Ben Affleck on Real Time: Islamaphobia

[Dan H.]

So to start this off I am very aware that both Maher and Affleck are huge douchebags, but I've seen this story pop up a million times on all sorts of news sources claiming that Bill Maher went on some racist tyrade and Ben Affleck 'owned him'.

Here's a link to the video. And I gotta say to me it seems like Affleck looked like a bumbling idiot liberal stereotype, and that Bill was being relatively constructive.

What do you guys think?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/06/ben-affleck-and-bill-maher-are-both-wrong-about-islamic-fundamentalism/

[magisme]

lol all of them

[TeeJay410]

I think Maher has a legitimate point. But as always, his presentation could use some work.

[MEXzilla]

Maher is a loser, a comedian at heart. Never take that guy seriously.

[Apollo]

Two multi-millionaire entertainers chatting about world affairs. No different than watching any two people on this forum debate it.

Just because one is an actor and one is a comedian doesn't mean that they know d*ck or that their opinion is important. Maher is no different than Limbaugh or Maddux. Extremely biased with no critical thought going on, everything he says is agenda based to get ratings.

I'd rather listen to downzy and shades go at it than these two arrogant douches.

[downzy]

Two multi-millionaire entertainers chatting about world affairs. No different than watching any two people on this forum debate it.

Just because one is an actor and one is a comedian doesn't mean that they know d*ck or that their opinion is important. Maher is no different than Limbaugh or Maddux. Extremely biased with no critical thought going on, everything he says is agenda based to get ratings.

I'd rather listen to downzy and shades go at it than these two arrogant douches.

Well thanks for the compliment (I think?).

But in all fairness, as someone who routinely blasts others on this forum for debating the person through their personal attacks rather than the points their making, I'm surprised by your post. Why not at least address the issues they're raising as opposed to your incrimination of who they are as people?

Also, before you start lumping all partisans together, understand that they're not all equal. Maddow has a doctorate from Oxford and is a Rhode Scholar. Limbaugh dropped out from his undergraduate program after a year. That doesn't necessarily render everything Limbaugh has to say as invalid (as the old saying goes, a broken clock is right twice a day), but please, let's not falsely equate two individuals with grossly different backgrounds and perspectives.

As for the topic at hand, I think both have some valid points. For me, though I think I side with Affleck on this one. Mahr is a little too quick to generalize all of Islam. If Mahr and Harris limited their argument to the middle east/Africa, where education and civil society is severely lacking, they'd have a stronger case. When there exists a vacuum of civil society and institutions where religion fills the void, chaos, violence and fundamentalism will reign. It happened with Christianity centuries ago (and in some spaces of the world, it still exists). If this conversation were to have happened 400-500 years ago, we'd likely be talking about a different religion.

Also important to consider is that the Western world has been blessed with abundance in a way that the Muslim world has not. Fundamentalism is often a by-product of misery and domination. In these desolate territories, Islam is often unfortunately used as the vehicle by which the resulting anger, hate and fear gets channeled. Harris quotes one poll of British Muslims, but how many of those polled are from several generations of landed immigrants/nationals? My guess is that a majority of those polled were likely new to the U.K.

[AxlisOld]

Most people that aren't political analysts on Real Time (celebrities) are fucking stupid.

[Rovim]

Maher is a loser, a comedian at heart. Never take that guy seriously.

Why? he's a smart man that speaks his mind. I like him.

[TeeJay410]

Let's not forget about that Sam Harris guy backing Maher, he's a pretty damn notable guy in the study of religion and criticism of it.

The core if Maher's point is one I can get behind, and Affleck was a terrible example of the sort of neo-liberalism that's taken Hollywood. All religions are not the same and do not teach the same things. In action, a Christian society will say that if you are gay, you cannot get married. An Islamic one will say that if you are gay, you cannot live. Or if you leave the faith, you cannot live. The fact of the matter is, "extremist" Islam isn't all that extreme. It is a literal interpretation of a religion that outright dictates it be understood literally, unlike the bible where it is ambiguous towards how literally it should be taken. Fundamentalism isn't the issue at the core of it. A fundamentalist Jainist wouldn't harm a single living thing.

The issue with Islam are the fundamentals of it rather than fundamentalism. It is a religion that dictates that it's holy text is the literal word of God as told to the prophet Mohammed and cannot be questioned and no other text is legitimate. That core principal in itself runs directly in the face of the ideals of liberalism and notions of justice, equality, and free inquiry that liberals value. There is an overreaching on the left for multi-culturalism, when the fact of the matter is some aspects of some cultures are plain wrong and injust, including our own. In this overreach for multiculturalism, many refuse to acknowledge faults of other cultures as they would our own.

Edited October 6, 2014 by TeeJay410

[Dan H.]

I think Bill should have made it clearer that he was attacking the ideology of the religion, not the moderate Muslims.

Affleck seemed eager to draw the conversation towards racism, and away from the fact that Islam is pretty much the most dangerous religion on the planet.

And the other pannelists even said that they don't want the solution to be war or violence, but rather supporting the voices of Islam that are more productive to the ideology of a free world.

[Ace Nova]

Wow....so many inaccuracies on both sides of the argument....they seemed to be making things up as they went along. Anything Goes would put them to shame.....

(The guy on the far right, next to Maher, was the only one that actually made some sense).

Edited October 6, 2014 by Kasanova King

[Ace Nova]

My guess is that a majority of those polled were likely new to the U.K.

If you look at the polls listed in the article, most of the Muslims living in the "westernized" nations seem to have their heads on straight.

[Rovim]

My guess is that a majority of those polled were likely new to the U.K.

If you look at the polls listed in the article, most of the Muslims living in the "westernized" nations seem to have their heads on straight.

you have you own lomitations though

[downzy]

Affleck seemed eager to draw the conversation towards racism, and away from the fact that Islam is pretty much the most dangerous religion on the planet.

I'll admit that the point Affleck was trying to make wasn't made very well. But I think it still holds up. He was using the term racism when he should have used prejudicial. To begin with, there is no Muslim race. But both Maher and Harris were generalizing in their analysis of the Muslim faith. I think that's a fair and accurate description of their position.

And I wouldn't say that Islam is the most dangerous religion on the planet, but that it's currently being used for violent and dangerous purposes, much like Christianity once was. It's not the religion itself, but how those use it to further their own selfish and/or geopolitical reasons that is causing the problem.

[Ace Nova]

Affleck seemed eager to draw the conversation towards racism, and away from the fact that Islam is pretty much the most dangerous religion on the planet.

I'll admit that the point Affleck was trying to make wasn't made very well. But I think it still holds up. He was using the term racism when he should have used prejudicial. To begin with, there is no Muslim race. But both Maher and Harris were generalizing in their analysis of the Muslim faith. I think that's a fair and accurate description of their position.

And I wouldn't say that Islam is the most dangerous religion on the planet, but that it's currently being used for violent and dangerous purposes, much like Christianity once was. It's not the religion itself, but how those use it to further their own selfish and/or geopolitical reasons that is causing the problem.

Seriously? Other than the guy on the far right, you or I would of owned them all in this debate. Not one of them (other than for-mentioned dude) had a clue of what they were talking about....all their stats were off....by a lot.

[Apollo]

Two multi-millionaire entertainers chatting about world affairs. No different than watching any two people on this forum debate it.

Just because one is an actor and one is a comedian doesn't mean that they know d*ck or that their opinion is important. Maher is no different than Limbaugh or Maddux. Extremely biased with no critical thought going on, everything he says is agenda based to get ratings.

I'd rather listen to downzy and shades go at it than these two arrogant douches.

Well thanks for the compliment (I think?).

But in all fairness, as someone who routinely blasts others on this forum for debating the person through their personal attacks rather than the points their making, I'm surprised by your post. Why not at least address the issues they're raising as opposed to your incrimination of who they are as people?

Also, before you start lumping all partisans together, understand that they're not all equal. Maddow has a doctorate from Oxford and is a Rhode Scholar. Limbaugh dropped out from his undergraduate program after a year. That doesn't necessarily render everything Limbaugh has to say as invalid (as the old saying goes, a broken clock is right twice a day), but please, let's not falsely equate two individuals with grossly different backgrounds and perspectives.

As for the topic at hand, I think both have some valid points. For me, though I think I side with Affleck on this one. Mahr is a little too quick to generalize all of Islam. If Mahr and Harris limited their argument to the middle east/Africa, where education and civil society is severely lacking, they'd have a stronger case. When there exists a vacuum of civil society and institutions where religion fills the void, chaos, violence and fundamentalism will reign. It happened with Christianity centuries ago (and in some spaces of the world, it still exists). If this conversation were to have happened 400-500 years ago, we'd likely be talking about a different religion.

Also important to consider is that the Western world has been blessed with abundance in a way that the Muslim world has not. Fundamentalism is often a by-product of misery and domination. In these desolate territories, Islam is often unfortunately used as the vehicle by which the resulting anger, hate and fear gets channeled. Harris quotes one poll of British Muslims, but how many of those polled are from several generations of landed immigrants/nationals? My guess is that a majority of those polled were likely new to the U.K.

Two reasons.

First is based off your first two paragraphs. Just because Maddow has more college experience doesn't mean that she is more informed as a reporter. She is probably 50 IQ points smarter than me. And Rush. But with all that knowledge, she is still a complete spin-master for the left side. Just like Rush is for the right. I'll take a college drop out who forms their opinions based on the facts of a situation instead of a Rhodes scholar who would rather drink their own urine than say the dems failed at something and republicans were 100% correct.

Second, I don't know enough about the discussion to voice a valid viewpoint. I'm not throwing an opinion in just based on where I sit politically or where the people involved sit politically. Any opinion I through into this specific discussion wouldn't be something worthwhile for you guys to read. I'd rather read posts from people who know more about it. When I go into a debate/discussion, my end-goal is that I LEARN more about it. Lots of people's end-game is that they hope to educate, ridicule and win the debate. I hope to leave the discussion knowing more about it, especially from the side/people that I initially disagreed with.

And it was a compliment.

I'd rather hear you and Shades argue. You both are really really tied to your "sides" of the coin. But at least I know you both are usually pretty knowledgeable on the subject. Affleck - seems like a cool guy and a decent actor in some roles, pretty great director imo......but I don't really care about his views on world issues. And Maher is a blow-hard who seems way too arrogant and like he is trying way too hard to be cool and intelligent. Him and the other comedian that's a die-hard republican, can't think of his name right now. Both those guys can be funny, but it seems like they try way too hard to be taken seriously. But ya. A failed comedian/actor and another actor talking about world events.....I'd rather talk about baseball.

[MEXzilla]

[downzy]

Affleck seemed eager to draw the conversation towards racism, and away from the fact that Islam is pretty much the most dangerous religion on the planet.

I'll admit that the point Affleck was trying to make wasn't made very well. But I think it still holds up. He was using the term racism when he should have used prejudicial. To begin with, there is no Muslim race. But both Maher and Harris were generalizing in their analysis of the Muslim faith. I think that's a fair and accurate description of their position.

And I wouldn't say that Islam is the most dangerous religion on the planet, but that it's currently being used for violent and dangerous purposes, much like Christianity once was. It's not the religion itself, but how those use it to further their own selfish and/or geopolitical reasons that is causing the problem.

Seriously? Other than the guy on the far right, you or I would of owned them all in this debate. Not one of them (other than for-mentioned dude) had a clue of what they were talking about....all their stats were off....by a lot.

Well, in fairness, Harris seems to be making some assumptions based on rather flimsily poll numbers. As much as I enjoy hearing Harris and Maher's opinions on current events, I'm not sure their arguments held up any better than did Affleck's and the rest of the panel.

Remember that Harris is known as an ardent secularist, to the point of being anti-theocratic. Maher, though less accomplished than Harris, also subscribes to this plank. The problem becomes that neither seem to be able to separate the forests from the trees. While I accept many of their arguments for why religious adherence is not a benefit to this world, I disagree with the vehemence found within their extrapolations from their arguments. Namely, that being religious renders one incapable of rational thought or speaks loudly about an individual's character. These assumptions are evident in this video clip, as they want peg all people of Islamic faith into one category. I think that's wrong. Like I said, it's fine to take issue with those who use religion to further their own ambitions, but it's absurd to necessarily blame the religion itself. That seems to be, at least how I see it, the mistake that both Harris and Maher are making. Pointing to one poll as your "point of contact" without putting such data into context betrays Harris's argument.

And trust me, as an avid secularist, I would very much like to support their positions. But lapse in logic can't be ignored. Affleck is trying to make the superior point, but he does a rather lousy job right up until the very end, where he finds a little better footing in reference to blaming all Philippine people for a crime committed by a few Philippines.

Obviously you're not going to get NPR like conversations on a show like Real Time, but at the very least, it's sparked an interesting conversation.

[downzy]

Two multi-millionaire entertainers chatting about world affairs. No different than watching any two people on this forum debate it.

Just because one is an actor and one is a comedian doesn't mean that they know d*ck or that their opinion is important. Maher is no different than Limbaugh or Maddux. Extremely biased with no critical thought going on, everything he says is agenda based to get ratings.

I'd rather listen to downzy and shades go at it than these two arrogant douches.

Well thanks for the compliment (I think?).

But in all fairness, as someone who routinely blasts others on this forum for debating the person through their personal attacks rather than the points their making, I'm surprised by your post. Why not at least address the issues they're raising as opposed to your incrimination of who they are as people?

Also, before you start lumping all partisans together, understand that they're not all equal. Maddow has a doctorate from Oxford and is a Rhode Scholar. Limbaugh dropped out from his undergraduate program after a year. That doesn't necessarily render everything Limbaugh has to say as invalid (as the old saying goes, a broken clock is right twice a day), but please, let's not falsely equate two individuals with grossly different backgrounds and perspectives.

As for the topic at hand, I think both have some valid points. For me, though I think I side with Affleck on this one. Mahr is a little too quick to generalize all of Islam. If Mahr and Harris limited their argument to the middle east/Africa, where education and civil society is severely lacking, they'd have a stronger case. When there exists a vacuum of civil society and institutions where religion fills the void, chaos, violence and fundamentalism will reign. It happened with Christianity centuries ago (and in some spaces of the world, it still exists). If this conversation were to have happened 400-500 years ago, we'd likely be talking about a different religion.

Also important to consider is that the Western world has been blessed with abundance in a way that the Muslim world has not. Fundamentalism is often a by-product of misery and domination. In these desolate territories, Islam is often unfortunately used as the vehicle by which the resulting anger, hate and fear gets channeled. Harris quotes one poll of British Muslims, but how many of those polled are from several generations of landed immigrants/nationals? My guess is that a majority of those polled were likely new to the U.K.

Two reasons.

First is based off your first two paragraphs. Just because Maddow has more college experience doesn't mean that she is more informed as a reporter. She is probably 50 IQ points smarter than me. And Rush. But with all that knowledge, she is still a complete spin-master for the left side. Just like Rush is for the right. I'll take a college drop out who forms their opinions based on the facts of a situation instead of a Rhodes scholar who would rather drink their own urine than say the dems failed at something and republicans were 100% correct.

Second, I don't know enough about the discussion to voice a valid viewpoint. I'm not throwing an opinion in just based on where I sit politically or where the people involved sit politically. Any opinion I through into this specific discussion wouldn't be something worthwhile for you guys to read. I'd rather read posts from people who know more about it. When I go into a debate/discussion, my end-goal is that I LEARN more about it. Lots of people's end-game is that they hope to educate, ridicule and win the debate. I hope to leave the discussion knowing more about it, especially from the side/people that I initially disagreed with.

And it was a compliment.

I'd rather hear you and Shades argue. You both are really really tied to your "sides" of the coin. But at least I know you both are usually pretty knowledgeable on the subject. Affleck - seems like a cool guy and a decent actor in some roles, pretty great director imo......but I don't really care about his views on world issues. And Maher is a blow-hard who seems way too arrogant and like he is trying way too hard to be cool and intelligent. Him and the other comedian that's a die-hard republican, can't think of his name right now. Both those guys can be funny, but it seems like they try way too hard to be taken seriously. But ya. A failed comedian/actor and another actor talking about world events.....I'd rather talk about baseball.

Fair enough, it is the playoffs after all.

But I find it humorous that you'd rather listen to people like Shades and I discuss matters of politics considering both of us are generally highly entrenched in our positions. Isn't this the same reason you cast dispersions towards Maddow and Limbaugh? And not to draw the parallels too sharply, but much like I attempt to do in my posts on political matters, Maddow at least gives statistics, evidence, and arguments based in logic to support her positions (though she's much better at it than I am). You may not agree with her conclusions (I don't agree with everything she says either), but let's not pretend that Limbaugh lives up to the standards that most doctorate and Rhode Scholar graduates seek to achieve when arguing their perspectives. In that respect, Shades is much like Limbaugh in that a majority of the arguments he makes are difficult to substantiate. Simply holding a position does not render that opinion valid if you're unwilling to support it with evidence. Which is why you'll often see arguments made by Shades and Limbaugh follow the same pattern of ad hominem. Every response by Shades to my post is to deride my use numbers, constantly calling me Mr. Google, rather than addressing the arguments themselves. Suggesting that both Shades and I know politics is akin to the suggestion that Limbaugh and Maddow are one-in-the same. Shades knows one side of the argument, but often times it appears he doesn't know enough on whether it stands up to scrutiny. When scrutiny is applied, he resorts to ad hominem.

If you enter a discussion to learn more about it, then why not at least listen to what they have to say? No one posts their opinion without thinking that they might make a difference in other people's opinions. It's why people put forward arguments. It's through contesting different opinions and ideas that generally the best come to reveal themselves. So I'm not sure why you would enter a thread on what Bill Maher and Ben Affleck have to say on the tenets of Islam if you have no interest in what either of them have to say? Moreover, why post in such a thread if you having nothing to contribute to the conversation other than your need to tell people how much you dislike either celebrity? It's one thing to say, "I don't like that person's perspective and here's why," It's another to post about why you just don't like that person and anything they have to say is inconsequential to you. If they're just a dumb celebrity who tries too hard to look cool, then shouldn't their arguments be easily refuted? That is what I don't understand about your post, especially from someone who routinely criticizes others for debating the person and not the point they make.

[magisme]

The problem, as is often the case, is this attempt to separate the good from the bad, to moralize and demonize, whether it's aimed at a small minority of a particular religion or the religion itself, and not even coming from people in the thick of things, whose lives might depend on it. No, it's coming from o bunch of comfortable, professionally groomed blowhards who have every comfort in the world that could allow them, if they so desired, to be patient with their thoughts, and quiet, until they came to some sort of understanding, which is much more difficult to arrive at than is judgement.

Never mind. Just tell me which ones are evil.

[downzy]

The problem, as is often the case, is this attempt to separate the good from the bad, to moralize and demonize, whether it's aimed at a small minority of a particular religion or the religion itself, and not even coming from people in the thick of things, whose lives might depend on it. No, it's coming from o bunch of comfortable, professionally groomed blowhards who have every comfort in the world that could allow them, if they so desired, to be patient with their thoughts, and quiet, until they came to some sort of understanding, which is much more difficult to arrive at than is judgement.

Never mind. Just tell me which ones are evil.

The answer to your question depends on whether you saw this movie:

[TeeJay410]

If I hear someone say "they are using religion to do evil" one more time I'll scream. An embarrassing majority of Religions outright dictate violence in their teachings. It just so happens that Islam these days is the one that sticks to those teaching more than others. That is by no coincidence. Just as the first rule of Christianity is that God is the only God and there are no other gods before him, the first core tennant of Islam is that the Koran is the literal word of Allah as revealed to the prophet Mohammad. That is a key and core principal to Islam. Now while the Torah, Bible and Koran are about even in violent, racist, sexist, etc nonsense, Islam is the one that teaches that those principles and rules are literal, and the holy text is not a living document, open to modern cultural interpretation. This is why you see poll numbers in Gallup and reuters where say 80% of Muslims in Egypt favor death for adultery, or even 19% of American Muslims (that is roughly one in five) believe that suicide attacks in defense of Islam are justified.

A possible counter to that last statistic is "well, surely you can find 20% of American Christians who believe in some abhorrent bull shit." That's the exact point. It should be equally okay to criticize the 20% of Christians who still think interracial marriage is wrong (just made that up as an example) as it is to criticize the 20% of Muslims who believe some other nonsense. The left (which for the record I consider myself loosely a part of) is reluctant to make the same criticisms of Islam that it will make of Christianity out of fear of appearing racist and being shouted at by Ben Affleck.

[magisme]

The problem, as is often the case, is this attempt to separate the good from the bad, to moralize and demonize, whether it's aimed at a small minority of a particular religion or the religion itself, and not even coming from people in the thick of things, whose lives might depend on it. No, it's coming from o bunch of comfortable, professionally groomed blowhards who have every comfort in the world that could allow them, if they so desired, to be patient with their thoughts, and quiet, until they came to some sort of understanding, which is much more difficult to arrive at than is judgement.

Never mind. Just tell me which ones are evil.

The answer to your question depends on whether you saw this movie:

I'd rather read an entire section of a forum filled with nothing but nonsensical back and forths between wasted and Rovim. Wait....

[wasted]

I'm just shocked by how they settle their differences. I guess it's just a more barbaric scene over there. Whatever the religion the stakes seem higher.

[Johnny Drama]

The problem, as is often the case, is this attempt to separate the good from the bad, to moralize and demonize, whether it's aimed at a small minority of a particular religion or the religion itself, and not even coming from people in the thick of things, whose lives might depend on it. No, it's coming from o bunch of comfortable, professionally groomed blowhards who have every comfort in the world that could allow them, if they so desired, to be patient with their thoughts, and quiet, until they came to some sort of understanding, which is much more difficult to arrive at than is judgement.

Never mind. Just tell me which ones are evil.

The answer to your question depends on whether you saw this movie:

gobble gobble