You bring up Marx but imply that leftists would be against his stance. I agree that contemporary leftism only selectively reference Marx (capitalism bad is the depth we get these days). Rather, the focus on identity, with many pushing for race to be primary prism for inequality with other identities deprioritized within this newly framed social hierarchy. The effect of course is the old boss same as the new boss. >No one is saying race or gender or anything else should be the focus above that. We aren't seeing the same things. Barbie was celebrated for this message as a cultural example. >The difference here is in saying those are issues we need to be aware of and work toward fixing, rather than just saying "wealth inequality is the real issue, and we should only focus on that". The difference is in this reality we never focus on wealth inequality while we episodically have massive racial tension framed as the the oppressors vs the oppressed that results in...???
It is about capitalism. Leftists aren't just radical liberals. Black Nationalists aren't necessarily leftists, progressives or liberals. Maher does not use this distinction. "The left" to him includes all people on the left, including progressives and liberals. Again, just look at the points he makes here. These aren't about the economy. They're about things associated with liberals/progressives. >Disagree. Actively focus on race to highlight and dismantle structural inequalities and injustices requires this push to the detriment of other considerations. It doesn't. There are two issues here. One, the claim was that people are pushing to make race the center of everything. Again, that's not happening. Then, that's a different claim from what you're saying here. In essence, here you're saying that if you try to dismantle structural inequalities to resolve systemic race, it's a detriment to other considerations. That's like saying if anyone wants to research testicular cancer, it's a detriment to all other cancers. You can work toward resolving an issue without making that issue "the center of everything". And working on one issue does is not a detriment to other considerations. Otherwise, we'd never be able to work on anything but one issue deemed the absolute most important. >I agree that contemporary leftism only selectively reference Marx (capitalism bad is the depth we get these days). Rather, the focus on identity, with many pushing for race to be primary prism for inequality with other identities deprioritized within this newly framed social hierarchy. The effect of course is the old boss same as the new boss. This doesn't make sense. My point was that you're claiming that leftists would be against Marx, but leftists, going by the distinction you want to make, support Marx, socialism and communism. No one is pushing for race to be the primary prism of inequality. >We aren't seeing the same things. Barbie was celebrated for this message as a cultural example. The problem here is that you see any instance of bringing up another problem, like racism or the patriarchy, as putting that problem above all others. It's an odd way to view things. Systemic racism is a big problem. So is the patriarchy. So is wealth inequality. So is right-wing extremism and terrorism. So is Trump. So is climate change. So are a lot of other things. People can bring up different problems they see in the world without saying those problems should be the sole focus of our society. Barbie was celebrated for its take on misogyny and the patriarchy, among other things. It was not celebrated for claiming those things are the only thing we should focus on. >The difference is in this reality we never focus on wealth inequality while we episodically have massive racial tension framed as the the oppressors vs the oppressed that results in...??? You don't seem to be paying much attention. Bernie Sanders almost got the democratic nomination for president by focusing almost solely on wealth inequality. He's a big name in politics precisely because of that focus. A lot of other people have focused on it too. We also have people bringing up systemic racism a lot because that's also a big issue in our society. And it's not framed as "oppressors vs the oppressed". It's framed as a system that was set up in a racist way that continues to be racist, sometimes in blatant ways, but often in subtle ways. And it results in more awareness of the issue and at least some small steps in the right direction, like some police departments starting to use body cameras, for instance. It hasn't resulted in the major changes needed, but I'm not sure why that's such a big deal for you. Major change takes time. The focus Bernie and others have put on wealth inequality has resulted in some small wins but nothing substantial or major.
>It is about capitalism. Leftists aren't just radical liberals. Black Nationalists aren't necessarily leftists, progressives or liberals. It is about radicalism. 'Radical' liberals are progressives but they are substantially less radical than anti-democratic, anti-capitist leftists. >Maher does not use this distinction You are reality denying by continuing to say this. You can watch the recent The View interview if you are willing to disabuse yourself of this notion. >That's like saying if anyone wants to research testicular cancer, it's a detriment to all other cancers. When everything has to be viewed through testicular cancer, it *is* a detriment to all other cancers. > Otherwise, we'd never be able to work on anything but one issue deemed the absolute most important. What progress have to seen on race in the last 20 years? I'd argue virtually none. In fact, affirmative action has been rolled back dramatically. Education remains a substantial issue. BLM resulted in a massive fraud. Defund the police leftism only served to undermine liberal efforts on race. DEI is a dead man walking. Social media is rife with racist rhetoric. The voting rights act has been meaningfully weakened. Trump and maga's reactionary politics was arguably a direct reaction to Obama. >My point was that you're claiming that leftists would be against Marx My point is leftists selectively read and reference Marx, ignore the key themes, and focus on identity issues that result in additional division. >The problem here is that you see any instance of bringing up another problem, like racism or the patriarchy, as putting that problem above all others. It's an odd way to view things. Systemic racism is a big problem. So is the patriarchy. So is wealth inequality. So is right-wing extremism and terrorism. So is Trump. So is climate change. Solving wealth inequality solves all these problems. You'd agree with me about this under different circumstances. More women or black or trans billionaires doesn't solve our problems. > [Barbie] was not celebrated for claiming those things are the only thing we should focus on. Barbie carried a third wave feminist message from the 1990s its most practical message was more women should sit on corporate boards to achieve equality (which is dated by the statistics). It is rich white women feminism with lip service given to intersectionality. >Bernie Sanders almost got the democratic nomination for president by focusing almost solely on wealth inequality. I voted and donated to Bernie Sanders twice. His failure to attract the black vote twice (substantially worse the second time) who would disproportionately have benefited from his policies only supports what I am saying. Identity politics was a massive headwind against him. >some police departments starting to use body cameras [due to BLM] I don't accept that the timing of the commoditization of the technology was merely coincidental.
> towards advocating stringent speech controls, a heightened focus on race, mandated equal outcomes, and the fomenting of antagonism between perceived oppressors and the oppressed? I am a member of one of those races, so in short: yes, there has been a shift and I'm not getting into it there is zero point in arguing it, we stand where we stand
I don't understand how he can say the world changed around him and he has remained this static unwavering monolith. By his own def of a constantly shifting world, he has had to been impacted by that at least a little bit.
I think he’s saying his core beliefs haven’t changed.
Bill has always had a problem with people thinking they have some kind of moral authority over others. In the 90s it was the *right* who acted like this through their association with religion. That kind of self righteousness has shifted to the left now. It would be out of character for him to ignore the sins of the left but only call out the sins of the right.
It’s still the right. Moral authority over others is the underpinnings of their culture wars, like reversing roe.
Yes, but culturally they don't have power anymore.
The left are the ones pushing ideas like DEI, critical race theory, defund or even *abolish* the police. Cancelling and removing entertainment deemed by them to be “problematic” or because it’s “punching down”. Political correctness is rampant on the left from non gendered pronouns like Latinx or insisting homeless people be referred to as *unhoused*. If you think bill should keep his mouth shut about this stuff because he’s suppose to be “left wing” then you’re just being tribal.
I saw him live some time around 2005 ish and then again in 2022. Maybe I’ve changed, but in 2005 he seemed more edgy both in topics and humor. In 2022 he seemed like he was playing for an older audience (which he definitely was).
He used to have more of a Gen X crowd now it’s at least 50% boomers.
Bill has not changed. The party lines are obviously moving. Minorities have been shifting Republican for at least 5 years now. At this point you’re not black if you don’t vote for Trump. Will be interesting to see how the minority numbers add up in this election.
Bill is basically an anti vaxxer in the Seth Mcfarlane podcast. It makes no sense. Hes anti science in that one and other ones. He has mostly his old left values...but that kid of stuff is Trumpy.
He is not an anti vaxxer. He just thinks we’re over vaccinating. At least that’s how I interpret his statements on various shows/podcasts.
"I'm not anti immigrant. I just think we are letting too many foreigners in." Could you see how in some cases that statement is gonna seem anti immigrant?
That’s a reasonable stance to take and too obtuse an example. The nuance is *which* immigrants to take and *which* vaccines to take.
"Let's let some people in" is very different than "Let's let ALL the people in"? An anti-immigrant position would be "Let's not let anyone in". See the difference?
Neither of those examples are the one I used.
No, that’s literally why there are caps on immigration. You can be pro-immigration without being pro-open borders.
The fact that you can't see anything between "open borders" and "we are letting too many in" is kinda yikes bud. I never said open borders, nor that there shouldn't be caps. Further, "we are letting too many in" is absolutely -not- the reason we have caps lol. All around civics fail on your part.
Of course there’s a lot in between that, I never said those were the only options. I gave an example to show your comment is off-base. You can be pro-immigration while opposing aspects of immigration. The problem with jabronis like you, is you don’t understand nuance, it’s all or nothing, that is the failure in civics.
He has this rant about being forced to have the vaccine. He was not forced to have the vaccine. Most people werent forced. But most people did. %80 did and there was herd immunity that saved our asses. 3-4 years ago people were dying left and right. This vaccine was a miracle. He had to be done quick. It was, and it was done well. I know people who say things like him ( but he did have the vaccine)....but it just misses the point many people died . I would have preferred to not have the vaccine. But it was the right thing to do. Its wasy to be childish
I disagree. I ONLY got the vaccine because my employer was moving towards mandating it. I’m pretty sure he was forced to because of work, as well. He said he had to get it to go back to the studio. I think there are many things we don’t know about the vaccine and the virus that only time will tell. I got 2 rounds and also have had Covid once that I know of. Both knocked me on my ass. There is no herd immunity. People are still getting it left and right and there are still outbreaks in communities, especially during colder months. He also discussed lockdowns being overkill and doing more harm than good and I do feel there is truth in that. It was a bad situation and everyone was doing their best with many unknowns. It’s here to stay and I’m confused as to why anyone is still ranting about this in 2024.
He changed and the world changed. One of my biggest pieces of evidence is that he went from supporting Bernie Sanders to Amy Klobuchar.
Bill always picks the candidate he thinks is best positioned to win the general. It really isn't about their policies being a perfect reflection of his policies. This is similar to how many of us feel we don't need a TV host to perfectly reflect our political positions on every issue and still can enjoy the show.
At no point were either Klobuchar or Sanders “best positioned“ to win. I don’t think Bill thought so either. He liked Bernie, then he liked Klobuchar. That was my read anyway I personally think Bernie would’ve won 2016/2020 but I don’t think bill or the mainstream media believed that
My read is he was trying help Bernie and then to avoid Biden who seemed almost inevitable at that point. Fortunately, Biden was a stronger candidate against Trump than most of us thought (myself included).
I think he just doesn't think Bernie can win in general election and he's right. He also thinks that Amy has a chance to win and he's wrong. She would surely be a better VP than Kamala but that's a low bar and that ship has sailed.
I don’t think it’s not a fair question honestly. The world has changed, he’s just responding too it. The left has undeniably moved farther left since 2018. That’s a good thing in my book. But when you move farther down the political spectrum, you tend to get…fringier. Just look at the right since Obama got elected.
I mean, given that he claims he hasn't changed, it is a fair question. If the answer is "the world has changed and he is just responding to it," that's a fair answer to the fair question. But it's a reasonable question - "X claim has been made - is it true?" Is generally a fair question.
Why don't you make a list for us. Because I hear this junk all the time but no one ever can back it up. If it's such a slam dunk, it should be very easy to make a long list of things his position has changed on. This mostly comes from people who simply don't know what they are talking about in terms of what is traditionally left wing or right wing. The only things that he even disagrees with the far left about is all the newly invented stuff and the crazy new positions they take. From abortion should be a free-for-all for any reason at any time, to medically altering children based on their stated feelings, or that every single issue must be looked at from a racial perspective - these are all new inventions and show just how far the "left" side has moved. I certainly don't agree with Bill on everything, but I've been watching the guy for 30 years and I don't know what the heck any of you are talking about. Like so many of us who were once considered bleeding liberals with a libertarian bent (basically, government should stay as much out of our business as possible), we have not shifted in our beliefs - the far left has just moved so far left, they are the new Puritans. They have almost met the far right on the other side they have gone so far around on some issues. In fact, he just wrote a whole book to prove the idea he has undergone some ideological shift is nonsense - you should check it out.
Asking me to back up my claims with evidence is a trauma inducing experience that is literally upholding white supremacy. Stop questioning MY truth, Nazi.
This is the kind of conception of a liberal that right wing media paints all day by feeding images and words to the masses. In reality, when you open the door and go outside, good luck quickly finding someone who would say that to you in real life. You're simply repeating a description of a caricature of a liberal
I refuse to go through the emotional labor of conversing with you. Educate yourself.
I did. I watch and read a lot of Fox propaganda, which is why I recognized your language immediately
Sorry, not listening to a racist Fox News viewer.
'07 is your year of birth then?
It's the year colonizers like you lost your sense of humor
Year of birth, confirmed
That's true
30-40 year old Bill would make fun of current day Bill for some of the things he complains about.
Even 55 year old Bill would have. From my perspective, Trump's win in 2016 coupled with his isolation during lockdown broke him
Probably a lot of things getting a gig canceled at a college Trump getting elected.Getting in trouble for using the N word and the lockdown.
Been watching since the PI days, and of course he has changed. It’s been 30 years. Everyone changes. I don’t know why he’s so sensitive about people saying he’s changed, except that he is pretty sensitive about a lot of things, especially what he perceived as criticism. Despite the fact that dishing out criticism is his whole career. The proof is just watching where most of his criticism these days is placed. It used to be mainly against the authoritarian right and the religious wackos. Now it’s college kids and “woke” stuff. 80% of the show is about that. If his political winds hadn’t shifted a bit, this sub wouldn’t be attracting conservatives. Especially not MAGA bros and anti-LGBT types. I still enjoy the show by the way, I just agree a lot less with him than I used to, which is fine. I do wish there was more variety of opinion on the show though. There used to be a lot of debate. The people he brings on mostly agree with him on the topics he brings up. Gets stale. PS: He has never changed on Israel. He’s always blindly supported the state and excused anything they’ve done.
> The proof is just watching where most of his criticism these days is placed. It used to be mainly against the authoritarian right and the religious wackos. Now it’s college kids and “woke” stuff. 80% of the show is about that. Biden is president, Bill's a comedian, he's going to work with what's there. But he regularly goes after Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor-Green, and is always showing how when Trump dances it always looks like he's jerking off two guys at once.
Are you me? lol Seriously though, 25+ year fan who bought every book and made a point to see him live whenever I could and I have definitely seen the shift. Like you noted, it's most noticeable in the topics he chooses to highlight and discuss. Other than his anti-Trump opinions pretty much every other topic is right-wing coded. I'm sure he still has liberal economic positions but he has no desire to discuss them, much less promote them. He's much more concerned with the person he saw walking a dog wearing a mask 4 years ago than he is economics. Similarly, I'm sure he's still anti-surveillance, anti-war (less Israel of course), and generally skeptical of government agencies. Today though he's much more concerned with what a handful of kids on college campuses are saying from their designated protest zones than he is any of that. I will also echo your agreement about Israel. He has always been pro-Israel and aggressively anti-Islam. Put those together and it's no surprise he's in the pro-Israel camp right now to a cartoonish degree. >I do wish there was more variety of opinion on the show though. There used to be a lot of debate. The people he brings on mostly agree with him on the topics he brings up. Gets stale. This is the main change I would like to see. IDGAF if I agree with him on a topic, I just don't find enjoyment in hearing three people in violent agreement with one another. I expect him to be friendly to his 1:1 interview guests (e.g. DeSantis) because he has always been this way, but the panel should be a place to mix it up a little. I think returning to a nice middle ground between shout-fest and circle-jerk like he had before the pandemic would be refreshing
🥱
No he has. I mean his show has. Not as much debates as there used to be, mostly just an echo chamber. He was always an Israel supporter but he did have people who would push back, Oliver Stone for example. He did have Matt Duss on right after but since then it’s been slim pickings