Over the weekend, HBO talk show host/professional smug stain Bill Maher used his platform to take more than a few unnecessary jabs at mourning comic book fans of Stan Lee, who died only five days prior. Now, the late creator’s company POW! Entertainment has responded to Maher’s criticism, in a charitable effort to remind him that both shutting up and basic decency remain free to all.
“One lesson Stan taught so many of us was tolerance and respect,” Team Stan writes in an open letter posted on the company’s website, “and thanks to that message, we are grateful that we can say you have a right to your opinion that comics are childish and unsophisticated. Many said the same about Dickens, Steinbeck, Melville and even Shakespeare.” The letter goes on to cite the “comedian’s” reductive assessment that Lee was simply a man that inspired people to watch movies, calling his judgment “disgusting.”
“Countless people can attest to how Stan inspired them to read, taught them that the world is not made up of absolutes, that heroes can have flaws and even villains can show humanity within their souls,” the company writes. And that’s true, for the most part. Villains do have the capacity to show glimpses of humanity. They also have a proclivity to toss around the n-word, spread anti-Muslim rhetoric, lend their platform to unapologetic Nazi sympathizers, and take a totally unsolicited swipe at people who dared to mourn a decent guy, making locating that humanity a little tough.
[Via Variety]
210 Comments
What Marvel should have said:
“Who?”
Seriously fuck that guy, he had some relevance in the 90’s, peaked, and now he’s on the “millennial hating train”.
nah. He’s doing fine. Uber Liberals getting pissed that he doesn’t be a good monkey for them and just spout the company lines is exhausting.
I think he probably deserves some credit for paving the way for The Daily Show with Politically Incorrect, but then he became the kind of blowhard that Stewart and Colbert have always been great at mocking.
That’s a fair take. I think he just hit a “cranky dad” stage and never recovered.
Meh. The Daily Show was a contemporary of Politically Incorrect. And as far back as I can remember, Maher’s always been a smug douche.
Politically Incorrect premiered 3 years before The Daily Show; in fact, TDS was created as a replacement for PI.
“in fact, TDS was created as a replacement for PI.”I hadn’t heard that before but what I found on the wiki was that DS was “marketed as a replacement for” P.I.
Not really the same thing.
The oral history of The Daily Show book does make it explicit that Comedy Central commissioned the show as a replacement for PI.
Huh? If I recall correctly, it was barely political before Stewart came along. How would that have been a replacement? Not disputing you exactly (you DID say “explicit”) but if true then that’s weird.
It was a topical news satire show, I think that was enough for them. I’m not sure they were looking for a 1:1 replacement anyway (otherwise they would have just done another panel show like Maher’s). It was more that they had this hole in the schedule and thought it would make sense to try another show loosely in that vein. FWIW I think the early, pre-Stewart years were also less political than the creators had initially intended the show to be.
That’s news to me. I know PI is older, but weren’t they both on the air at one time early in The Daily Show’s run?
Yeah, but my point that PI helped pave the way for TDS still stands.
I don’t agree. TDS took an overtly political swing only after Jon Stewart took over as host, and Stewart’s old stand-up prior to that was already fairly politically-charged. He also took over a year before the shitshow that was the 2000 election; politics were pretty much unavoidable after that.
The fact still remains that TDS was created as a replacement for PI. The 2000 election may have been a watershed for political satire, but even for years after that there wasn’t nearly as much satirical comedy as there is now. So if a forum as well-suited to Jon’s talents as TDS didn’t exist, who knows how things might be different?
OK, I see on the wikipedia page what you’re talking about now. I guess I’ll thank PI for opening up a timeslot, but I’m very glad TDS didn’t turn into another PI with another smarmy asshole for a host.
Unless you count Kilborn.
Even under Stewart’s tenure, during the early years, TDS was really more about making fun of cable/local news (and promoting Hollywood crap — is anyone else old enough to remember “Little Nicky Week” where the week’s 4 guests were all appearing in a forgettable Adam Sandler vehicle?) than it was about politics qua politics.
But you’re definitely right that Bush v. Gore shifted the tenor and targets of the humor, and gradually Stewart & co. repositioned their show from being mostly jokes about crappy news coverage & odd human interest pieces toward jokes about the news itself, and sometimes an alternative to news coverage.
I think you’re confused because PI hopped networks. PI started on Comedy Central, proved to be a popular weeknight staple, and moved to ABC. In search of another weeknight show to replace what had become a good anchor for the network, Comedy Central developed The Daily Show to replace it. The were never on Comedy Central concurrently, but PI continued to run on ABC for several years after it left Comedy Central, which may be what you’re thinking of. But PI was very much the early success that put Comedy Central on the map with a bit more clout for original programming in general but also to the Daily Show specifically to try and retain that PI audience.
The two shows actually were Comedy Central concurrently for a brief period, with TDS airing after PI for a few months before it moved to ABC.
TDS show drew much more from Weekend Update than PI.
Maybe, while I’m one of those people who is clearly unaware of what went on during Kilborn’s tenure as host, and also feel that a racy political commentary show might not be exactly new. I can see the side that Maher did indeed influence the late show host who can carry on serious topics to another level.I feel that Stewart’s model just did a much better job at being accessible, and mattering. Then the internet became what it is today and Maher just didn’t stay in touch with that audience like Stewart and his team did.
But that’s sort of half-assed guessing. I think Maher hit “Grumpy Gus” status, and has a very high opinion of himself from the success that he did earn.
NO. FUCK HIM. NO CREDIT. HE SHOULD FUCKIN DIE
He gives himself credit for it often enough.
It was just such an awful thing to say anyway. Even if I were to grant all his points about comic books and their movies being kids stuff(which I emphatically don’t), what the fuck is wrong with mourning the beloved author of stuff you used to enjoy when you were a kid?
“It was just such an awful thing to say anyway.”I think the important thing is that you realise that you’re not at all overreacting to someone somewhere on planet Earth expressing the opinion that he doesn’t care for your favourite medium of art/entertainment.Phew! because if you sounded like it was the worst thing you heard all day, it would almost make you sound like an emotionally immature, thin-skinned asshole screaming at someone for having an opinion you disagree with. You know, like if you came off sounding exactly like comics had the very same effect on you that Bill just described.
So, like I said, PHEW! It’s a good thing that didn’t happen :’-D
Go fuck yourself. Bill Maher is entitled to his odious opinion and we’re entitled to our opinion that he’s an insufferable piece of shit that the world would be better off with. I hope when you die someone writes an op ed about how people shouldn’t mourn you. Fuck you.
Who said you weren’t entitled to your opinion (…about opinions)? I’m just pointing out that most of these histrionic posts are kinda proving Maher’s point.“I hope when you die someone writes an op ed about how people shouldn’t mourn you.”Funny thing is if anyone I know were to write that it would be me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . but to address your point, Bill didn’t actually write that no one should mourn Stan Lee. You should really consider reading the text that you decide beforehand to have angry opinions on, next time.Maher was commenting about the medium, mostly, which I mostly disagree with. Comics/Graphic Novels – like all artistic media – has a small share of great artists and a lot of really shitty bankrupt artists. I accept the whole of the medium like I accept the entirety of the person who expresses opinions I disagree with.
I know, it’s weird: I didn’t register my disagreement with someone else’s opinion with histrionics. I must be the weird one.
You should really consider reading the text that you decide beforehand to have angry opinions on, next time
and you should consider reading the subtext.
The guy who created Spider-Man and the Hulk has died, and America is in mourning. Deep, deep mourning for a man who inspired millions to, I don’t know, watch a movie, I guess. Someone on Reddit posted, “I’m so incredibly grateful I lived in a world that included Stan Lee.” Personally, I’m grateful I lived in a world that included oxygen and trees, but to each his own. By at first referring to Lee as merely as “the guy who created[…]” instead of his actual name, and then using the follow-up comparison to make sure you know that the Redditor is stupid for valuing Lee when there are more important things when there are more important things like oxygen or trees, Maher is letting you know through subtext that Lee and superheroes are childish things we shouldn’t care about. This is not deep literary analysis, rather the opposite. But then, I’m sure you knew that already, as you’ve made clear here and other threads that you’re only here to white knight for your boy Bill, and deliberately avoiding subtext in order to look Cool On The Internet™.
of all the crazy overreactions and expressions of hope for people to die and to die lonely, I have to say, accusing me of trying defending bill maher in order to “look cool” is somehow the most absurd.
come on, you have to see how absurd that was 😉
I would never accuse you of trying to defend Bill Maher as an attempt to be cool, I would certainly accuse you of trying to deliberately misconstrue people’s arguments in an attempt to get the last word and/or winky emoticon. It’s the kind of “cool” that cable news anchors project when they shout down flustered guests before putting them on mute and cutting to commercial.
The thing is, that first sentence is precisely the kind of sentence that the person that sentence describes would write… but since you don’t want me to do what you do, I’ll speak genuinely into your No Spin Zone.the genuine reason I am replying to this article and the commenters is that I really do think you misconstrue his arguments, the parent article worst of all. The article is chock-full of bullshit – intentional or otherwise – and so are the comments. They’re both full of histrionics and rage and clearly out to get someone they don’t like… which is fine I guess, but maybe just admit it. Admit that you see black and white and not a complete human and that anything they say will be automatically be interpreted in the worst possible way. There is no nuance. Just friggin’ admit it.But in doing so, realise that the characteristics you take on in order to slay an old guy on tv who apparently damaged the world with his uninformed opinion about… wait – this was about COMIC BOOKS?!? Realise that the histrionic reactions to something that just isn’t that important, the black and white thinking, the invective filled articles and posts are NOT doing you any favours when you’re trying to fight the stereotype that people take comic books too seriously. An old guy pointed out that *maybe* what you feed your mind is what your mind becomes and even Neil Gaiman can’t let that shit roll of his back? Damn. I mean… GOD DAMN.So the guy took it too far and said comics were a sign of things being worse than they are. What about disagreeing with him and showing him that you’re not any of those stereotypes? If I felt that Maher was the biggest issue here (he’s not, but only because of his critics have proven themselves worse) I’d tell him to start with Alan Moore and Gaiman, avoid Frank Miller like the plague, see if he also enjoys Peter David’s sense of humour, and I’d direct him to a local writer named Ellen Forney. I’d try to show Maher that it’s a friggin’ medium that writers of all quality and sensibility have access to. Having watched his shows for two decades, I am certain that he’d at least try to understand the medium.There’s nothing wrong with HIM if he doesn’t like it or understand it. He’s just a man with opinions, some of which are less informed than others, just like every other human being I’ve met. I think if you or the people who write articles about him or the shitposting commenters can’t accept that whole package or communicate with or about him without dehumanising him (or whichever other hated celebrity of the week on this site), there’s something wrong with you.
In conclusion, if you can enjoy taking apart the words of a celebrity who you think you’re smarter than (which you’re not, believe me), then you should be fine with me logically and efficiently taking apart your own thoughts. Genuinely 😉
I don’t need to see a “complete picture” of a man to judge his opinions. I don’t need to know his life story to call his blog post ill conceived and in poor taste. And I don’t need you to pre-judge my intelligence and tell me whether or not I’m smarter than an aging comedian. I’m sure there are plenty of Twitter feeds that are full of histrionics and rage but I think the reactions on here seem perfectly calm, and it’s mischaracterization to say that only raging nerds are the only people calling Maher’s post bad. They called someone you like an ass, and that might be presumptuous 90% of the time, but in this regard he is in the wrong, and I cannot grasp why you keep rushing to defend him. There are better hills to die on.
“I think the reactions on here seem perfectly calm”I mean, if you can read the article and the comments and still think that, despite the all the objectively clear evidence otherwise, I guess I can’t reason with you any more than I could explain cosmology to a flat-earther.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Your only “objectively clear” evidence seems to be people disagreeing with you a lot, which given that you’re both defending a bad take from a figure that many already find unlikable, is shaky at best. And they’re only disagreeing with you a lot because you’re posting a lot.But please, continue to condescend to me and then pretend I’m the one throwing ad hominem attacks, it’s very enlightening.
The only thing being absurd around here is you.Kick rocks. Make it boulders, actually.
Maher didn’t say we shouldn’t mourn him, but if you read his opening statement, it does sort of question why we should- “The guy who created Spider-Man and the Hulk has died, and America is in mourning,” Maher wrote. “Deep, deep mourning for a man who inspired millions to, I don’t know, watch a movie, I guess. Someone on Reddit posted, ‘I’m so incredibly grateful I lived in a world that included Stan Lee.’ Personally, I’m grateful I lived in a world that included oxygen and trees, but to each his own.”Like you, I think comic are as capable as any medium of producing great works, and like you I think fan culture is prone to histrionics. I personally don’t care that Maher thinks comics are trash. I do care enough for the very few minutes it’s taken me to read and post on these articles about this ridiculousness that he gives a fuck who’s passing people should get sad about.
I mean, Maher has been building a history at this point of not considering “speak no ill of the dead” to be a sacred value, so it really shouldn’t surprise anyone at this point when he throws shade at the recently deceased. I kinda think if anyone’s surprised by this, that’s on them at this point.
Wow, just went straight to 10, huh?
hehe I know, right?
we’d all be better off without Bill Maher alive? That’s some extreme reaction shit that sounds kind of…I don’t know…authoritarian? Villainous? Evil? Wishing death on a comic…because he disagreed w/ a popular opinion? Don’t get me wrong: Maher IS a smug d-bag, one who I watch/have watched for 20+ years and find insufferable at times. But he’s a comic, who at least is politically aware and active (even if not everyone agrees w/ him) and a strong defender of free speech (even when we don’t like the people speaking, right?) who very often makes some decent points (and sometimes, doesn’t). But if 99% of the world mourned my death (they won’t) and 1% didn’t, I’d take that as mostly a win. Jeez, even Mandela had some shitty op-eds written when he passed, and who disliked Mandela? (Ans: white racists and South Afrikaner politicians.) Just appreciate the 99, ignore the 1, and call it a day without the F-yous and better off dead commentary, it will bring you long-term benefits and definitely reduce your stress levels.
When you die, I hope someone writes an op ed about how you should go unmourbed.
I think saying that the popularity of comic books is a sign of how immature we’ve become is a bit more serious than merely saying he doesn’t care for them.
I think the fact that you wrote that it was “serious” is kinda helping prove Maher’s point. It’s a guy who doesn’t know about something expressing an uninformed opinion about it. Are you afraid that he’s going to foment bloody revolution against millenials?
Well yeah, the whole reason people are getting upset at him is that he’s expression an uninformed opinion and in doing so ignorantly maligning a large group of people. If he were giving an informed, respectful opinion people wouldn’t be as upset. I don’t see what’s illogical about that. Some people went overboard in criticizing him, but that doesn’t make what he said any less wrong. Should he get credit for not fomenting bloody revolution against millennials?
IF you’re going to preach about the importance of respectful opinions, how about starting with giving Maher more credit than the article you’re responding to, the people who have been commenting on him, and various others like Neil Gaiman. Maher made sweeping, uninformed generalisations that I think are not as harmful as others have made them out to be. On the other hand:- The author of the article for these comments dehumanised Maher by calling him a “professional smug stain.” She – deliberately or otherwise – misrepresented and mischaracterised his opinions and mistakes all within an article full of mean language. Compare her language to the language Maher used, then come back and try and explain how hers was more respectful of another human being.- The commenters (okay they’re commenters so yah) have wished for lonely deaths for Maher for expressing an opinion they didn’t like and myself for disagreeing respectfully with their opinions and tone. Make sure you reply to each and every one of those people with your guidelines about respectful opinions and then come back and let me know.- Neil Gaiman tweeted that Maher was just trolling (invalidating his opinions without irony) and that“…More people cared about Stan Lee’s death than care about Bill Maher alive.” Kinda seems to me like he’s also dehumanising Bill’s worth as a living human being by saying he was less popular than Stan Lee. Well, agree or disagree, maybe you should go ahead and @ Gaiman so that he can learn as well as you how to share your opinion respectfully.Looks like you got some homework to do. Let me know how it all goes!Just in case you don’t do all that shit above, feel free to explain to me how you’re not just a hypocrite who is punching down whenever someone you don’t like enters the Kinja bubble.
“Punching down”? Who do you think I am, the king of The A.V. Club? There are plenty of posters I don’t like who I mostly just ignore. I think you’re missing the point about why people are upset. You’re making it all about insulting language when what Maher said maligned millions of people, regardless of how vitriolic the language he used was. Sure, there’ve been some people being unnecessarily vitriolic towards Maher here, but I haven’t seen any bashing his fans in the way he bashed comic book fans. Also, considering the vast majority of people are less popular than Stan Lee I don’t see how it’s “dehumanizing” to say that about Maher.
“Who do you think I am, the king of The A.V. Club?”No, but I think William Hughes is. I refuse to believe someone who is that shitty a writer is allowed to do it professionally (even if it’s only an online publication) without nepotism or extortion being involved :’-)“I think you’re missing the point about why people are upset. You’re making it all about insulting language when what Maher said maligned millions of people, regardless of how vitriolic the language he used was.”I’m pretty sure I understand why they’re upset, probably more than some of them even understand it themselves. The issue is more about the disproportionate degree to which they are upset and their responses, which escalated things far past some talk show host making comments from ignorance.I think you can get this, so how about a thought experiment: Let’s say you’re at a high-rise office building, you need to go to the 300th floor, and you’re standing there waiting with two other people who are also going to the 300th floor. One of them has a resting smug smile and without prompting declares to you he has never read Harry Potter but he knows they’re dumb books. The other person stands silently with wide, unblinking eyes and a deep frown until he he suddenly, angrily screams that he hopes that anyone who likes watching Tonight Show w/ Jimmy Fallon is a shitstain and he wants more than anything for them to die alone.Which of those two would you rather take the elevator with? I know, i know, I’d consider the stairs too but it’s 300 floors. Do you understand my point? The content of what you say is way more important than the number of targets.“but I haven’t seen any bashing his fans in the way he bashed comic book fans.”Did you even lo Elsewhere on the comments for this article, “DRAVES” wrote to me:
“If you’re a bill Maher fan, that tells us everything we need to know already, that you’re worthless gutter trash and beyond redemption.”
https://news.avclub.com/stan-lees-company-tries-to-appeal-to-bill-mahers-long-l-1830575025Also it got star’d 10 times. Unless he made 10 burner accounts, I’d say that’s a popular sentiment about the people who watch Maher’s show. What Maher said was jackass and ignorant, but it’s self-evident that it wasn’t near that level of that comment. Every article I’ve seen on this site about Maher are just as hostile as this one and every one has at least one disproportionate comment about people who watch his show.
This is something that doesn’t speak well to the level of respectful engagement by comic book fans or people who dislike Maher.So you’re commenting on an article with disproportionately harsh words and comments but focusing on the jackass comment from the guy who just said he doesn’t care about things he doesn’t know as being the issue. Yes, that’s punching down, perhaps not in strict definition but absolutely in the spirit of the term.
You keep acting as though it’s not important that Maher is famous and the vast majority of the people bashing him so vitriolically aren’t(some famous people have bashed him too, but I haven’t seen any bash his fans like he bashed comic book fans). Put it this way: Why do people get more outraged at the latest offensive thing said by some Fox News personality than by some anonymous person on the internet who, say, literally calls for genocide of an entire people? Because a lot of people watch them, that’s why! For one thing, their fame is naturally going to make them more of a target for pushback on what they said, but the fact that so many people watch them indicates that a lot of people agree with them. I bet some of Maher’s fans have even worse views about comic book fans than he does. The fact that this particular website has some people whose vitriol goes in the other direction doesn’t justify generalizing comic book fans or people who don’t like Maher any more than it’s justified to generalize his fans. As for “punching down”, I dunno if that’s a path you want to go down considering how much Maher loves to say average people are stupid(yes, it’s still ironic even if you’re not Maher himself).
I do understand the importance of the platform issue, I just think it’s irrelevant to this topic. If you say that Maher’s opinions are worse because he has a louder platform, then you’re misdirecting anger. what you’re really angry at is the fact that he’s famous, or that he has his own talk show, or that he has a large audience that will read what he writes, etc. Since that’s the way showbusiness/society is constructed right now and you don’t have any hope of changing that, you’re attacking that person for speaking from ignorance even though you’re surrounded in daily life by people who don’t know what they’re talking about.Really, are you angry that this one person said he doesn’t like comic books and that they influence narrow thinking or just that life allowed him to say it louder?
The funny thing is the reason I like Maher’s work is precisely because he’s spent two and a half decades doing way more than any other talk show host I’ve witnessed to give a platform to people he disagrees with, which is overall a much greater good. Sometimes that means letting Charlie Sheen’s crazy doctor and proud racist people speak, but that’s part of the bargain. Black and white thinking is dangerous in it’s own way when it doesn’t allow people to take the good with the bad.
But to get back to the topic, I still think it’s more indicative for a lot of people with less of a platform to react histrionically than one person on the other side saying something ignorant. I could also point out that maybe the reason that the people on the former side don’t have their own platforms is because of their lack of control and how they overreact to low-stakes issues with black and white thinking patterns.
“For one thing, their fame is naturally going to make them more of a
target for pushback on what they said, but the fact that so many people
watch them indicates that a lot of people agree with them.”I don’t think anybody 100% agrees with Maher (even himself, since sometimes he’ll admit he’s unsure about something he believes). If you think that’s why his audience watches him, you don’t understand what he does and what his unique talent is. I certainly don’t agree with everything he says, and I think some things he says are stupid. I’ve also felt this way about every single person I’ve ever met in my entire life (and, doubtless, they about me). I don’t think his core audience watches him to establish a bubble, they watch him because he tries to establish unique discussions from different perspectives.But more to the point, how do you think this will even affect the comic book industry, art form, or audience? I think the industry will be just fine, continue to make 400 katrillion / day in film sales, and I doubt anyone who takes Maher’s criticism of them was ever going to watch or read them anyhow.
In terms of the art form, I think conflict of all sorts is historically the best thing for art, even when it’s two different art forms against each other. In my own primary area of interest, Mr. Show sprung up from Bob Odenkirk writing for Saturday Night Live and seeing all the bloat and bullshit like expensive sets getting in the way of all the good, so he stripped it away and built something much better.I think the individuals in the comic book audience have a trickier path. Do we take any criticism and consider what can be gleaned from it, consider the source and ignore criticism, or attack all criticism without any consideration? I think if you attack it, you give the attacker power and – in this particular case with Maher – prove his point whether or not he really was correct:If you ignore criticism because of the source, you get to go on as things are but you may miss an opportunity for growth. If you consider criticism, however, you risk thinking about something you care about from a new perspective. You might even start thinking that people you don’t like can sometimes be correct about things – even if it’s for the wrong reason – or at least have a valid perspective. Maybe you’ll start seeing the truth as being somewhere in the middle of what you and your enemy thinks. It can lead to a very messy, complicated perspective with many gray areas. You might question and deconstruct some of your opinions about things you love that once inspired you. What if you started seeing heroes as flawed and villains as justified? Sometimes I think that’s what Alan Moore did and why he’s so far above his peers in the field.
Since I have a lot to respond to my response might end up being somewhat disorganized, but here goes. I actually used to be a fan of Maher and still think he’s a talented comedian, but I stopped being a fan of his when I got sick of his attitude. The comedian I’m a fan of the most is Jon Stewart(I also love Colbert and think Trevor Noah was a good choice to replace Jon). One big reason I like Jon so much is that I thought he was really good at expressing strong opinions while being respectful of different ones. You may remember the Rally to Restore Sanity, at which he called on people to not demonize the other side and seek out respectful discussion. There were plenty of liberals, including Maher himself, who criticized him for not using the rally to just bash conservatives. That’s one reason I don’t see how Bill’s views are particularly nuanced. I watched almost every Daily Show for over a decade and don’t remember Jon calling people stupid nearly as often as Bill. I don’t think being more controversial makes someone inherently more of a free speech champion, and I prefer someone like Jon to an “iconoclast” like Bill. (As a side note: considering who’s in power now can you really say that lack of control is a hindrance to having a platform?)
I actually find it very telling that you’re a fan of Jon Stewart and it may be the most helpful thing in trying to explain where we’re both at on our view of Left-of-Center icons with platforms.I want to preface by saying that I don’t think it reflects on you who you’re a fan of, so don’t take this personally. I am a huge fan of Colbert as well, CR is probably my all-time favourite talk show, so we can fist-bump on that. The short version is (no pun intended), I think Jon Stewart is a dick. I think he’s a mean-spirited bully AND I think that’s something that my fellow Left would see if they weren’t committed to idealising him. On top of that, though, there’s evidence that has come up after his retirement that he was secretly capable of being way more of a massive, racially insensitive, disrespectful dick behind the scenes than Maher ever was. For example, if you can read this account from the very talented Wyatt Cenac and not see for yourself that it’s way worse in reality than Maher brain-farting the N-word…
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/arts/television/daily-show-writer-recalls-heated-dispute-with-jon-stewart.htmlBut part of the thing you have to understand is that when I read that a few years ago I was not in any way surprised. It just confirmed the character that I had already understood Jon to be. There’s a wider discussion I could have (and have had) on how much credit Stewart is due for pioneering that kind of talk show (much less than you think) and how talented and funny he is (some but not as much as you think), but I don’t really hold that against him as much as how responsible he is for making the Mean-Spirited College Liberal “cool.” To me the Maher articles here, and their comment sections, are exactly the kind of rhetoric you get from Stewart reigning supreme in the hearts of the Left for over a decade.Myself? I remember Jon as that guy who had that unwatchabley shitty MTV talk show in the 90’s and then I thought he was really funny for the first few years after taking over DS for Kilborn. Plus it was difficult to be worse than his predecessor, right? At a certain point, though, I found (especially after Colbert left) that Jon was very much leaning on his “correspondents” and as his team of talent got thin he realised he could shift to and milk the Liberal who Fights Back Game. which was… “fine” and honestly I can’t really blame him because I don’t know how else he could continued to be successful. However, I came to realise Jon was just a massive dick who was becoming (or revealing himself to be) the very bully he was complaining about. It’s a very common human arc. This is very telling to me, though, because his dickish turn overwhelmed both my bias toward liking him for many years AND my bias (that everyone shares) toward hearing someone who agrees with my side.
Did Stewart specifically call people “stupid” as much as Maher did in that time period? Okay on that one very fine parameter you’ve selected, probably not. But Jon was certainly hellah condescending to people he didn’t like, all the time, whether you remember it or not. I also think that Maher tends to let people he disagrees with on the show speak and be heard instead of attacking them, which is (holy shit!) definitely NOT something that Stewart can claim. Remember that infamous Kramer interview, as an example. He just hammered that guy to explain the financial crisis like he was more responsible for it than the banks and the billionaires. I mean, was Stewart’s general condescension and interrupting as bad as cutting mic’s and No-Spin Zones? No… but probably not by as much as you think.
Stewart built his bubble, a place for the Left to feel like this is the land of the smart people and there was a duck blind where they could safely condescend to people they disagreed with. So, again, that’s fine. I just don’t think it was genuinely courageous, truth-seeking, or productive in any sense. If you give the influence of the show credit for Obama, then I think you certainly have to also give it credit for Trump.
Maher’s show may not always have an awesome discussion between two people who disagree with each other, but it’s extraordinarily difficult to make that happen and requires a lot of luck. However, his show is at least unique in setting up the conditions for that to happen, as opposed to whittling down the opposition. Sometimes he can be a dick like Stewart to the people he disagrees with, but I’ve found it very rare.I do love that you brought up Restore Sanity, because if you hadn’t I would have probably brought it up myself. I recall finding it boring and pointless because at that point I was long past seeing that Stewart was complaining about the bullying he himself had been fomenting, and his show was completely unfunny at that point. I do recall watching some of it when it aired, I think I muted it while Stewart was on and just waited for Colbert. When Colbert’s part turned out to be boring and pointless too, I gave up and turned it off. I think I vividly remember being pissed that Stewart wasted Colbert’s (or “Colbert”s) more valuable time, on top of everyone else’s, for his dumb ego-stroke fest. There is ONE thing I loved about it, though, that indirectly made the occasion not a complete waste of time: It led to one of my favourite New Rules of all time, as you seem to remember differently.
Full circle, right? If you can, try watching it again, though, because I think he pretty much nailed it. First of all Maher’s overriding thesis, for over a decade now, is that we can’t equivocate BEHAVIOR between the different parties and ideologies because it forces the more reasonable side to shift toward the middle while the other pulls it in their direction. It’s one thing to say that both sides deserve respect as human beings, it’s another to say that there are different behavior patterns between them. So Maher’s point is that – YES – there’s actually room to listen to the other side and respect their humanity but not pretend that some of their behavior is acceptable and that we should ALWAYS find a compromise directly in the center between us. Is this the same as Maher calling for them to “bash conservatives?”Should equivocating between racism and equality be considered “nuanced?”I heard Bill talk more about planting your feet about what you believe in instead of calling for attacks.
The second point I would make is – and please pay attention to this specific point if you do watch it – that Maher is specifically speaking about Conservative politicians in that piece. He’s saying that you shouldn’t equivocate what liberal and conservative politicians are saying.
I’m not really sure how to explain what I’ve seen of Stewart if you’ve seen as many Daily Shows, probably more, as/than I have. I think the superiority complex that he represents and instilled in the Left of the bullied becoming the bully feels powerful but it is cyclical and we’re currently seeing the blowback from the alt-Right on that. Maher isn’t the only one who talks down to broad groups but I’ve seen him as the only one who listens when they’re willing talk back. I just don’t understand singling Maher out as disrespectful and seeing Stewart as this idealistic hero. Love Stewart all you want, I understand it if he makes you feel stronger and more intelligent than the opposition, but I don’t see him being any better a person.Alright, some specific comments:
“I don’t think being more controversial makes someone inherently more of a
free speech champion, and I prefer someone like Jon to an “iconoclast”
like Bill.”I agree, iconoclasty can be lazy, especially when for it’s own sake. Idk, I think Bill is much more genuine than the average political talk show host (which is to say probably still only 70%, because he’s got a full hour w/o commercials to fill while pretending to be upset at some things),which I think is the real reason people love/hate him. I challenge you to ask these questions, though: What about labelling people as iconoclasts? Is attacking divisive public figure like Maher not also iconoclasty? Regarding the latter, I’d say it’s definitely true for this site and its community.“(As a side note: considering who’s in power now can you really say that lack of control is a hindrance to having a platform?)“heh, score one for you. Well done. To my point, though, I was speaking of media platforms specifically, though, and there was definitely a different Trump on The Apprentice, where it took a small army of NBC producers to keep him in line and feed him all of the monologues and make all the decisions for him. NBC-manufactured Trump helped get the real Trump elected. Now I’m beginning to ponder if the only solution that will keep the country safe for the next 2-6 years is if they just filled the entire cabinet with Apprentice producers and writers…
I realize this is subjective and neither of us can prove objectively that our views are correct, but I really don’t see what made you think Jon Stewart is a dick. I read the oral history book about his time hosting The Daily Show and don’t remember anything that would support that. There were occasional flareups(like the Cenac thing, after which he and Jon quickly made up), but I thought overall he came a cross as a good guy, and pretty much everyone in the book agreed. He had plenty of conservative guests on the show and was almost always civil to them. I thought the Rally to Restore Sanity was brilliant and totally in keeping with Jon’s treatment of opposing views. I think it’s a mistake to assume that your side is by definition correct and that compromise is therefore inherently bad. Everyone thinks their views are right, so thinking “Why should I find a middle ground between my obviously correct position and their racist/unpatriotic/whatever position?” seems to me like a nonstarter. BTW, I had already seen that New Rules video. I find Bill’s “I only care what scientists say” statement ironic considering his views on vaccines.
“I read the oral history book about his time hosting The Daily Show and don’t remember anything that would support that.There were occasional flareups(like the Cenac thing, after which he and Jon quickly made up), but I thought overall he came a cross as a good guy, and pretty much everyone in the book agreed.” Might I suggest not looking at “oral history” books – which are by definition designed to be not terribly controversial, lovingly performed blowjobs to the show and the stars – for your fact checking? I heard someone else quote from it and I’m pretty sure between that citing and this one that the book is full of made-up garbage. Also, why does it even fucking matter at all what anyone but Stewart and Cenac said about the incident? If a woman is being abused by her partner, should the cops ask all of the guy’s friends if they think he’s a good guy?!? I won’t say *that* again, but that article I linked (from a slightly-more respected rag called New York Times) quotes Cenac saying this on the WTF Podcast: but why are you saying this to me?!? You should be saying this to literally most of the people on this site other than I. I rarely take absolute stands, and my entire point about Maher is basically that he and everyone else (like Stewart) should be judged by the whole picture.
“Mr. Stewart later apologized to his staff, but Mr. Cenac, who was at the time the only black writer on “The Daily Show,” said he felt disrespected. Though Mr. Cenac remained with the program for one more year, he said he was alienated and miserable and “never felt comfortable” during the remainder of his time there.”I should point out that I’m very critical of funnymen and I’ve found Cenac to be an extraordinarily thoughtful, talented, and funny comic and writer whose opinion should carry a lot of weight.“He had plenty of conservative guests on the show and was almost always civil to them.”*almost*“I thought the Rally to Restore Sanity was brilliant and totally in keeping with Jon’s treatment of opposing views.”That’s fine, opinions differ. I think it’s an overall good thing when polluting companies finally try to clean up the mess they made, but I wouldn’t call it “brilliant.”“I think it’s a mistake to assume that your side is by definition correct and that compromise is therefore inherently bad.”I agree, compromise is never *inherently* bad…
I definitely don’t ever feel absolutely certain that my perspective is perfect, either. One thing you probably overlooked when I wrote about him is that I’m not saying Stewart IS a dick, I’m saying I think he’s a dick. As in, I’m defining Stewart’s alleged dickitude as my subjective opinion based on information from trustworthy sources, including his own show. The article above and most of the people here (including you) have affixed labels to Maher, speaking in absolutes.That being said, while compromise is not *inherently* bad (which I’ve never said in my entire life), it also doesn’t mean compromise is always *inherently* the best option. The problem isn’t when someone refuses to compromise on shit they shouldn’t, the problem is thinking in absolutes.
“Everyone thinks their views are right”No, not everyone. You’re taking on another absolute perspective. Everyone may be biased, but critical thinkers like myself tend to question their perspectives and do their best to be aware of bias. That’s why the double-blind study was invented, for example.“’Why should I find a middle ground between my obviously correct position and their racist/unpatriotic/whatever position?’ seems to me like a nonstarter.”It is, but not everyone thinks of their own position as “obviously correct.” Critical thinkers take their positions based upon the best information they have, knowing well that they can and should change their minds if they receive enough better information later on that opposes that position.
“I find Bill’s “I only care what scientists say” statement ironic considering his views on vaccines.”Well, actually, from what I remembered Maher was speaking to one of the Kennedy kids and at least opened his mind to the possibility (not probability) that it’s true. Why don’t you approve, though? Kinda sounds like Bill isn’t certain he’s right all the time and willing to listen to something he hasn’t heard before and compromise on the matter if he’s wrong… and then you belittle him for it.
But why do you even call it “ironic,” anyway? Is it because you’re *certain* that vaccinations don’t cause autism? I mean, hey, SURE the original party that made the claim immediately recanted and said the study was completely flawed and SURE it is one of those cases where the vast majority of scientists, physicians, and studies found absolutely no evidence for correlation/causation, but there are still a couple that do claim there is evidence. Personally, I don’t care at all about the issue because i’m comfortable in ignoring things that are entirely possible but for which I’ve seen zero trustworthy evidence of.
However, you seem to believe that compromise is always a virtue. So how about you agree that you and the +99.99% compromise with the negligible opposition and that vaccinations cause autism 50% of the time. The former vast majority are inherently flawed anyway because they always think they’re correct like everyone else, right? Very elitist of them.
I read the oral history books for SNL and ESPN and those weren’t circle-jerks. I still don’t see how Jon losing his temper once is supposed to prove he’s a dick. Wyatt may be a good guy, but his perceptions are flawed just like anyone’s. I’d like to see you give other examples of real life behavior by Jon to support your negative opinion of him. As for conservative guests, when I was saying he was almost always civil to them I meant that sometimes thing got a little more heated than other times. I can’t remember Jon ever flat-out losing his temper at a guest. If the Jim Cramer interview is the worst example you can think of, I think that speaks well of his ability to engage in civil discussion with those he disagrees with. Regarding certainty of ones own views, I try to be aware of my own biases partly because I have moments when I wonder how anyone can disagree with me on a particular topic. I assume pretty much everyone has moments like that too, and there’s nothing wrong with that as long as you’re able to step back and see how limited your own perspective is. Lastly, my problem with his stance on vaccines is mainly how hypocritical it was that he said “I only care what scientists say.” You seem like you’re accusing me of hypocrisy for having a problem with that, but I never said compromise was always the best option or that everything should be up for debate.
“I read the oral history books for SNL and ESPN and those weren’t circle-jerks.”I get the feeling you wouldn’t be the best judge of that, sorry. I have to be honest, you haven’t shown me the best critical thinking or reading comprehension skills. Beyond that, I maintain by their very design that the pun-errific “oral history” books are designed as figurative Blow-J’s as opposed to tell-alls.“Wyatt may be a good guy, but his perceptions are flawed just like anyone’s.”Never said otherwise. How about we don’t invalidate his words and feelings just because he’s human like everyone else, then?“ I’d like to see you give other examples of real life behavior by Jon to support your negative opinion of him.”Nothing else specific because I haven’t seen the show since years before he retired, which is quite a ways back now. but I maintain he was a huge jackass, and I remember confessing to other people that I thought he had become pretty insufferable and (in hushed whispers, lol) people would respond that they had also stopped watching the show because of his schtick. I’m serious about the whispering, too, because you have to realise that to some fellow lefties, you can’t point out anything at all that’s bad about Stewart and expect them to consider it reasonably. Sometimes they’ll just invalidate everything you present with excuses and stick to their ideal that he’s perfection.Anyway, you asked for an example and I gave you a very solid one. Deal with it or not.“As for conservative guests, when I was saying he was almost always civil to them I meant that sometimes thing got a little more heated than other times.”This is what you’re doing, though: You keep trying to narrowly define what it means to be civil that coincidentally happens to be the one area where Jon’s strength is. I never said my perception of him was narrowly based on whether he screamed at guests, that was all you. If you think that 100% of people who don’t ever yell when the cameras are rolling (or if they do it’s edited out), then you have an incredibly low standard for television figures. That’s fine, but I have a higher standard than yours, I guess.“If the Jim Cramer interview is the worst example you can think of, I think that speaks well of his ability to engage in civil discussion with those he disagrees with.”…except when the cameras aren’t rolling, when he decided it was appropriate to scream at a writer who disagreed with him civilly, then refused to fully make amends afterward. Except for that one (known, which could mean there are others) example from a very well respected source. Except for that.I cited it because it was an interview that 1. I remember and 2. went viral so it would be likely you would remember. Not the only example. I noticed that you didn’t really engage that example specifically in any way, though, as usual ;-)I feel that it’s one example of the type of general gotcha dickishness and jackassery that Stewart did a lot. If you don’t see it (and let’s be honest, you didn’t rewatch the interview) then it’s because you don’t want to.“Regarding certainty of ones own views, I try to be aware of my own biases partly because I have moments when I wonder how anyone can disagree with me on a particular topic.”Yes I know, you’re doing it now. You’re asking me what I think and then not considering it at all. You made it clear you pre-emptively decided whatever I wrote was going to be disagreed with.“I assume pretty much everyone hasmoments like that too, and there’s nothing wrong with that as long as you’re able to step back and see how limited your own perspective is.”Some have those moments more than others. Physician, heal thyself.“Lastly, myproblem with his stance on vaccines is mainly how hypocritical it was that he said ‘I only care what scientists say.’”Yah, either that or you felt yourself backed into a logical corner in the discussion and decided to deflect. However, you just said people should step back and see how limited their perspectives are, so maybe you should look at your own hypocrisy before you tackle his, which was kinda the point I was making at the end there. But I notice you didn’t engage it or answer any of my pointed questions about your own ideas (again).“You seem like you’re accusing me of hypocrisy for having a problem with that, but I never said compromise was always the best option or that everything should be up for debate.”Reading comprehension: I was merely using it to point out the absurdity of your heavily implied stance on compromising always being a good thing.Welp, I gave you some chances to engage in a discussion but you’re either not reading what I write (definitely) or you’re just choosing to ignore it (probably also that). That’s fine, but it’s no longer a discussion if it ever was one and I’m bored. Good luck with your “US Weekly”-level standards of information Oral History on topics you posit against New York Times, you wacky, silly goose!
Pretty long post for someone who claims to be bored with this.
Good point, yours is expectedly thoughtless.
Dude, Maher plain out insulted and attacked people who read comic books. He was also being a downright ignorant asshole when he said all Stan did was inspire people to watch movies. And we’re just supposed to play nice, smile and give him a pat on his shoulder? Get real. You want respect, show the other person respect first.
“we’re just supposed to play nice, smile and give him a pat on his shoulder?”or ignore it, since (as you pointed out) he himself described his own ignorance of the medium and thus his opinion wouldn’t carry any weight.
“You want respect, show the other person respect first.”It’s always the other person’s responsibility to go first, right?
Except he didn’t just express the opinion that he didn’t care for comics, he blamed them for a gradual dumbing down of society (wrapped in a yummy layer of “darn millennials” old-man-yelling-at-clouds), and topped the whole thing off with trying to pin the Trump election said young people/comic fans.And he made sure to express all this within days of an industry icon’s death. That is a far cry from “expressing the opinion that he doesn’t care for comics” and you know it. But phew, it’s a good thing you didn’t misrepresent a whole argument to make yourself look like the calm right one.
I dunno, noman. When Dimebag was shot dead and William Grim wrote all that rubbish about how heavy metal is shit and Dime got what he deserved…I was upset. If your hero had just died and I denigrated him and his art I’m sure your thick skin would get you through. But some people have feelings and are attached to things that give them joy. I don’t know why that upsets you so much.
I’m not really upset at all. Amused in a disgusted way, I guess, but not at all surprised at this point by any of this kind of no-stakes outrage so it doesn’t really upset me, no. :-)I remember when Dimebag died, I think I actually did upset a few fans by posting pictures of “Diamond Dave” from his hair metal days with his cute little teacup poodle hairdo.
OK, that’s good – you sounded kind of upset.Were they upset by his hairdo (which is a weird thing to be upset by) or were they upset that you were making fun of their recently murdered hero?PS Why “Dave”? I don’t get that reference. His first name was Darrell.
“OK, that’s good – you sounded kind of upset.”No, I wasn’t upset. I didn’t sound upset, either.
Apropos of nothing, have you ever read about this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection“Were they upset by his hairdo (which is a weird thing to be upset by)“No, they weren’t upset by his hairdo, and I never implied they were upset by that. I mean, I can’t speak to their thoughts but I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t be upset by seeing that. Interpreting that anyone would be upset by that doesn’t make sense to me and seems like a really stupid theory.
“were they upset that you were making fun of their recently murdered hero?”Good question, but I’ll do you one better: Did they think I was making fun of the person himself or did they understand I was pointing out the absurdity of talking about the character that Darrell played 5 or 6 months after he died as if “Dimebag” was real and the same as the human Darrell was?“Diamond” was a brainfart. His picture back then reminded me of another musician of the era.
OK, there’s no need to carry on with this but… you telling me how you sounded to me… yeah, I get what projecting is :)bye now
“OK, there’s no need to carry on with this but…”- Someone who clearly needed to carry on.
Yeah, I honestly have no idea who anyone cares what Bill Maher thinks. Just like the stuff you like.
I know, right? PHEW!
But seriously — who is this dude’s audience? Who in the year 2018 is a Bill Maher fan?
My mom likes him ( but only because Stewart isn’t on anymore). She’s 89.
I never miss an episode. Not for him, but because the format of his show is one of the best for discussing politics, and getting conversations going between the left and the right. He himself rarely has something of value to add.
You love Bill Maher so much you are commenting on a story about him. His trolling was so effective it made you all mad and brought out the humorless old lady scold inside you. I think that is funny.
I found, at least since his younger audience dried up a few years ago, that there are a few older generation people my mom’s age and her friends who see his highlights on Facebook never followed him that closely but recognize him as a vague analog to that “daily show /” stuff their children watched.Andhe sounds like any older grumpy white liberal who is having difficulty agreeing with social issues these days
I love This Week Tonight and I definitely lean left but I cannot stand Maher’s show. I think it’s still on HBO right? I think I tried to watch it a couple of months ago and couldn’t get past his smug, flat monologue.
“Millennial hating train”? Hell, I’m a Millennial, and even I’d probably board that train. Definitely not the “dismissing the iconic work of Stan Lee” train though. That was just a shitty and incredibly reductive thing to say, even for someone who’s basically made a career out of these sort of half-assed hot takes.
OK, but so we’re on the same page, he trashed on Stan Lee because he associates him with millennials.
“dismissing the iconic work Stan Lee put his own name on”
FTFY.
Dismissing Stan Lee as a hack who just stole comic credit both diminishes the work he did do both in terms of writing and in terms of editing and promotions. He was guilty of overselling his own contributions and short selling the contributions of other writers and artists (most notably of course, Kirby) but to say he merely put his name on all the iconic work is all kinds of reductive.
I will gladly admit that he probably did a ton of shit to promote the medium, but I never really touched upon that at all so I guess you win the argument that you had with empty space you’ve been screaming at on those points.
However, I’ve read better sources than you that many of the people that worked with Stan also minimise his writing contributions. My opinion that I’m entitled to have is that the available testimony and evidence say he didn’t do a ton of the real work, but neither of us were there to know for certain.
Ad hominem responses only lend credence to the vitriol. Maher’s take was patentely false, and can and should be dissected and stripped clean as such. The absolute best way to shut up people like Maher is to point out the idiocy of every word they uttered. And that’s what Stan Lee’s company did.
Marvel isn’t involved. This is POW! Entertainment, a company Lee formed after his Marvel involvement was reduced to ceremonial appearances (for which he was handsomely paid).
The worst part is Maher has always been such a mediocre comedian, its weird how long he has hung around. His ‘90s comedy specials were basically just him making smug, obvious observations about politics with no real jokes. He’s always been that comedian that went for applause over laughs.You could plug any comedian into Real Time and it would be an improvement.
How can you lose what you never had?
funny watching people (including this site’s commenters) who make fun of people they don’t like when they die fake like they’re offended when someone rips a dead dude they like.You guys didn’t know him. You didn’t “feel like” you knew him. The VAST majority of you don’t read comic books and never have. Dropping a “I’m literally crying right now” or “I can’t believe it. This is such a hard day!” on social media is just pandering for attention for yourself.
Tell us how you really feel.
I did
Nothing ever happens, no one can ever have a real or sincere feeling.
not with hashtags
Hey Hitler, chill. Stop telling people how they should of shouldn’t feel. What’s it to you if they’re somehow affected by someone else’s death? Many people are atill affected by the deaths of JFK, Nelson Mandela etc. With someone as prolific as Stan it should come as no surprise.
As someone who has never read a Stan Lee comic book in my life (Archie/Scrooge McDuck guy, not Marvel/DC — it’s just how I was raised), but has spent many, many hours watching Maher, I can say, with no bias absolute objectivity, that Lee was a mensch and that Bill has never been anything but a fucking tool.
Were you a fan one Maher’s once? I was before I got sick of his attitude.
I guess I watched him when I visited friends in the 90’s, but he was never a favorite, exactly — I never put him on the level of Moore’s TV work, for example (TV Nation in particular, I really loved). But yeah, he was OK. It’s only in the past ten years or so that he’s really started pissing me off.
I liked the show for interesting discussion and I guess I never realized how smug he could be. He always is being “funny,” and then he looks dead serious at the camera and says “Yeah… its’s called the FOURTH AMENDMENT” with this superior attitude, and then he leaves a pause for it to sink in, because he just dropped a truth bomb and SHIT JUST GOT REAL. Also he at least was super anti-medicine/vaccines. And he’s not funny. But funny people still like him and do his show. But he thinks a lot of the time that he’s the kind of guy that’s saying what “we’re all thinking,” but then it turns out he was the only one thinking that, and he should just shut the fuck up and have a poker game with Ben Shapiro and that awful Canadian guy who doesn’t like people with vaginas and just take their shirts off and just primal scream at each other.
Really well said. “Smug” really attaches itself to Maher, it’s appropriate. I loved your “truth bomb and SHIT JUST GOT REAL.”, because he really does that all the time, like absolutely everyone else in the world are idiots, he’s the smirking know-it-all with ALL the actual truth and wisdom. Unbearable after a while. And yeah, he really does coddle right wing figures and can’t stop excoriating Democrats, because it’s forever 1993 in his mind, and we really NEED to hear from rightwing freaks like Milo Yiannopolous. Maher just bends over backwards to accommodate rightwing crackpots and women-haters, and when he’s challenged on this, he lashes out and plays the victim himself. “OOH, the oppressive Left are strangling my speech!” as if having an HBO show was a right. As for that Canadian professor woman hater whose fanatical followers just give him a million dollars a year through Patreon- well, that sounds like a cult. He makes millions more from books and speeches, but his fans just literally give him their money, for no reason. Bill Maher empowers people like this, and people like Milo, and then loves making a fuss as a First Amendment edgelord when he’s noted for hosting horrible people while saying, “Liberals are just as bad, both sides!”. Maher’s schtick is wearing thin.
Jordan Peterson is the fucking worst, and anyone who gives him a platform is just as bad as he is. (I don’t have much to contribute with regards to Maher because he’s always struck me as a smarmy asshole who loved the smell of his own farts, so I just sorta tuned him out since before 9/11…though I did feel that he shouldn’t have been fired for his ill-timed but not altogether incorrect take on the 9/11 highjackers).
I have this vague memory of being a fan of his, but can’t for the life of me figure out when or why. It was definitely before seeing Religiousity though, because that’s the movie that made it clear to me just how much of a garbage person he is.
Religulous
Yeah ok.I really don’t care enough to get it right, honestly.
When it first started, Politically Incorrect (on both ABC and Comedy Central) was a funny and often sharp take on current events, and although Maher has (IMO) always been weak on the mic himself, he does seem to have a particular genius for taking panels of disparate opinions, informed and un-, and making them into interesting television. I am a bit of a sucker for those setups where some gasbag DC pundit will show up for a panel with a musician and a comedian and get taken completely to pieces by one or both. Their Indecision ‘96 (yes! 22 years ago!) coverage was a case in point — they sent Chris Rock to cover the GOP convention in San Diego, with hilarious results.
Thinking ofhis trajectory from honest, occasionally daring agitation (see the “cowards lobbing cruise missiles” debacle) to today’s half-assed white Kanye or whatever he’s up to, reminds me of watching the first episodes of Jerry Springer and thinking, “finally, a thoughtful daytime talk show”…
Same.It was not even the attitude it was the way he would be so God damn wrong, especially about Muslims, would bring on it completely wonderful guest to explain in detail why he was wrong.Then bill tells him to go fuck themselves
“I can say, with no bias absolute objectivity, that Lee was a mensch”Uhmhmmmerrrruhm you might want to brush up on your yiddish, there, Scooter. It does NOT translate to “person who was accused of stealing pay and credit from everyone on earth he ever worked with.”
so… you see the issue, there…
Geez, not this again. It was Bill being “grumpy old guy yelling at kids to get off hid lawn”, not a crime against humanity.
Yeah, but people tend to take things quite seriously when some asshole mocks them for liking stuff and being sad that an icon that they admired dies. Is it the Holocaust? Of course not, but it is shitty, and he should have expected backlash (in fact, I suspect that he said it in the hopes that there wold be backlash, because then he can jump on the “millenials are killing the first amendment!” train with Jordan Peterson and Milo Whateverthefuck.
I watched this because it was suggested to me by YouTube. Thanks, YouTube. I hate Maher. He’s a fucking bully, and people dare to deny his right to be a bully. So he spins out.
Yikes. It seems like Ringwald had a pretty nuanced take on 80s culture, but Maher is basically an old man reading a clickbait headline on Facebook and rolling his eyes about political correctness run amok. God forbid she gets to publicly discuss her own filmography without being cast as a virtue-signaling busybody. Do you think he realizes he uses the same tone of voice when quoting women as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh?Also, “they were teen comedies, not snuff films” is a line that gets a seven-second applause break? What is this audience???
He is utterly dismissive of anyone who is in a white male and shares his opinions.
“He is utterly dismissive of anyone who is in a white male”Bruh he isn’t dismissive of gay men. He was an Advocate Man of the Year, FFS!
Does it matter which white male you are in at the time?
I don’t understand people who hate typoa, they lead to good jokes.
does “spins out” mean go onto a 5 minute comedy bit on his tv comedy show, in which he does a “new rules” segment about whatever his topic is (on this one, being “woke” and reexamining old art forms)? That’s, uh, the bit. Its called “commentary”, or “comedy”. He’s a bully because he disagrees w/ that? Or because he disputes millennials who want to ban everything they disagree with? (Some, not all!) I’m not sure I see the point/correlation of this clip w/ that statement…but hey, you’re allowed to have that opinion. It’s what he’s defending and supporting in this same clip, and typically in most of his “jokes’ that people don’t like.
One thing I’ve determined with certainty – Bill Maher fans are fucking unhinged.
I’m unhinged for questioning you calling him a bully? I can honestly say you’ve managed to shut down any conversation around this topic now, as its clear you have a firm opinion about this based on very little you can defend, besides calling people names. Including Bill Maher, and people like me, who have the temerity to question your opinion or statement. Enjoy your day, AngrySmedleyButler!
When did I call Bill Maher a bully?But thanks for proving my point!
Breathe. One breath, then another one. It’s all cool. It’s quiet in your bubble.
Ugh. For me one of the things that really put me off Maher was when following Steve Irwin’s death he wore a Crocodile Hunter costume with a plastic sting ray tail through his chest. He’s an attention starved hot taking edgelord at heart, which is why despite his at least nominally being on the left I still don’t care for him at all. That and his being increasingly out of touch with what progressives want.
He’s like Seth McFarlane in that regard.
I don’t know this Maher guy other than by secondary reference but… is that just his schtick? A beloved public figure dies and he rips the piss out of them?What did he do when Carrie Fisher passed away?
Can they appeal to Bill’s sense of being thrown overboard into shark infested waters instead?
Bill, you and Anne Coulter just need to fuck already. Your blue balls are making you an even bigger douche than usual.
He’s not reading this
Well, could you him then?
I don’t know. You seem like an angry person. I hope your week gets better, and trying to escalate your irrational statements probably isn’t the best of ideas.
Hmm, I’m beginning to think Bill Maher did read this.
Getting lectured about wasting your time and putting away childish things by a middle aged dude who brags about how much pot he smokes…. is a little much.
Don’t forget: Mr. Rogers kinda hated comic books too 😉https://longreads.com/2018/09/19/mr-rogers-vs-the-superheroes/
“One of the few things that could raise anger — real, intense anger — in
Mister Rogers was willfully misleading innocent, impressionable
children. To him, it was immoral and completely unacceptable.”should I expect the same knee-jerk, histrionic, angry-child screaming that Maher receives now directed toward the memory of Fred Rogers? Or am I underestimating the KinjaLeft’s tribal adherence to hate on Maher because he has a few opinions you disagree with, despite the fact that others you like shared similar perspectives 😉
If you’re a bill Maher fan, that tells us everything we need to know already, that you’re worthless gutter trash and beyond redemption.
You actually wrote that to a human being you’ve never met because he wrote about someone whose opinion you disagree with about comic books. I think that says everything we need to know about you. 😉
You and Maher should get off your high horses and stop trying to persuade folks that the stuff they love is“childish” and that we as adults should be ashamed that we “still”” enjoy what is supposedly meant for kids. We don’t tell you what to do. Plus, what Maher said was truly just plain disrespectful to Stan Lee however you cut it.
I never tried to persuade anyone that comic books were childish. I’m only pointing out the response to Maher’s criticism has been ridiculously histrionic, but I guess “childish” describes it as well.
Wow, you’re calling someone you don’t even know “worthless gutter trash and beyond redemption” based solely on whether he likes a comedian or not?
You are a humorless scold who lets comedians get you all worked up. Bill is having a good laugh at you having no sense of humor.
brain-dead moron you are
According to that article, Mr. Rogers spun his dislike of superheroes into a thoughtful and helpful discussion for kids to help them learn that reality didn’t work the same way as the fantasies they read and watched and to teach them a useful life lesson.Bill Maher spun his dislike of superheroes into a smug and condescending dismissal of a man’s life and work blaming him for political movements that he might at most have had only an indirect effect on (and which even a cursory glimpse at his work would suggest represent the opposite of everything he believed in), delivered mere days after said man’s death and in a fashion which seemed to try and be as insulting as possible to people who felt affected by said man’s death.So no, probably not.
Did you read the article? (does anyone, ever?) Fred Rogers blamed the medium for children getting hurt (bit more serious than what Maher said) and then the people who heard him engaged considered his points, engaged in a discussion, and figured out a solution. What if they had responded to Fred like you the public is responding to Maher right now? You’re all doing precisely what you accuse him of doing. Disagree with him respectfully (but first you have to listen to him) and see what happens. I’ve watched Maher for decades and he does engage in discussions with people he disagrees with, but they’re fruitless if they come from screaming babies.
“So no, probably not.”So yes. Evidently, yes.
Did you read the article?Dude’s opening sentence was referencing the article. There’s only three sentences in that whole response, and you couldn’t even make it through the first four words.
What if they had responded to Fred like you the public is responding to Maher right now?They probably would have, if Fred Rogers had been a smug douchebag like Mahr instead of thoughtfully engaging them. Oh, and if he had a point beyond “People like A Thing, therefore they’re dumb”.
So if you actually read Maher’s blog post (wow, does anyone here besides me actually read things before replying?) he wrote:“some dumb people got to be professors by writing theses with titles like Otherness and Heterodoxy in the Silver Surfer.”So he didn’t say all comic book fans were dumb. Bill seems to have the opinion that only people who know a lot about art should be teaching art.
Since we know he doesn’t regard comics/GN’s as worthwhile art, he doesn’t think they should be taught and that it’s a scam that people become teachers along this route, like becoming Professor of Astral Plane Unicorns or something. These are opinions I completely disagree with but that’s me and my perspective and understanding of the medium.But when he said “dumb people” he was referring to the scammy contemporary nature of academia. I don’t think he believes that a physicist who likes Spiderman is dumb.I also can’t resist pointing out that almost everyone here failing to comprehend writing that’s longer than two sentences of comic sans kinda helps his argument :-p
(Not jumping the bandwagon to jump on you)Maher’s opinions on the subject are uninformed. He’s commenting on something he doesn’t understand. Stan Lee took a medium that was wallowing in adolescent narratives and seen as disposable garbage and took it to the next level. Others came along later (Crumb, Spiegleman, McCloud, etc.) and continued that work. Most of us here know that there’s way more out there than the Avengers in comics. Maher doesn’t seem to know that and his opinions on the subject are from the 1990s if not the Wertham era. I value Crumb, Spiegleman, McCloud far more than Lee, Kirby and Ditko but without them no McCloud. I appreciate his opinion on superhero comics and films and on those things specifically he might not be wrong but there’s no question that Lee’s contributions are highly valuable.
I mostly agree, and you didn’t jump on any bandwagon because you actually wrote your opinions in a reasonable manner. I think in regards to Lee, he clearly did good and bad things for the industry but I’ve always found the version that he didn’t really actually write a ton to be the most plausible. Aside from the fact that the sentiment been independently repeated by most of the writers who actually worked with him (Kirby, Ditko, etc), I can totally see him as the kind of dork that doesn’t understand that *only* popping in and saying “how about…!” isn’t what writers consider writing unless you’re the one sitting down every few scripts and pulling all the “how about…!”s together into a coherent narrative. It’s like the cliche you hear about where a show/movie/author is sued because someone’s friend or s.o. told them that the main character should wear a green dress and so they think they should get a cut.
I wasn’t there, though. Genuinely, have you read anything (hopefully that you can link to) that shows Stan Lee’s undisputed credit in terms writing something good?Another thing that bothers me that I realised writing this as well is that there’s just not a ton of people who are as creative as Lee’s credits show him to be on paper that basically stop creating at a certain point. In my exprience, writer tend to write until their final day, weather that day comes naturally or by their own hand. It’s not any sort of proof whatsoever, but it’s very fitting that Lee de facto retiring from writing and instead just licensing his name to random bullshit IP’s and running businesses is kind of what you’d expect if he never really wrote that much to begin with and couldn’t find any other geniuses that would let me add his name to their stuff, right? Like the question would why did this gushing waterfall of creativity completely halt instead of slowing down over decades to a trickle?
I’ve read one or two books (including Marvel Comics: The Untold Story but not The Secret History of Marvel Comics) and a bunch of articles and other stuff on Lee. I also was also a Marvel comics kid from the 70s to late 80s so I was reading while he was an important part of the brand.My understanding is that while it is true that he did not write as much as people think he did, he did provide a strong and important editorial direction that pushed the medium forward.
The thing is that it kinda matters to me who it was who said Stan provided the strong and important editorial direction. Mainly, if Kirby or Ditko or any of the other major creatives who were doing the real work said so I’d buy it. Otherwise he’s an idea puncher-upper, extraordinarily charismatic and important marketeer, and businessman, but possibly not someone who should have been a credited writer (in my opinion).
Like if he was pitched two characters named “Spiderman” and “X-treme Skidmarx,” and he rightfully tells the writer that the former has way more potential to connect with young adults, but maybe if you change this one thing (which someone else writes), then is that actually writing or more marketing?
If that description (the “editorial direction etc”) was from a group consisting of interns, cub writers, and fellow management at Marvel I could see them getting fooled by his taking over the writers room and doing all the talking.
QUOTEAccording to Kirby, Lee contributed virtually nothing but used his power as editor to make sure he was credited anyway. He later railed that “Stan Lee wasn’t a guy that read or that told stories … It wasn’t possible for a man like Stan to come up with new things, or old things, for that matter.” Daredevil artist Wally Wood was just as scathing, writing that Lee only ever “came up with two surefire ideas … the first one was ‘Why not let the artists write the stories as well as draw them?’ And the second was ‘Always sign your name on top — BIG!’”On the other hand, Spider-Man artist John Romita Sr. defended Lee, telling Jon B. Cooke that he “would bet my house that Jack never read the books after Stan wrote them; that’s why he could claim with a straight face that Stan never wrote anything … [Stan’s] a con man, but he did deliver … that’s why I never begrudged him getting any of the credit, and as far as I’m concerned, he can have his name above my stuff anytime he wants.”Read More: https://www.looper.com/31532/untold-truth-stan-lee/?utm_campaign=clipENDQUOTESo there you go. I know Kirby had his legitimate beef with Lee and I’m sure he pushed others down on his way to the top and left them there but my understanding is also that he did create a brand and a vision that enabled Kirby and others which is valuable. I guess this is similar to the Steve Jobs story…
You only find Kirby being critical of Lee late in his life and only in interviews while he had a “handler”(his wife or one of his kids) present. Read into that what you will. They did bury the hatchet at NY Comicon right before Jack died and they worked with each other for years without issues. I’m not saying Stan was not guilty of some of the things he did but I think the truth of it all falls somewhere in the middle of everyone’s story.
“They did bury the hatchet at NY Comicon right before Jack died and they
worked with each other for years without issues.”That doesn’t mean a lot to me. I remember reading somewhere that Tesla was forced to dig ditches for Edison’s buildings at one point after Edison had finished ratfucking him the first time (but not the last). When you’ve been beaten and you need to make money, sometimes you just stop fighting.
“I’m not saying Stan
was not guilty of some of the things he did but I think the truth of it
all falls somewhere in the middle of everyone’s story.”yes, it’s always true that the truth is in the middle… but not necessarily in the center point. the point I’m making is that the middle is a spectrum, sometimes a very wide one, and sometimes you can guesstimate that it’s actually closer (maybe very close) to one side or the other. Blindly saying that the truth is at the halfway point isn’t using reason.
For example, people generally think OJ Simpson either killed both Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman or didn’t kill either. Some would say that one of those two scenarios is far more likely. The one theory I’ve never heard, though, is that OJ Simpson killed Nicole Brown and someone else happened by and randomly killed Fred Goldman, which is one way of splitting the difference. Whomever killed one probably killed the other and most of the evidence points to OJ.
I think O.J. is innocent of murder, i’ve read enough books on the subject to be convinced.
Depends how you define ‘writing’- like I think it’s more or less agreed upon that all the actual dialogue in the comics was Lee.And where it gets more debatable is his contribution prior to that point- where he and the artists would come up with a pitch for the story, then the artist would draw the issue, before sending it to Lee to fill in the dialogue. According to some, Lee might say a sentance (if that) about what a story should be then the artist would fill in all the rest of the details before Lee would put dialogue on top of it. While it has been claimed that he was more active in the initial story development process (if not always the case.)And as has been said in other places since Lee’s death- while there is debate about who was his best collaborator (was it Kirby, Ditko, Romatia etc?), with all of them it is agreed they did there best work with Lee. Which should tell you that he was making some geniune contributions to this work.
“it’s more or less agreed upon that all the actual dialogue in the comics was Lee.”Based upon what I’ve read, it’s “less,” far less. I found this article a few days ago that had this quote from Kirby (it was originally sourced from The Comics Journal so let me know if you want the link, I don’t know anything at all about the publication, honestly):
“No, I dialogued them. If Stan Lee ever got a thing dialogued, he would get it from someone working in the office. I would write out the whole story on the back of every page. I would write the dialogue on the back or a description of what was going on. Then Stan Lee would hand them to some guy and he would write in the dialogue. In this way Stan Lee made more pay than he did as an editor. This is the way Stan Lee became the writer. Besides collecting the editor’s pay, he collected writer’s pay. I’m not saying Stan Lee had a bad business head on. I think he took advantage of whoever was working for him.”To my mind, words like that are a pretty crippling blow to the foundation of his alleged history. It really doesn’t off as hyperbolic or angry, just matter-of-fact explaining how shit really was. Also, it would be one thing if this one person who is extremely well-respected for his creativity were saying this shit, but when there are other extraordinary talents like Ditko who have had to explicitly dispute (allegedly) incorrect statements, I just don’t think anyone can rationally ignore all of that.“all of them it is agreed they did there best work with Lee. Which
should tell you that he was making some geniune contributions to this
work.”It really doesn’t, though. Think about this critically: Did they do their best work with Lee or did they do their best work FOR Lee or AROUND Lee? Correlation isn’t equivalent to causation. Based upon Lee’s charismatic nature and enthusiasm for the art form, I can see him as being an extraordinary eye for talent, which could be a genuine contribution to their careers, even if he didn’t help very much with the actual art. Like Lorne Michaels but with a much savvier track record.
There’s a radio interview with Jack Kirby from the late 80’s where Stan rings in and they chat, that was linked on the Stan Lee obit article, and in that Stan point blank challenges Jack on the issue of the dialogue.Lee asks Kirby if there was a single line of dialogue in the comics that wasn’t his, Kirby responds by stating that he would sometimes make notes for potential dialogue options, Lee then asks if he ever actually read the final comics (and says that if he did he would see Kirby’s dialogue suggestions weren’t used.) This also lines up with what Romatia has said about how the only way Kirby could claim that Lee wrote none of the dialogue is by not actually reading the final comics.And I think the most telling thing is by just looking at the dialogue itself- Lee has a very specific style and it’s simillar to the way he talks. The dialogue in things Kirby and Ditko wrote without Lee is very different to when they worked with him. And that style certainly suggests to me that he would’ve had to have established his own writing style for others to immitate before any ghost-writers could start taking over the books.
I found the interview and listened to some of it – more on it in a minute – and I have to say – and I hope this is a common opinion amongst comic book fans – that the interview was a super shitty thing to do to Kirby. Even worse, surprising someone in that particular way (and giving Lee a gigantic advantage of preparation in an arena where he’s already very skilled) is the worst way to get at the truth. I couldn’t really listen to it much after Stan got on and I think that the radio show host/producers who did that are dickheads.
To me – sorry – but every gotcha moment about Lee interrogating Kirby and peppering him with questions about things that happened decades ago that Lee had time to prepare to answer and Kirby didn’t is fruit from a poisonous tree. I have to disregard it.
That being said, I listened to Kirby from before the surprise guest and him saying he didn’t write the dialogue bubbles so I have no idea what’s going on. Is Kirby a liar or just remembers things differently in different decades? Was he programmed in the 90’s by the fans to think he’d been robbed or was he programmed by Lee and the fans by the 80’s to think Lee wrote it and then remembered the truth later? I’m curious what your theory is? To me, I first heard about the Stan Lee stuff maybe 15 years ago, probably during Kevin Smith’s efforts to promote him (didn’t he make a documentary or something?)Anyway, I’ll hand it to you that I’m definitely more inclined to consider Lee wrote dialogue after hearing that interview (only the first part) than I am before.“Lee has a very specific style and it’s simillar to the way he
talks. The dialogue in things Kirby and Ditko wrote without Lee is very
different to when they worked with him. And that style certainly
suggests to me that he would’ve had to have established his own writing
style for others to immitate before any ghost-writers could start taking
over the books”You already sold me on it being more plausible now that Lee wrote something, so that discussion is more or less settled, but I wanted to point out that this doesn’t really help Lee’s case at all. Truly innovative artists are driven to evolve, especially over decades of work. Less creative people, in my experience, are happy streamlining old ideas, especially when they’re profitable. If it was true that Lee’s style wasn’t all his own it actually follows that he would just continue along those lines and ride his meal ticket until it collapsed instead of taking any real risks. Right? It also follows that Kirby and Ditko’s work later (on their own or collaborating with other people) would have experimental variations since my understanding is that their creative impact on the medium has never been seriously disputed.
Did you read the whole article you linked to in your original post? From that piece alone, I didn’t get the idea that Rogers blamed the medium of comics for children getting hurt or “kinda hated comic books.” Despite the title, the focus is not on Rogers crusading against superheroes, but uses the incident of a single news story (about a kid jumping off a building thinking he could fly like Superman) spurring him to develop a weeklong theme in his show (about telling the difference between fantasy and reality) as a jumping off point to examine Rogers’s approach to child education. I was more fascinated by the apparent rivalry between Mr. Rogers and Sesame Street, and the debate between emphasizing emotional/social learning vs. cognitive learning in preschool children that each show represents, than his attitude toward superheroes, which was sort of a throwaway bit.Anyway, in addition to the differences between the two situations others have pointed out, another distinction is their intent and reasoning. Even if Rogers kinda hated comics, it seems to be coming from a place of genuine concern for kids, and he responded with a constructive counterpoint on his show. On the other hand, Maher’s take seems to coming more from a place of bloviating self-promotion and the need to tear others down—“Look at me, I’m the only smart one, everyone else is an idiot.” (sounds familiar…) All those things contribute to the difference in response. It’s not just a hatred of Maher, which obviously does exist, but it’s not the only thing. Also, my reaction to most things Maher does is an eyeroll, not “knee-jerk, histrionic, angry-child screaming,” so you don’t have us all nailed.
wow, does anyone here besides me actually read things before replying?The irony of you levying that accusation is absolutely astounding. Did you have your self-awareness surgically removed, or is it’s absence a congenital defect?
snap.
“So if you actually read Maher’s blog post (wow, does anyone here besides me actually read things before replying?)…”https://www.dictionary.com/browse/condescensionhttps://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominemhttps://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/deflection“I also can’t resist pointing out that almost everyone here failing to comprehend writing that’s longer than two sentences of comic sans kinda helps his argument :-p”https://www.dictionary.com/browse/condescensionhttps://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominemhttps://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/deflectionKnow how I did that, Captain of the Debate Team? Yes, that’s right, by reading all eight of your sophomoric, poorly punctuated, haphazardly structured sentences.But, hey, keep believing you’re intellectual-hot-shit ‘cause you know terms like “comic sans.”🙄
You have indeed schooled me. Let me know what I need to change and get back to me.Sensorilly,Prof. Emoji III Esq.
So like, you’re Bill, right? Or one of his publicists? I’ve just never seen anyone go to bat this much for him on anything in years, and it seems bizarre that anyone’s stanning for him so hard on this issue.Yeah dude, he read the article, as did I. Rogers took action to stop a problem he saw caused by superheroes with childrent, and he did, as always, in a nice respectful way, even using the actors from superhero shows. Maher took a potshot at adults for having the audacity to like entertainment he didn’t deem high-minded or important enough and then blamed them for the 2016 election. But sure, let’s pretend those are the same thing.
And even if, even if they were remotely the same thing, it would still be in poor taste to say that people are wrong to mourn a man and his contribution to art less than a week after his death. Personally I never cared for David Bowie too much but I didn’t go write blog posts filled with my hot takes on the subject while others were still mourning him online.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominemwelp, you reached that stage.
Glad you could interpret my clearly joking first paragraph as an attack so you could deflect the whole post with a pithy one-liner rather than actually addressing the topic at hand re: your rather asinine comparison of Mr. Rogers and Bill Maher.
Questions:
So if you open with the laziest cliche internet argument attack is it on me for being dismissive of what you wrote? Besides, you can’t blame a guy for not seeing something unfunny as a joke.Should I have ignored it so you could have told me I was dismissing that part instead?Should I have just responded initially by saying that was some corny-ass, unfunny, lazy shit?Am I also allowed the privilege of passing off anything that I say that I regret as a joke?Do you often precede your criticism of others for being flippant with the very same?
YesYesIf you feel like itIf you actually posted it as a jokeOnly in cases wherein the other is deliberately dismissing criticism and misinterpreting facts. Also if I’m on a comments section of a mostly humor based news site.
Bit ironic considering how much Maher loves calling people stupid.
Actually that would only be ironic if I was actually Bill Maher.Which I am. bwahahaAHER!
Welp, Professor Cheat Emoji reached for Wikipedia!!😂🤣 #professionalismAnd you’re still needing help with this: https://webapps.towson.edu/ows/capitalization_rules.htm.
Actually yes, I did. (I’m not entirely sure you read my comment if that what’s you took away from it, but never mind.) But I’m guessing that people still aren’t going after Mr. Rogers because he addressed his problems with superheroes in a respectful, helpful way that didn’t belittlingly say things like “Deep, deep mourning for a man who inspired millions to, I don’t know, watch a movie, I guess”. You’ll notice that despite his dislike of the stories they were telling, nowhere in that article is there the suggestion that Mr. Rogers dismissed the people who were telling them or the people who enjoyed them, nor did he do so mere days after someone involved with them had passed away.Even if we give Bill Maher the benefit of the doubt that he’s trying to start a discussion, the way he tried to started that discussion was off-putting and obnoxious. That’s why people are annoyed with him and not Mr. Rogers.
So your whole defense of making a smug and ignorant statement by Bill Maher is that Mr. Rodgers agrees with him… Do you understand how that´s not a valid defense?Also, Maher´s statement was based on obviously ignorant bias against what comic books are. Here are some of the reasons why he was wrong:1)There are comics that have won many literary awards such as MAUS (which I recommend everyone read). 2)Stan Lee himself constantly threw in real world issues into his works such as Civil Rights in X-Men. 3) Even if they are just for kids, aren´t you allowed to mourn for someone that created works that meant something to you as child and left a positive meanignful impression? 4) Reading comics as an adult is just as childish as getting news information from a guy who tells jokes for living (and in Maher´s case very poorly).I know I´ve gone on too long about this subject but Bill Maher is the Bill O´Reilly of the left and I can´t stand either of them.
He engages.He brings on respected scholars of the Islamic religion and Muslims the world over, then immediately doubles down on his hateful bullshit.Don’t play that argument, we see him
Speaking of smug and condescending, I’m seeing a lot of that in this thread too.
I should bloody well hope so!
Maher wasn’t blaming Lee for anything
Ugh awful.
Wow you didn’t read that article did you? He didn’t “hate superheroes”. He got angry when people failed to help young kids realize the difference between reality and fiction. He urges parents and educators to be aware of what children watched and read so they could discuss with them how these things are not real. He never questioned their impact or literary importance nor did he decide to criticize one of their famous creators days after his death.
“He didn’t ‘hate superheroes’.”You replied to me, but who are you quoting?
How about – Nobody cares? Maher is a big baby, end of discussion. Mr. Rogers is dead.
The problem isn’t with his opinion, at least for me. The problem is his timing and snark expressing it. Many comic fans will admit to not being the biggest fan of Stan’s, but didn’t feel the need to be crappy about it the day after he passed.
I agree that Maher would do better to tone down his energy when expressing some of his ideas or opinions. Sometimes the pot doesn’t work as well as it needs to.
IfRogers argument was that comic books train children to see violence is acceptable and conflict and good and evil as binary ideas…..I’d here out that argument and probably agree on some of the minor points.That different than Bill Maher calling it a bunch of petty childish shit.
Mr. Rogers disliked them because he felt young children were being taught falsehoods about superpowers- this was the 1960’s when kids were jumping out of windows and roofs trying to fly because they saw it on TV. He felt the comics and movies needed to be more clear w/ children that this was fantasy, as it blurred the lines for them, and he was probably right. He actually did a whole special on it, which was great for the times.And honestly, if Mr. Rogers had said this about Stan Lee, I’d be 100% on Fred’s side of this one. He could do no wrong.
Rogers made those staments days after Lee died?
Yeah! Remember that time Fred Rogers wrote a smug and reductive op-ed about someone’s life work a week after they died? No? You don’t. Hmm, strange…
Why the fuck would you even bother writing this?
Go choke on your logical fallacies, while you carry water for a fucking hack.
Bill Maher upsets the shit out of AV Club writers and commenters. I can’t quite figure it out. It’s probably because, though liberal, he eschews a certain kind performative, oppression-obsessed rhetoric that people around here use to telegraph their right-mindedness.
yeah it seems like hating on old left folks like Maher and Michael Moore is the trendy thing to do now.
Do you know how to use question marks and capitalization consistently, Professor Cheat Emoji? 😂 Are you aware you just rhetorically equated a Presbyterian minister* and children’s show host (and lifelong Republican, FYI) with— this guy? Do you know what this term means? https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/245/False-Equivalence(You should, seeing as how you just redefined the concept.)In case I’m not being clear, you write like a ten-year-old— as we expect from anybody using terms like “KinjaLeft.”🙄*Gawd knows no book about magic fruit and talking snakes has ever misled innocent, impressionable children.
Well Mr. Rogers had (what he thought were) valid reasons for disliking the medium, but I guarantee he would never be as disrespectful towards the fans and creators of the medium. Plus he falls under the same trap as Mahr, he’s a product of his time and being out of touch with, wasn’t aware comics are an evolving media. Plus Rogers is generally loved, was a kind person, and did great things. Mahr is an attention whore who is an racist, anti-vaxxer, pedophile defending unfunny hack. Stan and Fred will be revelant and beloved for generations. Mahr is widely disliked in life and will be forgotten hours after the fluff peice announces his death.
“Plus Rogers is generally loved, was a kind person, and did great things. Mahr is an attention whore who is an racist, anti-vaxxer, pedophile defending unfunny hack.”Rogers also wouldn’t have used the language you use to describe Maher. So are you a closer person in character to Rogers or Maher? I’d guess the latter, at least when you’re online (like most people you’re probably a lot nicer offline).
You just reduced both Maher (and Rogers) down to a few (misinterpreted or erroneous in some cases) labels. I think what made Rogers beloved by so many sprang from his fearless acceptance of the complexity of humans and their feelings. If you genuinely think that Rogers’ example is important, maybe you shouldn’t define people by their labels, or at least understand that you’re not any better than other people when they do the same.
Mr. Rogers wouldn’t have insulted people for mourning the death of someone they cared about and you know it. If he were alive today, he would have said nice things about Stan’s life and consider Bill’s conduct deplorable.
I believe it.Fred would have also found the language and tone of most of Maher’s critics deplorable as well (probably moreso).But keep focusing on the mistakes of the person you don’t like and ignoring the worse mistakes of his critics. It’s very tribal.
I mean, back in the day I remember Wizard magazine running a thing about Mr. Rodgers hating on comics. I remember being younger and being all “pssh” about his attitude to comics. I remember people being upset that Mr. Rodgers thought that but that came and went.
Like, a year from now this is going to be so far down the list of Bill Maher’s fuck-ups we won’t even remember this. So yeah, people were upset about Mr. Rodgers opinion of it.
Heh, yep, people all have their blind spots or they create their own, even Mr. Rogers. I’m glad you got that, I don’t think anyone else here understood that point.
I couldn’t find a record of it online, but I also vividly remember an editorial Fred Rogers wrote about how Beavis N’ Butthead was a bad show. What I did manage to find online was an article that said Rogers hadn’t ever seen the show. Then of course we have the decades following the show wherein Mike Judge has proven that he is a brilliant – if uneven – comedic mind.As far as everyone forgetting Maher’s fuckup here, I… don’t think I agree with that. The article above actually has links to three different articles about his (perceived) fuckups so I suspect the next article could have four, including this article. Perceiving people and their decisions objectively and not being black and white, maybe having different ideas that you might not agree with, doesn’t seem to be the ideal in this online community. They’ll probably hold onto this no-stakes incident to the bitter fucking end, think of it every time they hear or read just the name “Maher.”
Politically Incorrect was good in spite of Maher. It was about the chemistry of whatever random four guests were on the show. Bill was just a mediator. It was like a Hollywood version of McLaughlin Group. His HBO show is a pale version but with a lot more of Bill’s monologues and bad jokes. He was only funny when a guest gave him an easy set up. Now he’s old, bitter and on the wrong side of everything. He’s basically become Dennis Miller except nobody misses the old Bill Maher. He was never as funny as Miller. But to talk shit on someone who isn’t even in the ground yet, especially someone who has touched millions of lives in a positive way, is just fucking gross. If Stan had never written anything besides, “With great power comes great responsibility.”, he’d have done way more good than Maher ever will. By the way, Bill should take note of that line next time he thinks about saying something really stupid.
I read his Bill Maher post “Adulting” that comic book readers caused Trump to be elected. It’s just as idiotic as when Jerry Falwell stated that 9/11 happened because of gays and feminists. This isn’t the first time Maher has trashed and looked down on the comic book world.https://io9.gizmodo.com/bill-maher-stupidly-blames-superheroes-for-trump-1795412629
How much time each day does everyone think Ugh. – now with SPLINTERGray(TM)! and Brontosaurian spend thinking about me and talking about me? They’ve been following me around these boards for a while now. For a couple of people that supposedly don’t care about me, they sure do go out of their way to keep discussing me in multiple blog posts. A very adorable obsession indeed. Imagine waking up and your first thought it about some random internet commenter you’ll never meet.They even do that weak ass screen shot your grey comment thing because their real lives are so sad that they think being ungrey is some kind of importance. I truly feel for them in that regard, and hope they can meet some real people off the internet to have meaningful interactions with.Seriously a bunch of people with the mental maturity of a 5 year-old.
What are you babbling about?
Don’t know you, don’t know them, but you have to admit this sounds like whining.
For not caring so much, you sure did put a lot of effort into this three paragraph comment about how much you don’t care.
I understand I’m yelling in the wind here. I get it.BUTBill Maher is wrong about Stan Lee and his fans. More than that, he has been disrespectful. Maher has other questionable opinions, perhaps, or has made blunders. It doesn’t make him a villain. It makes him a human, with some positives and some negatives, successes and blunders. This is true of Stan Lee, as well, and I’ve seen some attempts to give the guy sainthood over the last few days, and some attempts to demonize him for some of his business dealings. Probably, though (especially without knowing the man personally) he was neither saint nor demon. Few are.
The all-or-nothing, black-or-white, with-us-or-against-us approach to the world that this sort of thing exemplifies is both reductive and destructive. If we continue down this path, it will not end well. The real world is full of nuance and subtlety, which is not-so-helpful for ginning up outrage or clicks, perhaps, but has the advantage of being true.
Seeing this cheers me up a bit. Mainly because I just came from an article where I almost posted my own rant about I’m so tired of people and their with us or against us mentality. Especially when it’s being perpetuated by people with access to thousands upon thousands of viewers/readers.
But the HE started with the with me or against me shit. “They like Marvel movies and comics? Well then, they MUST be stupid, and responsible for Trump!” He doesn’t get to insult millions of people, then cry foul when they call him on his bullshit.
Everyone needs to get their panties unwedged. Many will need surgery.
If Americans actually listened to Uncle Ben’s speech about great power coming with great responsibility the world would probably be in a much better place.
They should have just played this clip
Bill Maher is an unfunny kook. I can’t think of anyone else who is as impressed with himself for no good reason as that smug fuck.
I think it’s really funny how Bill can get a bunch of humorless comic book nerds to throw a tantrum over his trolling.
I agree that this wasn’t his finest piece, and poorly-timed to boot. I get that he’s stepped over the line on occasion, he can come off as entitled, and he has some pretty against-the-grain opinions when it comes to religion in general.But seriously AV Club, your main gripe with Maher seems to be that he doesn’t use kid gloves when discussing liberal principles, something your editorial stance seems to be less and less forgiving of as of late. It’s no surprise you despise Maher, because you manage to generate article after insanely condescending article when an otherwise innocuous non-Bill Maher celebrity strays from the script and seems to support your political stance only 99.9% of the time. So when somebody like Maher comes along, who has extremely strong opinions on certain subjects, and – something you constantly neglect to mention in your endless criticism of him, ACTUALLY EXPLAINS HIS REASONING – you jump at the chance to take a 2,000-word shit on him, simply for the crime of not being lockstep with you.
He’s always been a bit of a agitator douche. I can relate on a much smaller scale, but seriously fuck this guy.
Can someone explain to me why the company, if they want to make the point that they’re above this, needed to engage at all?
IF WE’RE GOING TO SHIT ON STAN LEE’S MEMORY, LET’S DO IT FOR THE RIGHT REASONShttps://trouble.city/articles/2018/11/19/if-were-going-to-shit-on-stan-lees-memory-lets-do-it-for-the-right-reasons?fbclid=IwAR3sK09IaR-Dez-6IgbGIbwcQff7U6f8aAolW4FJkSXBwJ0Co76sLqfj9fE
Seriously you can’t have it both ways. It was a damn joke. I loooove Stan Lee and Marvel comics and movies. But, Trump sheep say they lo v e him because he talks like a moron and not a politician. He don’t care about political correctness. But, when the joke is about something they don’t like now they care about PC. Jerry Seinfeld won’t do shows at University’s anymore for this reason, neither will Chris Rock. Even though realtime on HBO talks about politics, it is advertised as a comedy show. I guess what I’m saying is when a comedian says it, there’s no malice or harm intended but when the President of the U.S. says things like i don’t like soldiers who get captured, and i believe Putin not the CIA or FBI, they’re not funny and do cause harm.
Corrected quote:“I don’t think it’s a huge stretch to suggest that Donald Trump could only get elected in a country that thinks Bill Maher is insightful.”He’s become a parody of himself.
Stan Lee is a legend as he came up with many great comic book charechtors and movies.Refer to, Stan Lee – The real Life of a Maverick Superhero: http://www.ibourl.net/stanlee