You don't buy into that line of reasoning because it's inaccurate. The oppression is ongoing, though it has in many ways become less blatant and more systematic. The reason that you might "pay" for it, is because by virtue of being born into the world a white male (I assume), you benefit from a substantial amount of privilege compared to minority groups. The privilege you (and I, and all of us on the sift in different ways) enjoy is not due to any particular virtue or hard-work of our own, but because we were luck enough to be born into a certain group. When looked at that way, one sees that the whole point of minority rights groups IS equality, which is why they fight to bring their societal status UP to where you already benefit from being. And, yes, sometimes it means disadvantaging those who are at the top, in the name of an equal playing field.

To be clear, I think the women on the show are being cruel and insulting, but the idea that the actions of a few women, whether they call themselves feminists or not, are enough to damn all of feminism is RIDICULOUS. Do you think none of the civil rights movement have any validity because you disagree with the methods of Malcolm X?


>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Sarzy:
Women are allowed to be playfully sexist towards men for the same reason black people are allowed to be racist towards whites -- to make up for hundreds of years of oppression (that is still going on to some extent). It seems like a fair enough deal to me.

Hundreds of years of oppression by dead men. And now every future generation of white people must pay. I never bought into that line of reasoning. I hear it a lot, too.


Feminists do differentiate themselves. There are many different schools of thought within feminism.

And I think the political example is a bad one. The United States is a two party-system, where if you aren't an identified Democrat or Republican, you have little chance of being part of the next government. The parties encompass a highly diverse field, and sometimes, if you want to be in a position to make a difference, you have to associate with a few undesirables.

Furthermore, the Republican's outright endorsement of Tea Partiers is a far cry from feminists failing to condemn every single instance of "misandry".

Now that I think about it, why are we even asking feminists to differentiate themselves? There's already a differentiation. Feminism =/= Misandry.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

@hpqp
Would you consider the Tea Party Republicans actual republicans? I would--even if they are a psychotic division of the branch. Because the Tea Party Hijacked its way into the republican party and republicans are not doing enough to kick them out. Instead, they are catering more and more to them. They are speaking up less and less. Does that make me prejudice? It is exactly the same reasoning I am using in this argument so you have to say, "yes." And to that I ask, why?
And if you say, "No, it's different," then your applying wishy-washy standards...
But even if I am "wrong" in my belief, calling me "prejudice" was a bit low for you, and I think you lost that argument simply for that insult.
In other words, I look at Gwiz's comments and that's exactly what I am saying. I just used different words. They (feminists) need to call themselves something different to differentiate themselves from all the assholes. Exactly the same thing. So point out to him what an analogy fail he made please and the fact that he is prejudiced too, since he thinks the definition of feminist is close to what I think it is...

Yes--the feminists will complain in some small way. That's not the problem--but it is.

What he is saying is that most feminists won't jump on the podium and do what's right. They will burn their bras on a march, they will call out small injustices when it's a guy versus a woman everyday of their lives, but they will give this five minutes and then move on without a care in the world.

This is equal to Dan Savage and why he hates moderate Christians who don't scream about the far right who bash gays. Those that don't stand up more than just "Oh, it's wrong."

I don't hate feminists, but these ARE feminists. They just happen to be the far RIGHT feminists that don't belong. Just like the far RIGHT Christians... But then, I have been around true feminists like these women...

And hp, so you have changed your mind? Are far right Christians now not of the religious, but are mere dicks because they don't represent the movement? I doubt it... Just something to think on my friend. A bit of food for ye mind.

>> ^hpqp:

Those cackling hags are NOT feminists, they're stupid dicks. That being said, this loudmouth needs to get some perspective and not decide what feminism is based on a few singular situations.
For every story of a woman being treated preferentially (NOT what feminism is about btw), there are a million and one cases of misogynous abuse, lack of equal rights, rape perps and wife-killers walking free, "honour" killings, etc etc etc.
Most feminists will be the first to call out the hateful ignorance of situations like the one above, because it goes completely against what feminism is about, i.e. equal treatment. The way I see it, those dimwits (and anyone else who found this story funny instead of tragic) had something of an "Osama's death" moment, rejoicing over something unethical out of a sense of revenge for past (and present) misdeeds. Instead of using this situation to talk about the other side of what equality means - i.e. that women can be criminal/crazy/violent too - they took the low road of laughing at someone's mutilation. Shame on them, not on feminism.

I upvoted your comment, because I agree with the sentiment. But I think the angry atheist still has a point, too. His claim to fame is being a loudmouth, which doesn't serve him very well when he tries to make a point on a sensitive issue that not many people are good at considering.

We've had more and more of these kerfluffles lately and I expect they will become even more frequent. Another example is the Dawkins vs Watson nonsense that happened not too long ago.

And if interaction between feminists and non-feminists weren't complex enough, even feminism itself is splintering as new generations of women are entering the fold and the old guard is becoming irrelevant. Such dynamics are extremely complex, especially when people aren't able to objectively look at the world and their role in it.

So, I upvoted both your comment and the video. I think they are both right, to a point, and also wrong, to a point.

>> ^hpqp:

Those cackling hags are NOT feminists, they're stupid dicks. That being said, this loudmouth needs to get some perspective and not decide what feminism is based on a few singular situations.
For every story of a woman being treated preferentially (NOT what feminism is about btw), there are a million and one cases of misogynous abuse, lack of equal rights, rape perps and wife-killers walking free, "honour" killings, etc etc etc.
Most feminists will be the first to call out the hateful ignorance of situations like the one above, because it goes completely against what feminism is about, i.e. equal treatment. The way I see it, those dimwits (and anyone else who found this story funny instead of tragic) had something of an "Osama's death" moment, rejoicing over something unethical out of a sense of revenge for past (and present) misdeeds. Instead of using this situation to talk about the other side of what equality means - i.e. that women can be criminal/crazy/violent too - they took the low road of laughing at someone's mutilation. Shame on them, not on feminism.

I wish I could have upvoted this comment 5 times.

>> ^hpqp:

Those cackling hags are NOT feminists, they're stupid dicks. That being said, this loudmouth needs to get some perspective and not decide what feminism is based on a few singular situations.
For every story of a woman being treated preferentially (NOT what feminism is about btw), there are a million and one cases of misogynous abuse, lack of equal rights, rape perps and wife-killers walking free, "honour" killings, etc etc etc.
Most feminists will be the first to call out the hateful ignorance of situations like the one above, because it goes completely against what feminism is about, i.e. equal treatment. The way I see it, those dimwits (and anyone else who found this story funny instead of tragic) had something of an "Osama's death" moment, rejoicing over something unethical out of a sense of revenge for past (and present) misdeeds. Instead of using this situation to talk about the other side of what equality means - i.e. that women can be criminal/crazy/violent too - they took the low road of laughing at someone's mutilation. Shame on them, not on feminism.

I adore you.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
Those cackling hags are NOT feminists, they're stupid dicks. That being said, this loudmouth needs to get some perspective and not decide what feminism is based on a few singular situations.

For every story of a woman being treated preferentially (NOT what feminism is about btw), there are a million and one cases of misogynous abuse, lack of equal rights, rape perps and wife-killers walking free, "honour" killings, etc etc etc.

Most feminists will be the first to call out the hateful ignorance of situations like the one above, because it goes completely against what feminism is about, i.e. equal treatment. The way I see it, those dimwits (and anyone else who found this story funny instead of tragic) had something of an "Osama's death" moment, rejoicing over something unethical out of a sense of revenge for past (and present) misdeeds. Instead of using this situation to talk about the other side of what equality means - i.e. that women can be criminal/crazy/violent too - they took the low road of laughing at someone's mutilation. Shame on them, not on feminism.

"That is not what Christianity is about, it's about love and peace and harmony or some such bullshit. It's totally not about oppressing, shunning and alienating people outside the circle."

Feminism needs to call itself something different to differentiate itself from all the assholes.
>> ^hpqp:

Those cackling hags are NOT feminists, they're stupid dicks. That being said, this loudmouth needs to get some perspective and not decide what feminism is based on a few singular situations.
For every story of a woman being treated preferentially (NOT what feminism is about btw), there are a million and one cases of misogynous abuse, lack of equal rights, rape perps and wife-killers walking free, "honour" killings, etc etc etc.
Most feminists will be the first to call out the hateful ignorance of situations like the one above, because it goes completely against what feminism is about, i.e. equal treatment. The way I see it, those dimwits (and anyone else who found this story funny instead of tragic) had something of an "Osama's death" moment, rejoicing over something unethical out of a sense of revenge for past (and present) misdeeds. Instead of using this situation to talk about the other side of what equality means - i.e. that women can be criminal/crazy/violent too - they took the low road of laughing at someone's mutilation. Shame on them, not on feminism.

Actually, those ads which depict men as lousy at childrearing and housework are just a subtler form of sexism (towards women, of course, but also men imo), but not misandry. The implied message is "housework and childrearing are the woman's job, only she's good at it", basically regurgitating the same crap from the 50s, but more perniciously.

There's this absolutely pathetic ad for Renault*, for example, which basically says "doing fatherly duties is emasculating, thankfully you've got our car to still be a man." (The slogan in French translates roughly to "so men can still be men", while the Spanish one says "fathers, but men", as if the two were contrary to eachother)

The reason why you won't see misandry in publicity is because, contrary to sexism, it is not an established cultural phenomenon, so advertisers know it will not reach a large audience.


*http://youtu.be/3Syyk7geHTY

In reply to this comment by DerHasisttot:
I do think there is a problem with misandry being accepted. I seldom watch TV, but especially in advertising, men in family-situations are often described as stupid or incapable, while there is a woman who rolls her eyes and does everything right. We don't see it the other way around anymore, and that's very good. But we should not see it either way imho. I try to look for an example.



Edit: Can't find anything at the moment, so consider it just my uninformed opinion :-)

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
No worries, assumed you did (btw, I was typing at the same time as you, so didn't see your comment until after posting mine : )

edit: the only reason why i didn't upvote your comment is because i don't agree about the "acceptance of misandry" bit. If i'm not mistaken this shining example received its fair share of criticism for being the spiteful crap that it is.

In reply to this comment by DerHasisttot:
Thanks. Him equating the hags with feminists completely fell under my radar. :-)

Edit: To clarify: I agree with all you said.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
Those cackling hags are NOT feminists, they're stupid dicks. That being said, this loudmouth needs to get some perspective and not decide what feminism is based on a few singular situations.

For every story of a woman being treated preferentially (NOT what feminism is about btw), there are a million and one cases of misogynous abuse, lack of equal rights, rape perps and wife-killers walking free, "honour" killings, etc etc etc.

Most feminists will be the first to call out the hateful ignorance of situations like the one above, because it goes completely against what feminism is about, i.e. equal treatment. The way I see it, those dimwits (and anyone else who found this story funny instead of tragic) had something of an "Osama's death" moment, rejoicing over something unethical out of a sense of revenge for past (and present) misdeeds. Instead of using this situation to talk about the other side of what equality means - i.e. that women can be criminal/crazy/violent too - they took the low road of laughing at someone's mutilation. Shame on them, not on feminism.

I do think there is a problem with misandry being accepted. I seldom watch TV, but especially in advertising, men in family-situations are often described as stupid or incapable, while there is a woman who rolls her eyes and does everything right. We don't see it the other way around anymore, and that's very good. But we should not see it either way imho. I try to look for an example.



Edit: Can't find anything at the moment, so consider it just my uninformed opinion :-)

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
No worries, assumed you did (btw, I was typing at the same time as you, so didn't see your comment until after posting mine : )

edit: the only reason why i didn't upvote your comment is because i don't agree about the "acceptance of misandry" bit. If i'm not mistaken this shining example received its fair share of criticism for being the spiteful crap that it is.

In reply to this comment by DerHasisttot:
Thanks. Him equating the hags with feminists completely fell under my radar. :-)

Edit: To clarify: I agree with all you said.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
Those cackling hags are NOT feminists, they're stupid dicks. That being said, this loudmouth needs to get some perspective and not decide what feminism is based on a few singular situations.

For every story of a woman being treated preferentially (NOT what feminism is about btw), there are a million and one cases of misogynous abuse, lack of equal rights, rape perps and wife-killers walking free, "honour" killings, etc etc etc.

Most feminists will be the first to call out the hateful ignorance of situations like the one above, because it goes completely against what feminism is about, i.e. equal treatment. The way I see it, those dimwits (and anyone else who found this story funny instead of tragic) had something of an "Osama's death" moment, rejoicing over something unethical out of a sense of revenge for past (and present) misdeeds. Instead of using this situation to talk about the other side of what equality means - i.e. that women can be criminal/crazy/violent too - they took the low road of laughing at someone's mutilation. Shame on them, not on feminism.

No worries, assumed you did (btw, I was typing at the same time as you, so didn't see your comment until after posting mine )

edit: the only reason why i didn't upvote your comment is because i don't agree about the "acceptance of misandry" bit. If i'm not mistaken this shining example received its fair share of criticism for being the spiteful crap that it is.

In reply to this comment by DerHasisttot:
Thanks. Him equating the hags with feminists completely fell under my radar. :-)

Edit: To clarify: I agree with all you said.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
Those cackling hags are NOT feminists, they're stupid dicks. That being said, this loudmouth needs to get some perspective and not decide what feminism is based on a few singular situations.

For every story of a woman being treated preferentially (NOT what feminism is about btw), there are a million and one cases of misogynous abuse, lack of equal rights, rape perps and wife-killers walking free, "honour" killings, etc etc etc.

Most feminists will be the first to call out the hateful ignorance of situations like the one above, because it goes completely against what feminism is about, i.e. equal treatment. The way I see it, those dimwits (and anyone else who found this story funny instead of tragic) had something of an "Osama's death" moment, rejoicing over something unethical out of a sense of revenge for past (and present) misdeeds. Instead of using this situation to talk about the other side of what equality means - i.e. that women can be criminal/crazy/violent too - they took the low road of laughing at someone's mutilation. Shame on them, not on feminism.

Thanks. Him equating the hags with feminists completely fell under my radar. :-)

Edit: To clarify: I agree with all you said.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
Those cackling hags are NOT feminists, they're stupid dicks. That being said, this loudmouth needs to get some perspective and not decide what feminism is based on a few singular situations.

For every story of a woman being treated preferentially (NOT what feminism is about btw), there are a million and one cases of misogynous abuse, lack of equal rights, rape perps and wife-killers walking free, "honour" killings, etc etc etc.

Most feminists will be the first to call out the hateful ignorance of situations like the one above, because it goes completely against what feminism is about, i.e. equal treatment. The way I see it, those dimwits (and anyone else who found this story funny instead of tragic) had something of an "Osama's death" moment, rejoicing over something unethical out of a sense of revenge for past (and present) misdeeds. Instead of using this situation to talk about the other side of what equality means - i.e. that women can be criminal/crazy/violent too - they took the low road of laughing at someone's mutilation. Shame on them, not on feminism.

Those cackling hags are NOT feminists, they're stupid dicks. That being said, this loudmouth needs to get some perspective and not decide what feminism is based on a few singular situations.

For every story of a woman being treated preferentially (NOT what feminism is about btw), there are a million and one cases of misogynous abuse, lack of equal rights, rape perps and wife-killers walking free, "honour" killings, etc etc etc.

Most feminists will be the first to call out the hateful ignorance of situations like the one above, because it goes completely against what feminism is about, i.e. equal treatment. The way I see it, those dimwits (and anyone else who found this story funny instead of tragic) had something of an "Osama's death" moment, rejoicing over something unethical out of a sense of revenge for past (and present) misdeeds. Instead of using this situation to talk about the other side of what equality means - i.e. that women can be criminal/crazy/violent too - they took the low road of laughing at someone's mutilation. Shame on them, not on feminism.

LOL! I wasn't at work! Where in the heck did that come from?! It's called context! There's social context (black friend knew me, knows I'm not a racist, knows what the intent was when I said it, I wasn't at work, I wasn't around others who might misinterpret it), and then there's the context of the joke, which you can discern that I'm actually poking fun of society often assuming the black guy did it. I'm smart enough to know I'd never make a joke like that at work. I also know it's a bad idea to for example play solitaire at work, too. Does that mean solitaire is an evil thing? OF COURSE NOT! The only thing you're pointing out is a joke like that heard out of context could be misinterpreted as racist because it involves race. I could see my joke being misinterpreted had my friend not known me. I wouldn't walk into a group of people who didn't know me and say the same joke! For that matter, I wouldn't walk up to a stranger and debate economic theory either. Doesn't make debating economic theory wrong! LOL...

Your point is ridiculous in this case. Racism was very often *fought* by comics using similar tactics. Are you suggesting Richard Pryor, Gene Wilder, Jon Stewart, Whoopi Goldberg, Robin Williams, Louis CK, Eddie Murphy, Bill Cosby, all of them are racists?! It's ridiculous. Jon Stewart, who is ethnically part Jewish, makes jokes relating to Jewish stereotypes, so that makes him anti-semitic?! Kevin Smith made an entire movie making fun of Catholicism, and he's catholic. That makes him a Catholic hater?! There's an entire section of culture that has been positive in this regard, and you don't see this?!

If you can't understand that, your brain can't understand context, and what is acceptable in various social situations. The joke I told to the people I told it to, when I told it made everyone laugh and offended no one, and that was entirely expected. In no way was it ever said or implied that blacks are inferior to whites whatsoever. It's therefore NOT RACIST!

You've never heard of a christian husband telling their wife to do something and then she did it simply because he told her to? Uhhhh, Michelle Bachmann is on record saying that her husband told her to become a tax lawyer, and she did it simply because he told her to. That's what Maher was railing about as sexist, and he's dead right about that. That's not as sexist as him telling her, "Go make me a sandwich!" But it is sexist that she had to do it simply because he told her to because he's the husband, and she's the wife. Unless of course, in their marriage, if she told him to go become a nurse, he also had to do it simply because she told him to. But once that happens, that's no longer "wives must be submissive to their husbands". That's "spouses must be submissive to each other". That's the difference.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

No, what counts is the intent of the joke.
A white guy walks into Harlem and starts cracking racist jokes and telling the offended African-Americans, "It's OK because my INTENTION isn't racist..." If you told your joke where I worked, you'd be hauled into the Human Resources department and either instantly fired, or put through a merry bout of "Sensitivity Training" under the threat of being fired. You know as well as I do that there is an entire industry based around the reality that racism is irrelevant of intention of the speaker. All that matters that a comment can be interpreted as racist by a passer-by. That's racism under the law, and if you walked into the HR department with a bunch of crap about "intention" as your only justification you'd get your @$$ tossed out the door - and justifiably so. Quite frankly, you should be thanking your lucky stars that the guy you cracked wise to, or anyone else else in earshot, decided not to make an issue of it or you'd be unemployed.
If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to tell you other than your brain lacks the ability to comprehend context.
I perfectly understand the archetecture of the excuses you have constructed around yourself. I simply reject them as factually incorrect, mentally simplistic, and culturally insensitive. If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to tell you other than your brain lacks the ability to comprehend.
That's the definition of a bigot - zero tolerance for the ideas of some others. That's not the same as a racist. Nice try diverting that one.
OK - for clarity... Maher is a bigot AND a racist AND a sexist AND whole bunch of other things. And being 'human' is never a justifiable excuse to satisfy Maher when he attacks people he hates. Humans do lots of stupid things. When they do, they are typically held accountable for it rather than getting a free pass.
If the bible says that wives must be submissive to their husbands, that's sexist!
Put simply, Paul's opinions about women are not "Christianity". He was a unique fellow, who also advocated remaining unmarried - and yet that was never christian doctrine. Regardless, as I said before, I've never once met this hypothetical Christian who tells his woman "go make me a sammich". The strawman is more rare than a fiscal conservative thought in Obama's brain. But as I said, roles assumed by couples are less 'sexism' and are more 'practical reality'.
I'm not sure you're aware of this, but people who agree with Maher tend to be the ones who go out of their way to see him live.
Fair enough. I stand corrected in regards to his audience being stacked purposefully. However, I maintain that it is stacked and Maher would be much more moderate in his crass behavior, bigotry, racism, and sexism if he had a more balanced audience that didn't consist of mostly ideologically sympathetic cheerleaders.
Finally, ANYONE to the left of you, you characterize as a neolib, lib, socialist, etc.
Untrue and hyperbole.
Your characterization of his guests isn't accurate in the slightest.
No - I'd say you simply find it uncomfortably accurate and therefore deny it.

No, what counts is the intent of the joke.

A white guy walks into Harlem and starts cracking racist jokes and telling the offended African-Americans, "It's OK because my INTENTION isn't racist..." If you told your joke where I worked, you'd be hauled into the Human Resources department and either instantly fired, or put through a merry bout of "Sensitivity Training" under the threat of being fired. You know as well as I do that there is an entire industry based around the reality that racism is irrelevant of intention of the speaker. All that matters that a comment can be interpreted as racist by a passer-by. That's racism under the law, and if you walked into the HR department with a bunch of crap about "intention" as your only justification you'd get your @$$ tossed out the door - and justifiably so. Quite frankly, you should be thanking your lucky stars that the guy you cracked wise to, or anyone else else in earshot, decided not to make an issue of it or you'd be unemployed.

If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to tell you other than your brain lacks the ability to comprehend context.

I perfectly understand the archetecture of the excuses you have constructed around yourself. I simply reject them as factually incorrect, mentally simplistic, and culturally insensitive. If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to tell you other than your brain lacks the ability to comprehend.

That's the definition of a bigot - zero tolerance for the ideas of some others. That's not the same as a racist. Nice try diverting that one.

OK - for clarity... Maher is a bigot AND a racist AND a sexist AND whole bunch of other things. And being 'human' is never a justifiable excuse to satisfy Maher when he attacks people he hates. Humans do lots of stupid things. When they do, they are typically held accountable for it rather than getting a free pass.

If the bible says that wives must be submissive to their husbands, that's sexist!

Put simply, Paul's opinions about women are not "Christianity". He was a unique fellow, who also advocated remaining unmarried - and yet that was never christian doctrine. Regardless, as I said before, I've never once met this hypothetical Christian who tells his woman "go make me a sammich". The strawman is more rare than a fiscal conservative thought in Obama's brain. But as I said, roles assumed by couples are less 'sexism' and are more 'practical reality'.

I'm not sure you're aware of this, but people who agree with Maher tend to be the ones who go out of their way to see him live.

Fair enough. I stand corrected in regards to his audience being stacked purposefully. However, I maintain that it is stacked and Maher would be much more moderate in his crass behavior, bigotry, racism, and sexism if he had a more balanced audience that didn't consist of mostly ideologically sympathetic cheerleaders.

Finally, ANYONE to the left of you, you characterize as a neolib, lib, socialist, etc.

Untrue and hyperbole.

Your characterization of his guests isn't accurate in the slightest.

No - I'd say you simply find it uncomfortably accurate and therefore deny it.

No, what counts is the intent of the joke. The other day, I was joking with a black friend and a white friend about how years ago a black friend of mine played a prank on someone, and the victim of said prank blamed me, and I joked that, "I can't believe they assumed I did it. There's a black guy standing RIGHT THERE!!!"

My black friend hearing the joke cracked up. It wasn't racist whatsoever. First off, he knew I wasn't serious. Secondly, the entire joke was pointing out that society often assumes blacks are guilty of crimes or wrongdoing simply because they're black. That's the entire point of the joke! It's not racist in the slightest! In fact, it's criticizing still present racism in society. If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to tell you other than your brain lacks the ability to comprehend context.

How can I defend Maher on some points and criticize him on others? It's really simple - he's a human being. Humans make mistakes, and can be correct. Maher is a bigot, I wasn't arguing that. I'm a bigot when it comes to people who lie or intentionally spread false information repeatedly. I have zero tolerance for people who do that. That's the definition of a bigot - zero tolerance for the ideas of some others. That's not the same as a racist. Nice try diverting that one.

About the sexism stuff, you are the one saying that Christians traditionally haven't been sexist, and the proof is it's been traditionally against physical abuse, etc. Well, that doesn't prove a lack of sexism. That's my entire point. If the bible says that wives must be submissive to their husbands, that's sexist! That means wives should do what they're told, and while it's more sexist to be told to "Make me a sandwich!" than something more respectful, it's still sexist that a woman must what she's told simply because a husband says so.

Finally, the bit about Maher's audience is laughable. Maher doesn't intentionally fill his audience with like minded sheep. I'm not sure you're aware of this, but people who agree with Maher tend to be the ones who go out of their way to see him live. I know... SHOCKING! While I won't dispute he tends to have more left wingers who agree with him, you must admit many times that's because those are the people who more often want to be on his show, and he's certainly gone toe to toe with the hard core conservatives quite frequently, such as Ann Coulter both on his show and in public debates. Finally, ANYONE to the left of you, you characterize as a neolib, lib, socialist, etc. So even the moderates on his show you won't acknowledge anyway, so your characterization of his guests isn't accurate in the slightest.

Thanks for playing though...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

No, you're a racist if you actually intend to put one race over another, etc. If I joke about a friend of mine who can't dance and call him 'white', that's not racist.
If a white guy jokes about a black man liking fried chicken & collard greens then that is racist. Joking about whites not being able to jump is racist. It is the very epitome of racism. You are perhaps trying to make some sort of vivisection between 'racism' and 'hateful racism'. I do not make such distinctions. Racism is racism. I don't care how light the shade of the racism is. I call it what it is. There's no such thing as innocent racism.
Did you not catch that I criticized him for characterizing all religious people as sexist?
Yes - but I don't get how you can give the guy a pass for being a bigot in one breath and criticize him the next. If he's a bigot then you shouldn't defend him, and quite frankly choosing to watch his show when you KNOW he's a bigot is tacit approval of bigotry. I'm sure if you met one, you'd find that some members of the Klu-Klux-Klan were "funny, and often insightful, even though I fundamentally disagree with them frequently." A bigot is a bigot, and should be shunned, shamed, and ostracized from society - not given a free pass because they make you chuckle sometimes.
If you expect the wife to clean the house, cook the meals, etc. simply because she's the female of the couple, that's sexist.
I agree. But showing someone respect is not 'treating them like delicate little flowers'. It is simple common courtesy. When you are in a monogamous relationship, there comes a time when people divvy out the chores. A man who refuses to help because 'it's woman's work' is an idiot and a sexist. Likewise a woman who just expects the man to work 9-to-5 and does not contribute to the household herself is also a sexist.

Finally, Maher only takes shots at those least likely to fire back?!
By and large - yes. That's why he fills his audience with ideologically favorable clapping sheep. It's why he loads his guest lists with like 90% leftist neolib radicals. It's why why he gives himself long spans of time to conduct uninterrupted diatribes instead of engaging in real debates with active opponents. He's a coward, a bully, and a bigot. That's what cowardly, bigoted bullies do.

Thanks for the clarification -- I'm glad this is in the comment stream.

Yeah, I think lies is a great thing to add -- and take out parody. Lies is more accurate.

Stupid crazy world. Things are better, thank god. And stupid crazy world.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
Personally, I did not find this video very funny - well, other than in the "better-to-laugh-than-to-cry" way - thus the fear, history and controversy channels (and no comedy channel). The parody channel was added by @ant, and I interpret that as synonymous to "a travesty" (no offense to transvestites), especially vis-à-vis what you point out, i.e. that gang-rape is a very male (and almost always heterosexual) vice. What is really alarming is that there are still hateful bigots out there depicting the lesbian "agenda" in this way today (see for example Pat Robertson on "lesbian babykilling"). It seemed to me that the * lies contained in this propaganda film were so obvious that adding that channel would be redundant, but perhaps I should just in case?

One caveat though: women can and do commit sexual abuse, albeit to a far, far lesser extent than men.

Some statistics for the US: http://ifritah.livejournal.com/211376.html