Real time with Bill Maher and Ben Affleck

benjs

mickeyrat said:

Drowned Out said:

mickeyrat said:

Drowned Out said:

brianlux said:

Interesting that this very same clip is now inaccessible where it was posted in the "Reza Aslan On Muslim violence myths" thread (and the discussion ended after that). I was kind of hoping to get some feedback on questions in my post that said this:

Interesting discussion. The question that keeps coming back to me is this: What can we as concerned people and Muslims who are not fanatical about killing anyone who leaves their religion and who are not in favor of oppressing women and homosexuals do to a) convince the rest of the world that this is not a commonly accepted part of Muslim doctrine* and b) change the behavior of those who are violently radical? One of the speakers (the fellow to our right of Maher) in the clip above states that the number of Jihadists and Islamists total about 20% plus add to that the conservative Muslims- that these members of the Muslim faith hold troubling views about human rights toward women and homosexuals. I don't know how accurate these figures are but I don't believe they are by any means the majority. What can be done to stop the oppression by the minority of people believe in oppressing and killing?

The same basic questions can be asked of any fundamentalist religious people. How can we convince fundamentalist Christians to stop bombing everybody in the world who isn't Christian (OK- exaggeration, but you know what I mean.)

To my way of thinking this all just points out how totally messed up fundamentalism in any religion is. It frustrates and infuriates me that many people from many walks of life are so bound up in their beliefs as to cause misery and suffering for others. More people have been killed in the name of their god than anything else in the entire history of humankind.

*I was curious about this point and doing some research found that there is a lot of controversy over the issue of apostasy from Islam ranging from larger numbers of Muslims living in Middle East countries who support the notion of putting to death apostates to many Muslims in the West who are embarrassed by or opposed to that notion.

Good questions, Brian. But I think this still somewhat falls into the trap that Azlan mentioned, in that your questions frame the problem as Islamic ones and not national/regional ones. I know the questions are universal in regards to fundamentalism, but Islamic countries have been targets if our war machines for a long time. It's the Christian nations doing the bombing, but we don't promote it as such...religion seems only to be used (by both sides), as a justification for violence when it comes to Islam. If it's true that such a large number of Muslims hold these beliefs, we should consider the demographics of that sample. I would be willing to wager that the people who support violent interpretations come from areas of political instability, violence, and poverty/inequality.
I think the best way we can change public perception and stop oppression by minority groups is to stop our contributions to these conditions. For the public to do this, we need to stop watching/reading corporate news media, or at least be more wary of its role in the discussion's parameters. Stay informed as to the real reasons for war. Recognize the tried and true government selling points that lead to it (almost always 'humanitarian help', or national security threats), and know how to counter them. Stop viewing rhe world from a Christian perspective only (even western atheists are affected by Christianity cultural norms). This superiority complex is a common reason for supporting war. Then use our own tried and (occasionally) true methods of pressuring governments to not participate in the wars. Pressure them to do away with the hypocrisy that condemns our enemies and praises or gives spineless lip service warnings to our allies (ex: Saudi Arabia, Israel, China). That hypocrisy is recognized in the Middle East and is a big propaganda tool for extreme Islam. Apply the same pressures to human rights violations in all regions and religions. Once we show that we are an honest broker for peace, we can get on our soap boxes. Until then, our projected ideals ring hollow. Asking Muslims to do something about our highly politicized views of their religion is akin to asking someone to prove their innocence.

More simply put , who are we to judge?

Damnit, if only I could be so concise! ). You're right Mickey.

Well thought out and eloquent response to Brian though. You raised some very good points/questions. So thanks for that.

This all reminds me so much of those who dispute the notion that CO2 emissions are the exclusive contributors to global warming. There is plenty written about how scientists who question this notion - which has such widespread belief within the scientific world - basically are ostracized from the scientific community just for not accepting it blindly - even when they have legitimate credentials and follow due scientific process in their work that merely shows that there's no certainty that this causality relationship is accurate (let alone disputing it outright).

Here we are, with an arguably widespread belief that Islam is inherently a violent religion, and anyone with the guts to say that we should question this premise is shot down as quickly as they speak up.

Edit: This doesn't mean I believe that Maher, Harris or Affleck are correct in the things that they say - nor am I saying that global warming is caused by CO2 emissions or anything else. Just meant this in regards to questioning opinions predicated upon notions which are created by societal indoctrination.

ikiT

I think Ben Affleck being cautious, or better put, unabashedly skeptical with a healthy dose of cynicism (in a "Hollywood Elite", liberal kind of way) about the whole situation is completely understandable. All of us have just come through a long-assed decade plus of constantly being lied to about the people who populate that region and been fed nothing but a steady diet of fear. We've drone bombed the snot out of them, supportin' the troops without having to exercise any effort into supporting the ideology of WHY we were at war in the first place.

I'm not saying don't root out the true evil, but labels and blanket generalizations about millions of people aren't super helpful.

benjs

the tiki bomb said:

I think Ben Affleck being cautious, or better put, unabashedly skeptical with a healthy dose of cynicism (in a "Hollywood Elite", liberal kind of way) about the whole situation is completely understandable. All of us have just come through a long-assed decade plus of constantly being lied to about the people who populate that region and been fed nothing but a steady diet of fear. We've drone bombed the snot out of them, supportin' the troops without having to exercise any effort into supporting the ideology of WHY we were at war in the first place.

I'm not saying don't root out the true evil, but labels and blanket generalizations about millions of people aren't super helpful.

I agree entirely. In addition, can you imagine if an author was expected to write a non-fictional book in one sitting, without a chance to seek supporting evidence, with all eyes on them, while dealing with hecklers and opposing opinions? The format of televised interviews, from my perspective, is complete crap. I remember thinking in high school how absurd it was to memorize trigonometric identities, when in the real world, as experts in most fields (certainly in engineering), we are entitled and encouraged to use the resources at our disposal to validate an opinion or fact. Here, the so-called experts have the pressure of a ticking clock, have absolutely no chance to breathe (let alone seek supporting evidence), and some of us in the public are actually basing our opinions based on these statements. How ludicrous. You don't always need to know the answer on the spot, and I don't know why there's such a stigma associated with "I don't know, can you ask me again later so I can research this?"

Jason P

Gern Blansten said:

I think if Islam were a larger presence in American life that there would be more criticism from American liberals. I don't get Maher's point on why liberals aren't speaking out against Islam more. I don't see where they have reason to. Muslims aren't the ones trying to put the 10 commandments on public property or have Islamic prayers before city council meetings all over the country....Christians are.

Every so often a radical group pops up and gets everybody freaked out about Islam....remember the Zebra murders? (I read the book as an adult....I was only 5 at the time they occurred...absolutely brutal murders that were supposedly in the name of Islam)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebra_murders

I believe you are right. If Islam was the majority in America, Affleck would have been attacking instead of defending.

Jearlpam0925

Affleck is an idiot who jumped on a topic because......idiots....

Sam Harris a smart dude, and not entirely off point....

http://whyy.org/cms/radiotimes/2014/10/07/sam-harris-on-spirituality-without-religion/

benjs

Jearlpam0925 said:

Affleck is an idiot who jumped on a topic because......idiots....

Sam Harris a smart dude, and not entirely off point....

http://whyy.org/cms/radiotimes/2014/10/07/sam-harris-on-spirituality-without-religion/

"Affleck is an idiot who jumped on a topic because......idiots...."
Hm. So, in your analysis of a debate, you chose to begin with an ad hominem attack on one of the participants, and your supporting evidence was "because......idiots....".

At least you chose to provide some semblance of supporting evidence for demonstrating Harris' intellect, though I've yet to listen to it yet since I'm at work.

mickeyrat

Topic is too important to throw generalizations around.

Not specific to religion either.

First I'd question the polling data. Sample size? Questions asked and how where they asked?

How can the sample size be large enough in relation to the worlds Muslim believers to net an accurate assessment?

Drowned Out

benjs said:

the tiki bomb said:

I think Ben Affleck being cautious, or better put, unabashedly skeptical with a healthy dose of cynicism (in a "Hollywood Elite", liberal kind of way) about the whole situation is completely understandable. All of us have just come through a long-assed decade plus of constantly being lied to about the people who populate that region and been fed nothing but a steady diet of fear. We've drone bombed the snot out of them, supportin' the troops without having to exercise any effort into supporting the ideology of WHY we were at war in the first place.

I'm not saying don't root out the true evil, but labels and blanket generalizations about millions of people aren't super helpful.

I agree entirely. In addition, can you imagine if an author was expected to write a non-fictional book in one sitting, without a chance to seek supporting evidence, with all eyes on them, while dealing with hecklers and opposing opinions? The format of televised interviews, from my perspective, is complete crap. I remember thinking in high school how absurd it was to memorize trigonometric identities, when in the real world, as experts in most fields (certainly in engineering), we are entitled and encouraged to use the resources at our disposal to validate an opinion or fact. Here, the so-called experts have the pressure of a ticking clock, have absolutely no chance to breathe (let alone seek supporting evidence), and some of us in the public are actually basing our opinions based on these statements. How ludicrous. You don't always need to know the answer on the spot, and I don't know why there's such a stigma associated with "I don't know, can you ask me again later so I can research this?"

:-bd



You can get good information from interviews, but not one that isn't lengthy and set up like a proper debate. A five minute satellite interview with opposing sides will not accomplish much, and the interviewer, who is supposed to act as debate mod, alllllways has an agenda. It's recognizable even when it's my own beliefs being made the agenda.
You do see some informative one on one interviews...tho rately on tv. Im thinking more like podcasts, blog sites, etc that interview people in depth. But again - the questions and guest are almost always chosen to express a preconceived opinion on the topic.

Drowned Out

mickeyrat said:

Drowned Out said:

mickeyrat said:

Drowned Out said:

brianlux said:

Interesting that this very same clip is now inaccessible where it was posted in the "Reza Aslan On Muslim violence myths" thread (and the discussion ended after that). I was kind of hoping to get some feedback on questions in my post that said this:

Interesting discussion. The question that keeps coming back to me is this: What can we as concerned people and Muslims who are not fanatical about killing anyone who leaves their religion and who are not in favor of oppressing women and homosexuals do to a) convince the rest of the world that this is not a commonly accepted part of Muslim doctrine* and b) change the behavior of those who are violently radical? One of the speakers (the fellow to our right of Maher) in the clip above states that the number of Jihadists and Islamists total about 20% plus add to that the conservative Muslims- that these members of the Muslim faith hold troubling views about human rights toward women and homosexuals. I don't know how accurate these figures are but I don't believe they are by any means the majority. What can be done to stop the oppression by the minority of people believe in oppressing and killing?

The same basic questions can be asked of any fundamentalist religious people. How can we convince fundamentalist Christians to stop bombing everybody in the world who isn't Christian (OK- exaggeration, but you know what I mean.)

To my way of thinking this all just points out how totally messed up fundamentalism in any religion is. It frustrates and infuriates me that many people from many walks of life are so bound up in their beliefs as to cause misery and suffering for others. More people have been killed in the name of their god than anything else in the entire history of humankind.

*I was curious about this point and doing some research found that there is a lot of controversy over the issue of apostasy from Islam ranging from larger numbers of Muslims living in Middle East countries who support the notion of putting to death apostates to many Muslims in the West who are embarrassed by or opposed to that notion.

Good questions, Brian. But I think this still somewhat falls into the trap that Azlan mentioned, in that your questions frame the problem as Islamic ones and not national/regional ones. I know the questions are universal in regards to fundamentalism, but Islamic countries have been targets if our war machines for a long time. It's the Christian nations doing the bombing, but we don't promote it as such...religion seems only to be used (by both sides), as a justification for violence when it comes to Islam. If it's true that such a large number of Muslims hold these beliefs, we should consider the demographics of that sample. I would be willing to wager that the people who support violent interpretations come from areas of political instability, violence, and poverty/inequality.
I think the best way we can change public perception and stop oppression by minority groups is to stop our contributions to these conditions. For the public to do this, we need to stop watching/reading corporate news media, or at least be more wary of its role in the discussion's parameters. Stay informed as to the real reasons for war. Recognize the tried and true government selling points that lead to it (almost always 'humanitarian help', or national security threats), and know how to counter them. Stop viewing rhe world from a Christian perspective only (even western atheists are affected by Christianity cultural norms). This superiority complex is a common reason for supporting war. Then use our own tried and (occasionally) true methods of pressuring governments to not participate in the wars. Pressure them to do away with the hypocrisy that condemns our enemies and praises or gives spineless lip service warnings to our allies (ex: Saudi Arabia, Israel, China). That hypocrisy is recognized in the Middle East and is a big propaganda tool for extreme Islam. Apply the same pressures to human rights violations in all regions and religions. Once we show that we are an honest broker for peace, we can get on our soap boxes. Until then, our projected ideals ring hollow. Asking Muslims to do something about our highly politicized views of their religion is akin to asking someone to prove their innocence.

More simply put , who are we to judge?

Damnit, if only I could be so concise! ). You're right Mickey.

Well thought out and eloquent response to Brian though. You raised some very good points/questions. So thanks for that.

Thank you! But no one has called out my glaring mistake; I fell into the same trap I mentioned Brian falling into, in the very next sentence! )

"....your questions frame the problem as Islamic ones and not national/regional ones. I know the questions are universal in regards to fundamentalism, but Islamic countries have been targets if our war machines for a long time....."

I shouldn't have said 'Islamic' the second time....should have been 'middle eastern'.
But hey, i was writhing in pain in an ER observation room, typing on my phone...surprised it made sense at all )

Drowned Out

Jearlpam0925 said:

Affleck is an idiot who jumped on a topic because......idiots....

Sam Harris a smart dude, and not entirely off point....

http://whyy.org/cms/radiotimes/2014/10/07/sam-harris-on-spirituality-without-religion/

Affleck grew up as a family friend and neighbour of one of the most important historians / political activists of our time. On what are you basing your attack on his knowledge?

ikiT

Sort of repeating myself, but Ben's ALOT smarter than you give him credit for.

benjs

the tiki bomb said:

Ben's ALOT smarter than you give him credit for.

Unfortunately, I agree with others here that his comments came off as unfounded, and as extreme and defensive as Maher and Harris were extreme and offensive. He didn't present his opinions well, in my opinion. I truly found the whole thing to be a sensationalist waste of time.

ikiT

Emotional as well, but hardly an idiot.

mickeyrat

I think maher expected different from ben cuz of the boston bombing

PJ_Soul

I like Affleck, and he is clearly a smart person, but was just wondering what qualifies him enough in the subject for people to give a shit? Is it because he wrote Argo?? :-?

benjs

PJ_Soul said:

I like Affleck, and he is clearly a smart person, but was just wondering what qualifies him enough in the subject for people to give a shit? Is it because he wrote Argo?? :-?

Or maybe because his long-standing friendship with Howard Zinn? Or because we aren't one-dimensional human beings and are often have more than one interest or skill?

brianlux

benjs said:

PJ_Soul said:

I like Affleck, and he is clearly a smart person, but was just wondering what qualifies him enough in the subject for people to give a shit? Is it because he wrote Argo?? :-?

Or maybe because his long-standing friendship with Howard Zinn? Or because we aren't one-dimensional human beings and are often have more than one interest or skill?

He may be more qualified than appears but by the appearances of his comments in the clip here he just seems to be venting without much to back it up. Wondering if there is something more substantial from him on the subject elsewhere?

I'm always a bit wary of well known personalities being given high kudos or credit for their comments on issues outside their line of work. For example, even Neil Young- as much as he has spent a lot of time learning about it and has inspired many to take action and that's very cool and all- his environmental activism has to be taken with a grain of salt because that is not his field of expertise.

Don't get me wrong, benjs, I'm not dismissing Affleck, I'm just saying we should confirm his credentials before giving him too much credit on the subject.

badbrains

I've seen Ben on real time before and he stood up for Muslims then also. I think the guy does know more then people give him credit for.

PJ_Soul

benjs said:

PJ_Soul said:

I like Affleck, and he is clearly a smart person, but was just wondering what qualifies him enough in the subject for people to give a shit? Is it because he wrote Argo?? :-?

Or maybe because his long-standing friendship with Howard Zinn? Or because we aren't one-dimensional human beings and are often have more than one interest or skill?

Huh? So you think he should be treated like some kind of authority on the subject of Islam because he is friends with Howard Zinn and isn't one dimensional (no one said he was btw)?

PJ_Soul

badbrains said:

I've seen Ben on real time before and he stood up for Muslims then also. I think the guy does know more then people give him credit for.

I think I give him all the credit he deserves.... which means he is not even close to an expert on the matter.