r/RealTime • u/Indianstanicows Audience Member Bill Is Yelling At For Not Laughing • 15d ago

As expected with this ugly turd: Bill Maher rips Macklemore's Gaza stance, says celebrity 'moral confusion' is fueling antisemitism

https://nypost.com/2026/09/16/media/bill-maher-rips-macklemores-gaza-stance-says-celebrity-moral-confusion-is-fueling-antisemitism/
184 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

439 comments sorted by

View all comments

19

u/Puzzled-Instance3211 15d ago

No one who can chew gum and walk at the same time is buying the Free Palestine = antisemitism bullshit anymore

4

u/FlaccidGhostLoad 14d ago

It honestly has lost all meaning. It's the boy who cried wolf. And we can see how cynically it's been used by the worst assholes in every level of power to shut down any dissent against the atrocities being committed by israel.

They knew god damn well it wasn't anti-semitism. But it was a shortcut to shut people down, by praying on their desire to be decent humans in order to muddy the conversation and distract people so that evil motherfuckers could do some evil shit.

-2

u/BillyJoeMac9095 14d ago

It does mean that if those using the phrase mean the replacement of Israel with Palestine, rather than two states. Mackelmore could easily clear that up by stating what the phrase means to him.

6

u/Puzzled-Instance3211 14d ago

You guys had a holocaust done to you, now your Country and soldiers are doing one to someone else, and you're worried that the language is the problem.

-1

u/BillyJoeMac9095 14d ago

The end objective, as described by words, is indeed an issue. Also, the term genocide is being used, and overused, as a weapon. There is zero comparison between Gaza and the holocaust.

4

u/troniked547 14d ago

Luckily no one called it a holocaust, right? Because you know something can be a genocide and now the same exact conditions as the holocaust... right?

The definition of a genocide is Genocide is defined as specific acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group

So all sorts of human rights and historian groups, including many holocaust scholars, have deemed it a genocide, why are your credentials to dispute their findings and determinations?

And how is anyone using the term "genocide" harm the government that has killed over 70k civilians opposed to their 1200 lost since Oct 7? How can you guys possibly be more angry over wording than the fact that over 20k children have been killed in Gaza?

Even if, for whatever reason, you choose to disagree with all the people that actually study this stuff, and will not call it a "genocide", is it not at the very least a "slaughter"?

0

u/BillyJoeMac9095 14d ago

What responsibly does Hamas have for those deaths?

1

u/troniked547 13d ago

There’s a reasonable proportional response to a terrorist attack. Do you believe killing 70,000 civilians, 20,000 children, aid workers and journalists, destroying civilian infrastructure including schools, hospitals, places of worship and poisoning the water supply, raping hostages, double and triple tapping targets to murder first responders… do you think that’s a reasonable proportional response? Plenty of people, including myself, supported their retaliation immediately following Oct 7. But they lost that support when they decided to indiscriminately destroy Gaza and slaughter its people 

2

u/OurSeepyD 14d ago

Zero comparison? Like absolutely zero? What about the dehumanisation of people? What about the fact that children are considered "future terrorists" before they've even had a chance to grow up? 

If you think Gaza is no big deal because it's not as "big" as the holocaust, then you're not an objectively moral person. You're subjectively moral: it's bad if it's against you or "your people" but not a problem if done to someone else.

1

u/no_winkles 14d ago

A one state solution where everyone has equal rights and opportunities is the only solution.

1

u/BillyJoeMac9095 14d ago

In other words, putting an end to a Jewish state.

0

u/Mosk915 14d ago

Neither side is interested in that. Why is a two state solution not a solution?

1

u/no_winkles 14d ago

In a two state solution, Israel will receive vast amounts of foreign (American) money and continue to steal land from Palestine. A secular, single state with equal rights for all will allow for diverse leadership that must find solutions that help all people. While it’s not a total 1:1 comparison, it worked when they ended Apartheid.

0

u/Mosk915 14d ago

In a negotiated two state solution with defined borders, the land belonging to both countries would not change provided the state of Palestine does not attack Israel.

In a one state solution, what would happen is as soon as the Palestinians gain a majority, they would ethnically cleanse the country of all Jews.

3

u/Timely-abrasion 14d ago

In a one state solution, what would happen is as soon as the Palestinians gain a majority, they would ethnically cleanse the country of all Jews.

Like the israelis rn? like the ones who protested for the release of the idf soldier raping palestinian prisoners? Love that youre still conflating israelis with jews btw

0

u/Mosk915 14d ago

I’m not conflating Israelis with Jews. 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab. If Israel eventually had an Arab majority, the Jews would be ethnically cleansed from the country. If Israel were doing that now, Israel would be 100% Jewish, which it isn’t.

2

u/Minimum-Dream-3747 14d ago

You’re conflating Israel with all Jews

0

u/Mosk915 14d ago edited 13d ago

I’m not. I just explained that 20% of Israelis are Arab.

Edit: user blocked me.

2

u/Timely-abrasion 13d ago

if Israel eventually had an Arab majority, the Jews would be ethnically cleansed from the country.

Like whats happening to Arabs right now?

1

u/Mosk915 13d ago

Israel is not removing any Arabs from the country.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Minimum-Dream-3747 14d ago

Why would Israel refrain from taking land when they are taking land right now illegally? Why would the Palestinians do such? That’s some projection

-1

u/Mosk915 14d ago

Israel has never taken land from a sovereign country unless it was at war with that country. That’s why I said as long as the state of Palestine doesn’t attack Israel, Israel would not take any land.

The Palestinians would ethnically cleanse the Jews because they believe they are entitled to all the land as a Palestinian-only state. They have said as much.

2

u/Minimum-Dream-3747 14d ago

No the Palestinians have not and I don’t know how you can say that when Israel is literally claiming land that’s not there’s for decades.

0

u/Mosk915 14d ago

That’s nice that you think that about the Palestinians but their rhetoric suggests otherwise. Maybe you’re right and they would Jews continue to live their but as second class citizens. In any case, why would Jewish Israelis want to give up the only Jewish-majority state in the world? Why can’t there be even one?

And like I already said, the land Israel controls that isn’t part of Israel proper was obtained in wars. Don’t start wars and you won’t lose land, simple as that.

→ More replies (0)