Ethics Quote Of The Day: Bill Maher…Wait, WHAT?

“Wonder why “Fake News” resonates so much with Trump fans? Because so much of it is fake. Just nonsense made to keep you perpetually offended with an endless stream of ‘controversies’ that aren’t controversial…Because places like the Huffington Post and BuzzFeed and Salon, they make their money by how many clicks they get. Yes, the people who see themselves as morally superior are actually ignoring their sacred job of informing citizens of what’s important and instead sowing division for their own selfish ends.”

—-Comic Bill Maher on his HBO show “Real Time” this week.

Observations:

1 Bill Maher may be possessed.

2. There is nothing new or perceptive about Maher’s comment, except that he is criticizing his natural allies in the “resistance.’

3. “The people who see themselves as morally superior are actually ignoring their sacred job of informing citizens of what’s important” is known as “the mainstream media.” There, Bill, I fixed that for you.

4. Maher has not been above using many of these “controversies” as material in the past.  If he uses the clickbait and fake news, thus driving more traffic to the sources of the clickbait and fake news, how does he justify criticizing those sources? Simple: Maher is a self-anointed truth-teller, so every now and then, he has to tell the truth.

5. This constant and unethical tactic being employed by the news media to create chaos. distrust, uncertainly and division in the public with the purpose of undermining the President of the United States has become so egregious and undeniable that even Bill Maher is sick of it.

That’s the important thing to take away from this.

Let’s see if journalists and editors are smart enough to take the hint.

44 Comments

Filed under Ethics Quotes, Ethics Train Wrecks, Journalism & Media

44 responses to “Ethics Quote Of The Day: Bill Maher…Wait, WHAT?

  1. dragin_dragon

    Not damn likely.

  2. Steve-O-in-NJ

    Unfortunately RDS (Republican Derangement Syndrome) and TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) are chronic progressive conditions. There is no cure, and once someone has either, they get progressively worse and worse until they become terminal and the sufferer enters intellectual menopause, when he must say progressively more and more outrageous things to even be noticed and his ability to be taken seriously and credibility are severely compromised before being lost completely.

    • Still Spartan

      Derangement syndromes are equally prevalent on the right. I’ve lost count on how many lunatic FB posts I’ve had to shut down from my right-leaning friends and family. Once I explain why a story is fake, or why the facts demonstrably are wrong, they always take them down, but not before 30 or 40 “likes” are clicked on the story.

      • Steve-O-in-NJ

        BUT, most of the right is not in the media/news sector. I get my share of junk right-wing posts also, and I just bleep right over them, same as the lefty garbage. I’ve found butting heads to be counterproductive.

        • Other Bill

          Great point, Steve. Sparty, you’re comparing the mainstream media to your crazy uncle.

          • Still Spartan

            That would be a fair point except it would appear that my entire hometown is my “crazy uncle.” The only conservative posts that are accurate, informative and/or thoughtful come from my educated conservative friends. And yep, that certainly sounds like an elitist statement, but I will own it — at least as it applies to my friends and family.

      • Other Bill

        Thus spake Komrade Sparticus, Chief Head of the Whataboutism Ministry.

        • Still Spartan

          That’s not accurate. I’m pointing out an inaccuracy in Steve’s statement — I think MOST people are deranged. If there could be a fair way to keep stupid people from voting (from both parties), I would get behind it.

          • Steve-O-in-NJ

            If there is such opposition to requiring a picture ID to vote, what makes you think the imposition of an IQ test would get very far?

          • Other Bill

            It’s misdirection, Sparty. You do it almost all the time. You invariably start out your comments with a feint. You concede, to a very limited point, then immediately go off on a tangent. It’s always, “Yeah, but….” Then you throw in a “It’s not the worst thing, [something the right does] is much worse.” It’s like throwing a punch after you have someone in a cinch. It’s just predictable and doesn’t add much of anything.

            • Still Spartan

              I don’t see anybody else calling people on the “all liberals” posts. The silence on this is deafening and it makes me wonder if you all are drinking your own kool-aid.

              • The problem is the herding instinct. Any criticism of any left-arising conduct almost always gets furious spin back, even when the conduct is indefensible. That’s the appearance:

                commenter Patrice was especially quick to point out that generalities like “the Left” and “progressives” made unfair blanket assumptions. I agree with that criticism, and that’s why I often ask, “Why is this a partisan issue?”

                We might start a consensus that the news media is outrageously biased, and hurting the country. The fact that so many–call them what you want—adamantly deny this or rationalize it contributes to a monolithic, “PROTECT THE HIVE!” perception of diverse individuals who seem to be reading from the same script.

              • Rusty Rebar

                I agree that using “all liberals” is not a wise way to go, it is putting a monolithic viewpoint on a diverse group. On the other hand, it is hard to find a term to describe the group that is seeming to push this agenda. It seems over the years we have ruined the word liberal, it used to mean something very different than “left wing”, which seems to by synonymous anymore, at least colloquially.

                So, there is most certainly a group of people that are on the left, that refer to themselves as liberals and who are in positions of power from which they push this ideology (post-modernism / neo-marxism) upon others. It is pervasive in the corporate media, in HR departments, in universities and seemingly even into primary education. They are in these positions of influence and they are perverting the policies, the discord and the minds of our youth (those in primary / secondary education). This is all about power structures and frames everything in the oppressor / oppressed dichotomy, and refuses to engage or recognize rational thought, and universal (at least at a societal level) principles.

                So, if you have a name to give to this group, I am all ears. I have been trying to use the term leftists, or radical left, but I do not want to confuse this with progressives, who do not seem to be as infected with this scourge as the more moderate / mainstream Democrats who are thoroughly infected with this nonsense.

                As to the voting test.. well I am not going to get into that except to say this is a terrible idea. You do not get to pick who is “smart enough” to vote. That does not end well, and you damn well know it. It is funny how these things that were so racist, and so hurtful and were unfathomable positions of the left just a few years ago are talking points today. It used to be that saying we should not judge people by the color of their skin, was a liberal idea, but today it is racist. Now, you are presenting ideas right out of Jim Crow as being some sort of solution to our ills? I hear people clamoring for re-segregating schools? What happened to the liberals, they used to stand for something?

                • What happened to the liberals, they used to stand for something?

                  They succumbed to the same thing many true conservatives are now: they have been marginalized and their ethical stances taken advantage of within their own party, to the point where they either stop participating or dropped those ethical stances, changing into progressives (leftists, whatever) to survive.

                  This is what the alt-right is to true conservatives: the loss of principles in the name of winning.

                • JRH

                  The idea that you have to be “educated” to cast a meaningful vote is ludicrous. In my experience good, everyday common sense is more often lacking in the “educated” class, who have the “we know best” attitude just because. I would trust the everyday working guy, who has to deal with a multitude of issues, to vote than any Professor I’ve ever met.

                  • The Founding Fathers though economic success (your own or in your family) to be the criteria to vote. Land owners only.

                    I believe they though one had to be moderately intelligent to be successful, but there are exceptions.

                  • joed68

                    “Educated” and “Intelligent” are all too often conflated. B, in this case, does not necessarily follow A.

                • Rusty wrote: ”So, there is most certainly a group of people that are on the left, that refer to themselves as liberals and who are in positions of power from which they push this ideology (post-modernism / neo-marxism) upon others. It is pervasive in the corporate media, in HR departments, in universities and seemingly even into primary education. They are in these positions of influence and they are perverting the policies, the discord and the minds of our youth (those in primary / secondary education). This is all about power structures and frames everything in the oppressor / oppressed dichotomy, and refuses to engage or recognize rational thought, and universal (at least at a societal level) principles.

                  “So, if you have a name to give to this group, I am all ears. I have been trying to use the term leftists, or radical left, but I do not want to confuse this with progressives, who do not seem to be as infected with this scourge as the more moderate / mainstream Democrats who are thoroughly infected with this nonsense.”

                  I think you have asked an important question. It is quite difficult to name the faction you refer to because it takes a considerable analytical effort to understand who they are, what they value, and also how they as a faction connect to the existing state and the established —- is the word ‘mechanisms’? — of the state. In order to define ‘them’ we would have to have defined ourselves.

                  Another aspect of this faction, or the ‘movement’ they represent, is that it is a) a mass movement based less in a solid idea and b) uniquely involved in political emotionalism. The word ‘hysterical’ is too easy to apply though it is tempting.

                  Working in that area: postmodernism and also neo-marxist seems productive and to that one might add post-christian and also post-american.

                  To be fair, after fully defining who ‘they’ are and why they are like that, they would have to be then located alongside their complementaries. That would mean a detailed critical description of the ‘Conservative’ who also exists within the postmodern and the postmarxist milieu. I do not think anyone is immune from the decadence of the present.

                  Another possible tool of analysis I have found to be useful are certain terms and designations from Thomist philosophy. In my own view I see ‘consupiscence’ as the essential and defining area of social illness. It is desire that has gone out of proper bounds. But in order to approach this critically, and make definitions, one is forced to engage in a harsh critical analysis of an entire socio-economic system (Americanism) … and this circles back to mass-entertainment, propoganda/PR and then also to the core driver in America: advertising (defined as the manipulation of appetite). The basic ‘lying nature’ of PR and advertising stands in sharp but clear contrast to the ‘honest truth-telling person’ and the dissonance between these two modes of being lead to something akin to schizophrenia: deep divisions, deep hypocricies that cannot be bridged without considerable self-analysis and pain.

                  With the additional inclusion of out of control sexual imagination (obviously part of the ‘concupiscence’ designation) one begins to picture a mass-culture, going to the ends of desire-longing, removed from a solid inner ground in spirituality, incapable of establishing ‘inner order’, and dominated by external stimulation which moves them ever more and more from a solid grounding within the self (the quiet, calm, rational self), and this system intimately bound to the engines of the economy and the political structures.

                  Everyone descends and descent increases every month, every year, every decade. There is no end in sigh because no one can define a stopping point or a limit, and no one can define ‘rising’ or ‘stablilizing’.

                  • With the additional inclusion of out of control sexual imagination (obviously part of the ‘concupiscence’ designation) one begins to picture a mass-culture, going to the ends of desire-longing, removed from a solid inner ground in spirituality, incapable of establishing ‘inner order’, and dominated by external stimulation which moves them ever more and more from a solid grounding within the self (the quiet, calm, rational self), and this system intimately bound to the engines of the economy and the political structures.

                    Let me see if I can translate this one:

                    “Societal values have degraded to the point of those in the days of Lott, or Noah”

                    I agree with what I believe this says.

                    No, don’t explain further. My head already hurts unraveling that paragraph.

                    • You are going to give me a complex, Slick …

                      Maybe if I use short, terse sentences:

                      Sexual imagination is being stimulated to a feverish point. This is one apsect of concupiscence (‘ardent, usually sensuous longing; sexual desire, lust’). But this is just one aspect of concupiscence (see below).

                      Mass-culture is infected and carried to the ends of sexual and other longing while simultaneously encouraged to abandon a solid, inner position in the calm, quite rational self.

                      And their desires, ever-stimulated by external agencies, are the engine that drives the consumer economy and in this way it and they are therefor part of an interconnected system. It is a system that manipulates people through their desires and simultaneously weakens their capacity to resist.

                      With this in mind one can turn to examine the ‘culture at large’.
                      _____________________

                      * http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm

                    • Yeah, the Noah reference works

                  • joed68

                    You should submit your work for inclusion in some of the professional school entrance tests like the MCAT. There are very difficult reading comprehension passages in it, followed by questions like “The main point of the passage is:…”, or “which of the following, if true, would the author be most likely to disagree with?”

                • Chris

                  I don’t think Spartan was supporting a voting test. She said “if” there were a fair way to keep stupid people from voting, indicating that she doesn’t think there is any fair way to do so.

                  • Still Spartan

                    Exactly

                  • Paul W. Schlecht

                    “ ‘if’ there were a fair way to keep stupid people from voting,”

                    Seems you’s have some agreement from (IMHO) an unlikely source: Über-decorated NBA HoFamer (& former Milwaukee Buck!) Kareem Abdul-Jabbar; no Righty, he.

                    09/06/2016: ”Hi lazy, uninformed voters. What should we do with you?”

                    http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sdut-kareem-abdul-jabbar-uninformed-voters-2016sep06-htmlstory.html

                    Quoth he in Writings on the Wall: Searching for a New Equality Beyond Black and White: “Stop encouraging people who don’t want to vote to vote.”

                    Voters “who don’t want to cast a ballot because they’re too lazy or uninformed should stay home.”

                    KAJ claimed in an NPR interview that casting a ballot without all the information does more harm than good:

                    ”Ignorance is not something that really lends itself to a meaningful discussion. So some of these people really shouldn’t vote, because they don’t know what the issues are. And I think people that are voting in the blind are doing a disservice to our country by not being better informed.

                    • dragin_dragon

                      One thing that would help is doing away with the ‘Party’ choices. In Texas, at least, you can choose to vote straight Party tickets, thus relieving you of the responsibility of actually READING the ballot.

                    • Paul W. Schlecht

                      ”One thin that would help is doing away with the ‘Party’ choices.”

                      Does “choosing” according to “Party” really involve that much of a “choice” other than pulling a lever next to the right letter?

                      Seems the democrat Party is making an effort to dumb-down, I mean, streamline the process. Welp, to the extent that you can find yourself in any of their 17…um…demographics, which I’m not so sure includes working class Whites.

                      “Scroll down the Democrats’ home page and you’ll find a dull party platform with 93 bullet points and a list of links entitled ‘People.’

                      “Each link leads to a subgroup: Women. Hispanics. LGBT people. ‘Ethnic Americans.’ There are 17 different groups, and a different message tailored for each.” (bolds mine)

                      https://nypost.com/2017/08/26/democrats-wont-win-in-2018-unless-they-start-doing-this/

                      Seems democrats don’t want a ”shared” vision, but a fractured, splintered one.

                      What may have escaped their scrutiny? They can’t do anything for these 17 groups without winning elections.

                      They haven’t been doing too much winning of late, but they’ve surely been dutifully pissy, in a VERY vocal/visual/virtual manner, when they’ve lost, am I right.

                      And the voting public has been watching.

                    • dragin_dragon

                      Paul said:
                      ”One thin that would help is doing away with the ‘Party’ choices.”

                      Does “choosing” according to “Party” really involve that much of a “choice” other than pulling a lever next to the right letter?

                      I truly hope you didn’t miss this but that WAS my point.

                  • Is there a fair way to decide what constitutes “stupid”, in a political sense? Which is a bigger concern than the “if” question that Spartan poses…and that’s what I take as the bigger problem the responses to Spartan has.

      • Derangement syndromes are equally prevalent on the right.

        But the impact is not the same. Even if there are as many deranged on the right as the left (I am not sure, as the media owning left makes sure to suppress right views if they cannot spin them to lefty advantage), only one side has endorsed the post election hissy fit called the resistance. The two simply do not have the same effect.

      • joed68

        Really? You really believe it’s JUST as prevalent on the right? You really need to put more feelers out in social media. The left has lost its collective mind.

    • Paul W. Schlecht

      ”once someone has either, they get progressively worse and worse until they become terminal and the sufferer enters intellectual menopause,”

      End stage?

      “he must say progressively more and more outrageous things to even be noticed”

      In a cruel twist of fate, what you describe is one becoming increasingly…um…tolerant of the level of outrageousness and needing larger doses to get the same dopamine/endorphine jolt.

      Paul Revere and the Raiders said it best:
      “♫Kicks just keep gettin’ harder ♫to find,
      ”♫And all your kicks ain’t bringin’ ♫you peace of mind”

  3. Bill Maher may be possessed.

    I hold out hope that Bill just might have lost his demon, and therefore be cured from possession.

  4. luckyesteeyoreman

    Jack, I don’t pay attention to Bill Maher, but in this case, I am glad that you paid attention and cited something he said. I go back to one of the last times I did pay attention to Maher – when he said something about U.S. military forces being “cowardly” especially in comparison to the asymmetrically fighting enemy combatants in the Middle East. He’s just a shock jock. He flaps his mouth until something comes out that gets paid attention. He’s as amoral as any target of his criticism. He is too reliably leftist to be taken off the air. He’s one of them. Do I think Maher believes what you quoted? No. I think he believes that enough people will find out what he said, and believe it, that as a result he will be able to stay on the air a little longer, that’s all. Maher isn’t holding anyone accountable; he’s merely feeding addicts who make, and devour, fake news.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.