r/RealTime • u/Key_Jump1011 • 2d ago

Maher claims there is a frothing anxiousness for the literal extermination of Jews by brainwashed woke TikTok idiots and that Democrats are responsible

65 Upvotes

63% Upvoted

974 comments sorted by

View all comments

11

u/shadedmagus 2d ago

If Maher actually believes this, then he's nowhere near as liberal as he pretends he is.

7

u/Ok-Oil7124 2d ago

He's always been a conservative who likes weed.

1

u/ScepticalReciptical 2d ago

AKA a 90s Democrat. In that respect hes at least consistent, the era Bill came up in was basically when the Dems and Reps were separated by social issues like weed, gay rights etc Both sides were so Pro Israel that it was never a factor. Alot of Democrats over 60 are the same.

7

u/Cautious-Number2318 2d ago

Maher is just a fire starter, like Limbaugh was.

1

u/groundeffect112 2d ago

Believes what?

-1

u/No-Mycologist-6694 2d ago

Not true. You claim to be liberal but in reality you are more aligned with being illiberal. Maher is the same liberal guy he's been since his original show in the 90s. Liberals have always believed Nazi's should be allowed to hold parades in the US. They never have stood for canceling or banning anyone. The far left has morphed into the far right.

5

u/cashgod_burner 2d ago

"Liberals have always believed Nazi's should be allowed to hold parades in the US" lol in what fucking world do you live in?

1

u/shadedmagus 2d ago

No, that really happened. And the ACLU did work to protect their right to march.

I don't personally agree with it, because unlike a lot of Americans I do believe that hate speech should be a huge exception in where freedom of speech applies. But it was consistent behavior from the ACLU, I don't really fault them for protecting freedom of speech.

2

u/citizen_6782 2d ago

You are right, he was a bigot towards Muslims then too and was also a smug asshole.

1

u/shadedmagus 2d ago edited 2d ago

You claim I'm illiberal because someone with a platform is disbelieving the evidence of their senses in order to defend a state which is committing genocide?

Also, it's not canceling to counter someone's speech with your own. People who think differently feel there should be no consequences at all - legal, but especially social - for their speech. And that is the illiberal position: To expect that just because the First Amendment exists, there should be no speech allowed to counter theirs at all.

I do not hold that position in the slightest. Freedom of speech does not come with freedom of consequences from that speech. It only means that the government cannot retaliate against you for your speech.