Does Bill Maher have a point? — schopenhauer1

I’ve been watching Bill for nearly 30 years. I find him funny at times— and used to think he was interesting (at least he cares about more important stuff, I figured). Now I think he’s almost always pure fluff. There’s no depth. Just whatever fairly mainstream “hot take” that pops into his aging mind. Relies heavily on strawmen, so he can then look cool tearing them down.

And that’s the level of this entire analysis, I think.

Maybe people have become more critical of their own country— but that’s a good thing. If they go too far with it, then we should object— fine. But notice the real reason for the claim: growing and vocal support for Palestinian people. That’s unacceptable to the old guard and their echoers like Bill Maher. So suddenly the sky is falling and “Western civilization” is under attack.

There isn’t 100% support anymore for everything Israel does? The kids just not know their history! They must be communists! They must be cheering for Hamas and terrorism! They must hate America and the West and all things White!

Give me a break.

Relies heavily on strawmen, so he can then look cool tearing them down.

And that’s the level of this entire analysis, I think.

Maybe people have become more critical of their own country— but that’s a good thing. If they go too far with it, then we should object— fine. But notice the real reason for the claim: growing and vocal support for Palestinian people. That’s unacceptable to the old guard and their echoers like Bill Maher. So suddenly the sky is falling and “Western civilization” is under attack.

There isn’t 100% support anymore for everything Israel does? The kids just not know their history! They must be communists! They must be cheering for Hamas and terrorism! They must hate America and the West and all things White! — Mikie

You speak of strawmen but this is one. Your characterization is off. He was against the immediate cheering for Hamas after the attacks. If you can’t bracket that as a horrible thing in and of itself, whatever your view, you are morally corrupt. Israelis didn’t want to tear into Gaza and cause collateral damage fighting terrorists who hide in large populated areas. It was Hamas who did the barbaric acts which is going to cause the military to respond by removing them. But see, people don’t know when to bracket. They have no shade of subtlety. They can’t seem to wrap their minds that a barbaric act of injustice doesn’t justify past political grievances. And this was right after the attacks so the response wasn’t even under way yet. But we all know that Hamas only has the media cycle as their cover. The response to the aggression then becomes the self fulfilling prophecy that the proverbial world stage was waiting to get to. They want to conveniently skip over how this move to get rid of Hamas got started.

Yes, now that you bring it up, quite true. Somehow was taking this for granted before as the way things ought to be. Especially on a philosophy forum. But I guess it is something significant enough to be worthy of mention. — javra

You are an excellent interlocutor. I have constantly been thinking how civil you have been with me, and I can be a bit of an instigator. It is more than worthy of mention, you might have a unique insight, on how not to turn off your interlocutor online.

So suddenly the sky is falling and “Western civilization” is under attack. — Mikie

It is not sudden. The sky is alway falling in some way. That gives meaning to our lives. And western civilization is under attack, as always, from the barbarians which seek to overthrow everything that is "decent" and "good". When has this never been the case except in the postmodern world? However the sky is still falling.

Give me a break. — Mikie

Never

There isn’t 100% support anymore for everything Israel does? — Mikie

Except from the Israeli or true Jew. And from me now, especially since the radical Left has unequivocally come out in support of the Jew hating, antisemetic, pro-Hamas bullshit.

Does the liberal Left continue to regard "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as a legitimate source of scholarship?

You speak of strawmen but this is one. — schopenhauer1

No, it’s not. At least not Maher’s.

Israelis didn’t want to tear into Gaza and cause collateral damage fighting terrorists who hide in large populated areas. — schopenhauer1

Of course they did. They’ve been wanting it for a while. Moreover, they’ve been killing Gazans slowly for years.

Unless of course we’re talking about the people of Israel, not the right-wing, genocidal government. I’m guessing many Israelis are against what their government is doing in Gaza. Likewise the people of Gaza, I suspect, are against the actions of Hamas.

Looks like this discussion has shifted focus somewhat? There is a thread dedicated to whole debacle.

Looks like this discussion has shifted focus somewhat? There is a thread dedicated to whole debacle. — I like sushi

It’s part and parcel of the same thinking. The oppressed and oppressor is exactly the black and white thinking that Maher brings up. Looks at how even just the basic condemning of Hamas is almost completely avoided and shifted, and I said it best here:

You speak of strawmen but this is one. Your characterization is off. He was against the immediate cheering for Hamas after the attacks. If you can’t bracket that as a horrible thing in and of itself, whatever your view, you are morally corrupt. Israelis didn’t want to tear into Gaza and cause collateral damage fighting terrorists who hide in large populated areas. It was Hamas who did the barbaric acts which is going to cause the military to respond by removing them. But see, people don’t know when to bracket. They have no shade of subtlety. They can’t seem to wrap their minds that a barbaric act of injustice doesn’t justify past political grievances. And this was right after the attacks so the response wasn’t even under way yet. But we all know that Hamas only has the media cycle as their cover. The response to the aggression then becomes the self fulfilling prophecy that the proverbial world stage was waiting to get to. They want to conveniently skip over how this move to get rid of Hamas got started. — schopenhauer1

If you don’t want to add to the conversation here and deflect for your friend or whatnot than perhaps same deflection. seems to bring up a good point and keep people accountable for this characteristic Left view that has to see this framework that “Israel has of course been wanting this for years” in his words. It’s equivocating because no shit Israel would love Hamas to go away being that they have for years violently attack and hide under civilian targets provoking response. But the equivocation is the response to this recent attack was invited or something in some weird conspiracy, so it isn’t even that they were caught off guard now. The view is so warped the “oppressor” must have wanted it. Not only that his comment not so subtly hinted that the government wanted collateral damage, not just getting rid of Hamas. It’s all avoidance and redirection of blame. For them, Hamas can’t just be undeniably condemned as evil. It has to move to the “oppressor”. All black and white thinking. No bracketing. I shouldn’t even have to explain this much to an unhelpful deflecting comment from someone who contributed nothing except (see other thread) but here I am.

I should add that my comments above are mainly aimed at responses from so should probably refer him to that if he wants to respond. I kind of unloaded on but just didn’t get the need for the comment mentioning the other thread I guess. I think the current round is exemplified the thinking in Maher’s commentary and not separate from it.

The view is so warped the “oppressor” must have wanted it. Not only that his comment not so subtly hinted that the government wanted collateral damage, not just getting rid of Hamas. — schopenhauer1

Strawman.

But does Israel “want” to kill innocent Palestinians? Please read into their souls and tell us about what their great intentions are—that justify the reality: killing innocent Palestinians.

Then go on about “moral corruption” as you rationalize genocide.

Hamas’s actions are grotesque. No rational human being is in favor of their actions. The same can apparently not be said of the Israeli government. Why? Because they’re the good guys, with noble intentions.

Also, the equivalency here lies with those defending Israeli war crimes. There’s no parity whatsoever. The balance of power overwhelmingly favors Israel — which is obvious, given the resources and military strength (and backing by the US).

Hamas’s actions are grotesque. — Mikie

That’s all that the commentary was trying to convey is needed. If you saw the second video it was condemning the conflation with any Palestinian cause with Hamas.

Yeah but you know very well that’s not the full context. A normal human being will ask “Why did this happen?”, especially when a horrific event like October 7th is used to justify the killing of innocent people (aka, “collateral damage”). And the answer to that question isn’t as easy as “they terrorists we good guys.” It just isn’t.

But I’ll leave it there. Not off-topic per se but there’s a whole thread dedicated to this issue.

A normal human being will ask “Why did this happen?”, especially when a horrific event like October 7th is used to justify the killing of innocent people (aka, “collateral damage”). And the answer to that question isn’t as easy as “they terrorists we good guys.” It just isn’t. — Mikie

I think I addressed that earlier…political grievances don’t justify that kind of civilian grotesque killing, period. And as to response, in context of this argument, I mentioned the waiting for the media cycle for Hamas to take cover. They physically take cover under civilian structures. As I said:

But we all know that Hamas only has the media cycle as their cover. The response to the aggression then becomes the self fulfilling prophecy that the proverbial world stage was waiting to get to. They want to conveniently skip over how this move to get rid of Hamas got started. — schopenhauer1

That is to say, Hamas could do anything and it wouldn’t matter because…Israel oppressors. If they try to remove Hamas it’s just the oppressor oppressing. There is legitimate arguments by what tactics Israel should take, but certainly they had to take some action with a group who killed and took hostages. They aren’t just perpetrators. They technically are the government of Gaza, and stole billions on making themselves and their military wing enlarged so they can perpetrate such operations and provoke a response from a heavily armed combatant.

I think people are just bothered by indiscriminate attacks by both sides. End of story.

Hamas for the best of two bad choices given to the people well over a decade ago. Things have changed. Israelis have an obstinate leader and many Israelis want him gone.

Western? Not much to speak of here of Western civilisation as far as I can tell. Just another hate vs hate scheme orbiting religious dogmas and bigotry.

Western? Not much to speak of here of Western civilisation as far as I can tell. Just another hate vs hate scheme orbiting religious dogmas and bigotry. — I like sushi

Western civilization is relevant if we consider that out of the two, Israel is the one that respects the basic human rights and civil liberties of its citizens - uniquely Western values. We also see that portion of the Left, which despises everything about the oppressive West, has wholeheartedly sided with Hamas - a group which also despises everything about the West, including the infidels on the Left who support them, and especially Western values like civil liberties and basic human rights that those same Leftists claim to champion. It is rather ironic.

Israel is the one that respects the basic human rights and civil liberties of its citizens — Merkwurdichliebe

People in Gaza and West Bank and citizens of what nation? How are they treated by this so-called ‘Western Civilisation’?

I think western ideals reach beyond religious dogma most of the time. Needless to say this is a complex issue.

I can say one thing for certain though. I do not think of Israel when I am talking about Western Civilisation. What I do think about though is how Europe (mostly UK) made a horrible mistake in backing Zionist zealots out of some kind of collective European guilt due to the horrors committed on Jews throughout the centuries.

As for people on the left supporting Hamas … there are people on the right who support Nazism.

Small minorities are small minorities. I think they should be shunned and more focus paid to those peacefully demonstrating.

There will always be elements wanting to cause unrest.

Either way, the ‘left’ vs ‘right’ thing is silly. I hold some views that more liberal and others that are more conservative. I think it makes more sense to say Conservative and Liberal that some distanced term like ‘left’.

I have no real idea how to define western civilisation either. I know most people everywhere are pretty much the same. The differences accumulate with education. Education is key.

People in Gaza and West Bank and citizens of what nation? How are they treated by this so-called ‘Western Civilisation’? — I like sushi

It is not the duty of a state to worry about that which it has no sovereignty over. Western civilization has a prerogative for seeing the victory of it's values wherever possible, but in the places where Western values are shunned and despised by the local powers that be, especially those places that are openly hostile to Western civilization, it has every right to subjugate them if necessary.

As for people on the left supporting Hamas … there are people on the right who support Nazism. — I like sushi

That is true. I'm not as informed about Nazism on the Right, but I'm sure their position is mired in contradiction as well.

Either way, the ‘left’ vs ‘right’ thing is silly. I hold some views that more liberal and others that are more conservative. I think it makes more sense to say Conservative and Liberal that some distanced term like ‘left’. — I like sushi

Right-Left are general political orientations rooted deeply in one's beliefs on human nature. Despite one's disregard for the category of Right vs Left, nearly every political economic or sociological opinion can be comfortably classed under one or the other, whether liberal or conservative. On the other hand, liberal and conservative are actually political ideologies for designing the state. They are so broad in their reach that they bleed into every other modern ideological system. It's not gospel truth, just political theory, but it explains a lot in many cases.

have no real idea how to define western civilisation either. I know most people everywhere are pretty much the same. The differences accumulate with education. Education is key. — I like sushi

Western civilization is global. It has spread it's influence everywhere, especially when capitalism has driven it, and for both good and bad, but overall for good. Western civilization is any place where an athiest, Trangender, lesbian with different color skin than the local population can visit and voice radically divergent opinions in public, while expecting to be reciprocally respected for simply being a human being, and with no threat of being stoned by a mob and strung up in the streets. Western civilization is also a place that happens to be more or less dedicated to the protection of civil liberties and basic human rights of all the citizens within it's respective sovereignties (ideally). Again, just political theory, not gospel truth.

It is not the duty of a state to worry about that which it has no sovereignty over. Western civilization has a prerogative for seeing the victory of it's values wherever possible, but in the places where Western values are shunned and despised by the local powers that be, especially those places that are openly hostile to Western civilization, it has every right to subjugate them if necessary. — Merkwurdichliebe

Sounds a little ‘barbaric’ though. The ‘if necessary’ is not foolproof. ‘Subjugate’ how? For what reason? To force assimilation, to dislodge or to destroy?

The problem is always application of ideals (attached to national and/or religious identity) as if they are ubiquitous to all humans.

I believe the main pillar of any civilisation society is the ability to sit down with those you oppose and talk, to disagree, and then to compromise where possible. Western Civilisation does this maybe a tiny little bit more … I think mostly due to technological and scientific development.

Israel exists now. It should not of come into existence in the manner it did, but such is life. Zionism is pretty dumb idea based on religious garbage.

As things stands too many Jews are being brought up to hate Arabs and too many Arabs are being brought up to hate Jews. I believe the vast majority just want the killing to stop but that is highly unlikely for another generation or two.

I have held the belief for a long time that patriotism and religion are equally dogmatic and almost as silly as each other.

We could explore forever what Western Civilisation means … that might be a good idea? To insinuate that Israel is a Western Civilisation makes little sense to me, geographically, historically and politically. More ‘Western’ than Syria or Jordan? 100%. Might be better to start with cultural and historical distinctions. It is a complex topic in and of itself.

Note: I would not call myself Left or Right. I do not think many people hold purely Left leaning or Right leaning views on every topic. I would say the same for Liberal and Conservative.

This insidious need to associate with one side or another is the biggest problem.

Western civilization is relevant if we consider that out of the two, Israel is the one that respects the basic human rights and civil liberties of its citizens - uniquely Western values. — Merkwurdichliebe

This wording is very particular. There's an interesting opinion piece in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz about Druze Israelis, who serve in the armed forces, but do not have equal rights. The writer says:

The nation-state law, let us recall, contains no mention of equal rights for all the country’s citizens, Jews and non-Jews. A law that defines the State of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people but does not in the same breath declare equal rights for all the country’s citizens is a nationalist, anti-democratic law. — Haaretz"

The second issue concerns what respect Israel offers to those who previously inhabited the land on which Israel is founded, who are not its citizens but whose descendants live either in Israel, or in territories conquered and administered by Israel. How is Israel respecting 'the basic human rights and civil liberties' of the inhabitants of Gaza and the West Bank?

Sounds a little ‘barbaric’ though. — I like sushi

It is a shame that innocent and honorable Palestinian civilians are being held hostage by Hamas, and many will necessarily have to die in order to eradicate those savages, but that is the hand that has been dealt. It is unfortunate, but sometimes barbarism is the only language barbarians understand. If those savages were civilized there would be every reason to treat them with civility and avoid barbarity. But alas, it is not so, and it would be embarrassingly naive to think otherwise.

‘Subjugate’ how? For what reason? To force assimilation, to dislodge or to destroy? — I like sushi

Subjugate through force of arms, diplomatic means are obviously no longer an option. For the purpose of exterminating all traces of Hamas - for the betterment of the Palestinians that are tyrranized by Hamas, and Israelis too. There is no reason for a group like Hamas to exist.

I believe the vast majority just want the killing to stop but that is highly unlikely for another generation or two. — I like sushi

Most likely. It only takes a handful of assholes to ruin things for everyone else.

I have held the belief for a long time that patriotism and religion are equally dogmatic and almost as silly as each other. — I like sushi

Well, as long as there are nation-states and things beyond human understanding, there will be patriotism and religion.

? To insinuate that Israel is a Western Civilisation makes little sense to me, geographically, historically and politically. More ‘Western’ than Syria or Jordan? 100%. — I like sushi

Agree. Israel is not a proper Western state as such, but relative to the other states in it's geopolitical region, it falls most in line with the values of the West, evinced by it's generally favorable relation with many Western states.

We could explore forever what Western Civilisation means … that might be a good idea? ... Might be better to start with cultural and historical distinctions. It is a complex topic in and of itself. — I like sushi

The theory of postcolonialism has done a more than adequate job of contrasting Western culture with non-Western culture. No need to reinvent the wheel.

I would not call myself Left or Right. I do not think many people hold purely Left leaning or Right leaning views on every topic. I would say the same for Liberal and Conservative.

This insidious need to associate with one side or another is the biggest problem. — I like sushi

I think Left and Right make up a spectrum, which is why there are designations like of center, left of center, right leaning leftist, &c. I agree that no one conforms purely to one side, except for radicals.

I don't think people are choosing which side they are associated with. It is a a byproduct of one's morality and view of human nature, which are difficult for people to change. However, as a category that explains particular political dispositions and opinions, it works perfectly well.

many will necessarily have to die in order to eradicate those savages — Merkwurdichliebe

This is the crux of it. Necessary use of force. It is pretty clear to me that there has been too much force used. If people wish to avoid civilian casualties dropping lots of bombs on highly populated areas is not really going to cut it.

Boots on the ground would be the non-savage response. Killing thousands of civilians to save a 100 Israeli soldiers is not justified. In war soldiers should be dying not civilians. Seems pretty obvious to me.

The theory of postcolonialism has done a more than adequate job of contrasting Western culture with non-Western culture. No need to reinvent the wheel. — Merkwurdichliebe

There has to be a wheel to start with. There are no ubiquitous terms when it comes to culture. Culture has been a contentious term in anthropology since its inception.

This wording is very particular. — mcdoodle

Israel has something called Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. Hamas has something called the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement. The former intends to protect the fundamental rights and liberties of Israeli citizens. The latter makes no significant mention of the fundamental rights and liberties of Palestinian people.

What is "particular" about that? :chin:

How is Israel respecting 'the basic human rights and civil liberties' of the inhabitants of Gaza and the West Bank? — mcdoodle

The people of the Gaza strip and West Bank are not Israeli citizens, hence they are not recognized under the Israeli constitution and are not eligible for its protections. Hamas and PA are responsible for the civil administration of Palestinian territories in the West Bank and Gaza. I suppose their way of protecting the fundamental rights and liberties of Palestinian people is by embezzling billions in aid and infrastructure meant for civilians...or committing terrorist acts that provoke heavy military responses, and using their own civilians as human sheilds.

Boots on the ground would be the non-savage response. Killing thousands of civilians to save a 100 Israeli soldiers is not justified. In war soldiers should be dying not civilians. Seems pretty obvious to me. — I like sushi

On paper, it is obvious. But in reality, it is a fantasy. The non-barbaric response is long dead at this point. It was tried, and it failed. Diplomacy and half measures will do nothing but guarantee a future October 7th, and if that is to be avoided, Israel is going to have to get medieval. It is unfortunate.

There has to be a wheel to start with. There are no ubiquitous terms when it comes to culture. Culture has been a contentious term in anthropology since its inception. — I like sushi

Nevertheless, postcolonialism has made a strong case that there is such thing as western culture, and in civilized societies in which western culture reigns, we can say that these belong to Western civilization.

I should add that postcolonialism speaks of Eurocentrism, the history of colonialism, cultural hybridity, and Globalization as being key components of Western Culture.

I suppose their way of protecting the fundamental rights and liberties of Palestinian people is by embezzling billions in aid and infrastructure meant for civilians...or committing terrorist acts that provoke heavy military responses, and using their own civilians as human sheilds. — Merkwurdichliebe

Some want to conveniently overlook these points.

I think it is more about humans dying actually. That said, idiots will side with certain elements if it makes them feel morally superior. Humans are only human.

I should probably mention that members of the Israeli government wanted some form of attack in order to make a move on Gaza. All kinds of underhanded actions take place in these situations. Just like with Ukraine the truth of the matter may see the light of day in several decades time.

All talk is irrelevant really. Actions speak louder rhetoric.