I think Maher is a blowhard and he is beating up a bunch of strawmen but I think there is a lot of underlying truth, I also think there is a financial motive (like Fox) to whipping up outrage in a section of the democratic party. I also think there is a ton of virtue signalling. Not saying everybody needs to be happy or content with the current state of things but claiming things are so bad that we are at the revolution stage is a bit much.
America is decades behind the highly developed world on many important issues (healthcare, poverty, crime, to name a few). There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that, that doesn't mean I am "progressophobic" There's nothing wrong with appreciating our progress either. This take focuses mostly on race and gay rights. My high school didn't integrate until the 70's... our grandparents can remember segregated life, people were MUCH less tolerant to gays just 10 to 20 years ago. Things have changed massively within a short period of time, I appreciate that, but that also doesn't mean that it's time to stop and pat ourselves on the back as a country, we still have a lot of pain, a lot of struggling, a lot of injustice, and a lot of progress to make, to better our lives, and the lives of our children
interesting comment by Dave Schuler at The Glittering Eye: http://theglitteringeye.com/why-the-difference-between-liberals-and-progressives-makes-a-difference/ excerpt Why the Difference Between Liberals and Progressives Makes a Difference . . . I don’t believe it’s “progressophobia” as claimed by Mr. Maher. I think it’s more basic than that. Progressives are not striving for any fixed outcome but for some poorly-defined “progress” which is always just beyond reach. They are vanguardists. They believe their role is to guide the masses to enlightenment. But that enlightenment is always, as noted, just beyond reach which keeps them relevant, maintains their power. That’s the key difference between liberals and progressives. You can actually measure how liberal a society is; you can’t measure progress because it is not compared to a fixed objective. The net effect is that it’s a form of autocracy. Power becomes its own objective. more at the link
Maybe, but logically... if progress is A to Z and someone wanted Z but don't ever talk about S doesn't mean he doesn't recognize S. Means he wanted Z. I would agree that talking about S would be more helpful, but that's my cup of tea. I'm sure there are many people that like to be laser focus and not be distracted with old, already been there, done stuff. Personally, I see this type of focus quite a bit in the corporate world and I have to remove my emotion from the equation to understand their perspective clearly. ps. I initially thought this is fear of progress (isn't that what the word means?) There are certainly many people that fear progress.
Thats really not what he was talking about, he is saying people don't recognized S and act like we are still on A or worse, I think that's a bit of a straw man but I understand the sentiment some progressives only talk about worst case scenarios and if they only do that it's easy to ignore the rhetoric or counter-program it. I also think that only talking about Z means you think there is a magic bullet and will never be satisfied. This underlying theme of making white people feel guilty or that they can't have a seat at the table is poisonous and will have a toll come election time. To sum it up we don't always get what we want and what is Z exactly?
I don't think you are the person he is talking about but then you have people on here like FC who is thinking a violent revolution is what is needed. His words not mine.
I think my politics are most closely aligned with progressive Dems so that’s why I responded. I’ve spoken multiple times about how America is unnecessarily frozen decades behind on numerous issues and social programs. It’s just a segment trying to demonize progressives by kicking straw men (like you noted). It mostly seemed like a “chill out black and gay people we don’t hang you anymore, be happy have fun” and I don’t know how that’s relevant to anything. If you want to have a convo with @fchowd0311 just @ him lol
When did I say I want one? I stated usually paradigm shifting events are required for substantial change like a single payer healthcare system.
Exactly. If I hear another one of his rants about food I’m going to vomit. The guy is the epitome of a coastal elite if there ever was one and the worst thing is he thinks the opposite that he’s some sort of truth teller. It’s also pot calling kettle black for him to rant about “progressives” when his entire act always ends with a section of “new rules.” He’s the most annoying type of progressive himself who can’t see that he is exactly who he is b****ing about. Lastly… maybe think of some sort of new bit sometimes. New Rules is really all they can think of on a comedy show with God knows how many writers? …. The progressive movement in our politics is mostly driven by Bernie’s campaign points and mostly is about healthcare. It’s not what FoxNews characatures it to be. So much of what they do at Fox is making people angry about something someone the left is angry about when in reality they aren’t actually angry about that thing. Bill Maher is either an idiot to not realize that or he knows it and does segments like this just to troll and try and suck in FoxNews watchers by going viral which really is eye rolling.
I didn't even watch the video because it was Maher until today. He's turned into an grumpy old dude. However, I see this with many of my ultra liberal and ultra conservative friends. It's hyperbole and lack of self awareness of where this country is and where it's going. It's seeing the every bump in the graph without seeing the overall trend line.
I saw that segment last week and what this comes down to is a lack of perspective. One of the ironies about the debates around teaching history is that while yes there is a lot of US history that isn't good but it can also show how far we've come in addressing things. A lack of history can lead to the feeling that things are bad and continue to be bad but historical perspective does show that things have improved and that they improved because people worked to change things.
An alternate viewpoint and what I’d consider a rather effective counter to what Maher is saying: I'm posting the full text in a quote (or rather, 2 quotes over 2 postsw) for easy reading Part I
