Bill Maher Appreciation Thread

most viewed right now
 123
Video inside My experience after record deal (warning)
169 comments
@wild'ish
most viewed right now
 102
NFL Things got out of control real quick during Sea/Jax game..player almost ju..
35 comments
@sports
most viewed right now
 78
Video inside Joe Budden at age 26 vs Quavious Marshall at age 26
101 comments
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 61
Image(s) inside Only 500 followers, catch her before she blow as a ig thot
46 comments
@thotsdimesetc

section   (0 bx goons and 1 bystanders) Share this on Twitter   Share this on Facebook
 

Props Slaps
 1 year ago '12        #321
Mickey Bricks 97 heat pts97
space
avatar space
space
$3,556 | Props total: 4898 4898
 2bigz said:
meh, she was hating on one dude for interrupting her too much, meanwhile she was interrupting him too. Thats why I hate people who get touchy about being interrupted actin like they dont do the same thing...
Damn, false equivalency seems to be an epidemic this election cycle. That republican bozo was interrupting THE F*CK out of everybody on that panel...that sh*t was belligerent. Angela never approached the degree and frequency of interruptions he was perpetrating. And to whatever extent she did interrupt him, it was only once she got fed up with his fu*kery and resorted to f!ghting fire with fire. I suggest u rewatch the episode my guy
 1 year ago '05        #322
2bigz 15 heat pts15
space
space
space
$6,003 | Props total: 1428 1428
 Mickey Bricks said:
Damn, false equivalency seems to be an epidemic this election cycle. That republican bozo was interrupting THE F*CK out of everybody on that panel...that sh*t was belligerent. Angela never approached the degree and frequency of interruptions he was perpetrating. And to whatever extent she did interrupt him, it was only once she got fed up with his fu*kery and resorted to f!ghting fire with fire. I suggest u rewatch the episode my guy
Yeah he was interrupting her, I'm not disagreeing with that. But she was doing the same thing to him. f!ghting fire with fire means that the person firing shouldn't complain. She definitely could have handled that better...something like "i understand that you think _______ but I believe ____". Instead she was just stating her opinion without even acknowledging or giving any type of respect to his, which she shouldnt do if she expects a civil conversation...Civil conversations rarely happen on Bill Maher tho.
 1 year ago '12        #323
Mickey Bricks 97 heat pts97
space
avatar space
space
$3,556 | Props total: 4898 4898
 2bigz said:
Yeah he was interrupting her, I'm not disagreeing with that. But she was doing the same thing to him. f!ghting fire with fire means that the person firing shouldn't complain. She definitely could have handled that better...something like "i understand that you think _______ but I believe ____". Instead she was just stating her opinion without even acknowledging or giving any type of respect to his, which she shouldnt do if she expects a civil conversation...Civil conversations rarely happen on Bill Maher tho.
Nah, see thats the thing. He wasn't her a chance to say sh*t. That "i understand that you think _______ but I believe ____" simply wasn't an option, even if that was her inclination. He left her no choice whatsoever but to try and talk over him. Like I said, go back and watch it, its as clear as can be
 1 year ago '05        #324
2bigz 15 heat pts15
space
space
space
$6,003 | Props total: 1428 1428
 Mickey Bricks said:
Nah, see thats the thing. He wasn't her a chance to say sh*t. That "i understand that you think _______ but I believe ____" simply wasn't an option, even if that was her inclination. He left her no choice whatsoever but to try and talk over him. Like I said, go back and watch it, its as clear as can be
Idunno about that man. Everyone in any conversation has a responsibility of being civil or else face the consequences when they stray from that. "Left her with no choice" means that she was being forced to do something, which she wasnt. I understand that its a passionate debate, but its important to maintain civility. Also, I did replay that right after I saw it, and I do remember that dude interrupting her after every remark. But like I said, she could have acknowledged what he was trying to say instead of basically feeding him sh*t to rebut.
 1 year ago '12        #325
Mickey Bricks 97 heat pts97
space
avatar space
space
$3,556 | Props total: 4898 4898
 2bigz said:
Idunno about that man. Everyone in any conversation has a responsibility of being civil or else face the consequences when they stray from that. "Left her with no choice" means that she was being forced to do something, which she wasnt. I understand that its a passionate debate, but its important to maintain civility. Also, I did replay that right after I saw it, and I do remember that dude interrupting her after every remark. But like I said, she could have acknowledged what he was trying to say instead of basically feeding him sh*t to rebut.
So u're saying that the onus was on Angela to restore and maintain civility in a discussion that this guy was manifestly determined to keep in a state of chaos?
 1 year ago '05        #326
2bigz 15 heat pts15
space
space
space
$6,003 | Props total: 1428 1428
 Mickey Bricks said:
So u're saying that the onus was on Angela to restore and maintain civility in a discussion that this guy was manifestly determined to keep in a state of chaos?
"manifestly determined to keep in a state of chaos" wtf are u talking about? That dude is just a person, not fu*king Loki from the Avengers What the fu*k puts Angela Rye in a position to be above other people? Unless that dude literally tried to attack her (I know that he accidentally touched her and she got angry about that) then she, like everyone else, has the responsibility to be civil.
 1 year ago '05        #327
bootsy 
space
space
space
$1,838 | Props total: 591 591
 2bigz said:
meh, she was hating on one dude for interrupting her too much, meanwhile she was interrupting him too. Thats why I hate people who get touchy about being interrupted actin like they dont do the same thing...
What the fu*k show were you watching. She couldn't even get 3 words out to make her point before he interrupted. On a panel show like this everyone is trying to get in what they want to say and he didn't give her that opportunity. So you say she was interrupting him but she wasn't she was trying get in and he wouldn't let her.
 1 year ago '05        #328
2bigz 15 heat pts15
space
space
space
$6,003 | Props total: 1428 1428
 bootsy said:
What the fu*k show were you watching. She couldn't even get 3 words out to make her point before he interrupted. On a panel show like this everyone is trying to get in what they want to say and he didn't give her that opportunity. So you say she was interrupting him but she wasn't she was trying get in and he wouldn't let her.
Right, I never disputed that he was interrupting her too. I responded to someone else where I clarified what I am saying.
 1 year ago '12        #329
Mickey Bricks 97 heat pts97
space
avatar space
space
$3,556 | Props total: 4898 4898
 2bigz said:
"manifestly determined to keep in a state of chaos" wtf are u talking about? That dude is just a person, not fu*king Loki from the Avengers What the fu*k puts Angela Rye in a position to be above other people? Unless that dude literally tried to attack her (I know that he accidentally touched her and she got angry about that) then she, like everyone else, has the responsibility to be civil.


Aight bro, u clearly have no interest in acknowledging who the actual problem-panelist was. And yes, my characterization is very accurate...his determination was palpable. He, like essentially all trump surrogates/supporters was in a position of defending the indefensible, so his goal was to not allow anyone at the table to get a word in edgewise.

In regards to Angela's response to that behavior...if someone keeps punching u in the face, its not your responsibility to respectfully ask them to stop...the law and common sense acknowledges your right to defend yourself. And she, in my view, was defending herself against the Trump apologist's unruly and offensive behavior...theres simply no 2 ways about that.

You have your perspective tho, which appears to be that Angela was at least as culpable as he was, if not somehow more so. I, and I'm sure much of the rest of the objective world, couldn't disagree more...but I won't deny u your right to your perspective


Last edited by Mickey Bricks; 10-02-2016 at 09:39 PM..
 1 year ago '05        #330
2bigz 15 heat pts15
space
space
space
$6,003 | Props total: 1428 1428
 Mickey Bricks said:


Aight bro, u clearly have no interest in acknowledging who the actual problem-panelist was. And yes, my characterization is very accurate...his determination was palpable. He, like essentially all trump surrogates/supporters was in a position of defending the indefensible, so his goal was to not allow anyone at the table to get a word in edgewise.

In regards to Angela's response to that behavior...if someone keeps punching u in the face, its not your responsibility to respectfully ask them to stop...the law and common sense acknowledges your right to defend yourself. And she, in my view, was defending herself against the Trump apologist's unruly and offensive behavior...theres simply no 2 ways about that.

You have your perspective tho, which appears to be that Angela was at least as culpable as he was, if not somehow more so. I, and I'm sure much of the rest of the objective world, couldn't disagree more...but I won't deny u your right to your perspective
The fact is that she wasnt getting punched in the face. She was having a conversation. Like I said before, if there was violence done against her then yeah it would be unreasonable for her to maintain any sense of civility. But there was no violence, thus civility should be the protocol.

Edit: on the issue of that Trump supporter having an indefensible argument, thus interrupting everyone...A lot of that fault is via the setup of the show in general. Every week Bill Maher puts 2 liberals on the panel, and invites 1 conservative/republican to step into the "Lion's Den"...I mean, Bill's very allusion to the Lion's den at all illustrates that the Conservative/Republican panelist will have to go an extra mile and try to f!ght off much scrutiny in order to deliver his/her point. I agree that the Trump supporter in this past episode did a terrible job at negotiating these attacks, but 1) he is put in the position to have to negotiate it, 2) the focus of what we're talking about is/was on Angela Rye, and not the Trump guy.

This is the difference between having a conversation and having a mindless bickering argument with another person...Someone has to be the bigger person.

Also, when did I even intimate that she may be more culpable than him? It's really that type of nonsense understanding of another person which lead to Angela Rye and the other dude's bickering towards each other.

Even more, what "objective" world are you talking about? You mean the people that you chose to hear?

Lastly, thank you for acknowledging my perspective. That is the same thing Angela Rye should have done (equally what the other dude should have done to, but right now the focus is on Angela Rye).


Last edited by 2bigz; 10-02-2016 at 09:54 PM..
 1 year ago '12        #331
Mickey Bricks 97 heat pts97
space
avatar space
space
$3,556 | Props total: 4898 4898
 2bigz said:
The fact is that she wasnt getting punched in the face. She was having a conversation. Like I said before, if there was violence done against her then yeah it would be unreasonable for her to maintain any sense of civility. But there was no violence, thus civility should be the protocol.

Edit: on the issue of that Trump supporter having an indefensible argument, thus interrupting everyone...A lot of that fault is via the setup of the show in general. Every week Bill Maher puts 2 liberals on the panel, and invites 1 conservative/republican to step into the "Lion's Den"...I mean, Bill's very allusion to the Lion's den at all illustrates that the Conservative/Republican panelist will have to go an extra mile and try to f!ght off much scrutiny in order to deliver his/her point. I agree that the Trump supporter in this past episode did a terrible job at negotiating these attacks, but 1) he is put in the position to have to negotiate it, 2) the focus of what we're talking about is/was on Angela Rye, and not the Trump guy.

This is the difference between having a conversation and having a mindless bickering argument with another person...Someone has to be the bigger person.

Also, when did I even intimate that she may be more culpable than him? It's really that type of nonsense understanding of another person which lead to Angela Rye and the other dude's bickering towards each other.

Even more, what "objective" world are you talking about? You mean the people that you chose to hear?

Lastly, thank you for acknowledging my perspective. That is the same thing Angela Rye should have done (equally what the other dude should have done to, but right now the focus is on Angela Rye).

My reference to self-defense in response to physical violence is what's called an analogy...and I believe it applies in this case. Appropriate self-defense happens to be a conceptual space with more than one dimension. When protocols are broken to advance an agenda/interest [at the expense of others], in the absence of an effective enforcement mechanism (Bill was ineffective), continued adherence to those restrictive protocols by the ones affected is tantamount to abject surrender...no one is under such an obligation, either physically or discursively.

But for he record, u keep suggesting what Angela should've said/done without acknowledging the fact that Trump's man would not have allowed her to. How do u know that she wasn't initially going to say the very things that u're advocating?...bcuz I don't. What I do know is that he would'nt allow her to utter words of any kind unless and until she attempted to speak over him. For what ever reason tho, u insist on ignoring that pivotal fact I a.ssume in order to maintain the plausible relevance of your argument. But ignorance never really does change the fact of the matter, does it.

And y u've invoked the partisan makeup of Bill's panel, i don't know, but your characterization isn't exactly accurate. In fact, he often has panels where he books 2 right-leaning guests with only one left-leaning one...last week just didnt happen to be such an occasion


Last edited by Mickey Bricks; 10-02-2016 at 11:04 PM..
 1 year ago '05        #332
2bigz 15 heat pts15
space
space
space
$6,003 | Props total: 1428 1428
 Mickey Bricks said:

My reference to self-defense in response to physical violence is what's called an analogy...and I believe it applies in this case. Appropriate self-defense happens to be a conceptual space with more than one dimension. When protocols are broken to advance an agenda/interest [at the expense of others], in the absence of an effective enforcement mechanism (Bill was ineffective), continued adherence to those restrictive protocols by the ones affected is tantamount to abject surrender...no one is under such an obligation, either physically or discursively.

But for he record, u keep suggesting what Angela should've said/done without acknowledging the fact that Trump's man would not have allowed her to. How do u know that she wasn't initially going to say the very things that u're advocating?...bcuz I don't. What I do know is that he would'nt allow her to utter words of any kind unless and until she attempted to speak over him. For what ever reason tho, u insist on ignoring that pivotal fact I a.ssume in order to maintain the plausible relevance of your argument. But ignorance never really does change the fact of the matter, does it.

And y u've invoked the partisan makeup of Bill's panel, i don't know, but your characterization isn't exactly accurate. In fact, he often has panels where he books 2 right-leaning guests with only one left-leaning one...last week just didnt happen to be such an occasion
First, I do understand where you are coming from when saying that one can be attacked in a conversation to the point that a civil response is not reasonable. However, those situations usually occur when there a group that obviously is outpowering another group (for example, I dont really expect a liberal black man in a room full of conservative white people talking about race to maintain composure especially if they start saying even mildly offensive things). However, this was not the case on Bill Maher. In fact, Angela Rye arguably had the upperhand in the conversation simply because Bill Maher and the other dude next to her agreed.
I dont understand how u think I am ignoring the Trump supporter's way of interrupting Angela when I repeatedly have said that his conversation tactics were not civil or even reasonable. To clarify, I am saying that how he acted wasnt reasonable, but why he acted that way may be put to test...Like I said before, he was the 1 conservative/republican out of the 4 people, eventually 5 with Sarah Silverman, that were on the panel...Looking at the situation without bias, the Trump Supporter arguably had an even greater inducement of acting out of turn because of the panel being heavily weighed against him.

Importantly, because of the dynamic of the panel, and the general and obvious non-violent nature of the panel, I find your analogy of Angela being hit in the face to Angela being interrupted by the Trump Supporter completely farfetched and perhaps even offensive to those people who do actually suffer from physical violence.

Lastly, Bill Maher often has this dynamic. Sure there may be rare occasions he has the panel outweighed by conservatives, but most of the time there are more liberals there (including Bill himself) than conservatives. Even more, the guest panelist is like 90% of the time a liberal. I watch Bill Maher often...
 1 year ago '12        #333
Mickey Bricks 97 heat pts97
space
avatar space
space
$3,556 | Props total: 4898 4898
 2bigz said:
First, I do understand where you are coming from when saying that one can be attacked in a conversation to the point that a civil response is not reasonable. However, those situations usually occur when there a group that obviously is outpowering another group (for example, I dont really expect a liberal black man in a room full of conservative white people talking about race to maintain composure especially if they start saying even mildly offensive things). However, this was not the case on Bill Maher. In fact, Angela Rye arguably had the upperhand in the conversation simply because Bill Maher and the other dude next to her agreed.
I dont understand how u think I am ignoring the Trump supporter's way of interrupting Angela when I repeatedly have said that his conversation tactics were not civil or even reasonable. To clarify, I am saying that how he acted wasnt reasonable, but why he acted that way may be put to test...Like I said before, he was the 1 conservative/republican out of the 4 people, eventually 5 with Sarah Silverman, that were on the panel...Looking at the situation without bias, the Trump Supporter arguably had an even greater inducement of acting out of turn because of the panel being heavily weighed against him.

Importantly, because of the dynamic of the panel, and the general and obvious non-violent nature of the panel, I find your analogy of Angela being hit in the face to Angela being interrupted by the Trump Supporter completely farfetched and perhaps even offensive to those people who do actually suffer from physical violence.

Lastly, Bill Maher often has this dynamic. Sure there may be rare occasions he has the panel outweighed by conservatives, but most of the time there are more liberals there (including Bill himself) than conservatives. Even more, the guest panelist is like 90% of the time a liberal. I watch Bill Maher often...
U'll have to forgive me if I don't accept your arbitrary limitations on the discursive circumstances under which an individual might feel aggrieved enough to rightfully take the necessary measures to effectively defend themselves and their interests.

And if u do in fact acknowledge that Angela wasn't even given the opportunity to make more conciliatory remarks in response to the Trumpian at the outset of the discussion, then y are we even having this back and forth?
 1 year ago '05        #334
2bigz 15 heat pts15
space
space
space
$6,003 | Props total: 1428 1428
 Mickey Bricks said:
U'll have to forgive me if I don't accept your arbitrary limitations on the discursive circumstances under which an individual might feel aggrieved enough to rightfully take the necessary measures to effectively defend themselves and their interests.

And if u do in fact acknowledge that Angela wasn't even given the opportunity to make more conciliatory remarks in response to the Trumpian at the outset of the discussion, then y are we even having this back and forth?
What I originally said was that Angela interrupted the Trump supporter too. She complained about being interrupting while she was doing the same thing.


Also, I do admit that I did make an arbitrary designation of when a conversation may warrant someone acting beyond a civil way in discussion. However, that was just an example of the general thought that there are only rare and extreme circumstances where people should become uncivil when faced with ideas they dislike. It seems to me that u are saying that anyone can find a valid reason to become uncivil, which I do agree with, but if one becomes uncivil in very modest circumstances then they should probably do some deep reflection on their own personality.

Essentially, the vast majority of conversations people engage in cannot compare to physical abuse or harm. Especially a conversation on a talk show. To believe otherwise offends, diminish, or even really discursively discriminates against those people who have experienced harm and would rather speak in discursive context (in a civil way) in or deter even more harm from happening. Theroetically, this is the advantage and importance of civil conversations, it allows people not to undergo the harm they probably otherwise have/will experience. Practically, whats the point of trying to get across an idea with someone if you fail to speak with respect (at any given point in the conversation)? Practically, at that point, if its not an overtly crucial conversation then you may as well stop talking because the conversation is going no where. Angela Rye is trying to get a point across on Bill Maher's show...this show is not the most serious platform to be on, and this show does not potentiate any sort of physical violence.
Hence, Angela speaking in an uncivil way towards the Trump Supporter is unwarranted no matter how ignorant he may sound (unless he started calling her a ****** or some sh*t, which may seem like an arbitrary designation but, at the same time, I hope you find that it is an extreme designation that doesnt usually happen on TV).
 6 months ago '04        #335
all3rd 862 heat pts862
space
avatar space
space
$81,924 | Props total: 15979 15979
Is diss his end?
Jhnnyblz427 gave props
 
Hakim Cobain slapped this ish
 
 6 months ago '04        #336
all3rd 862 heat pts862
space
avatar space
space
$81,924 | Props total: 15979 15979
Anyone defending Bill or is he going to get Bill Od.
 6 months ago '04        #337
all3rd 862 heat pts862
space
avatar space
space
$81,924 | Props total: 15979 15979

[tweet - click to view]


When did we have a thread on this BX?
Ifeellikekobe gave props
 
djgist slapped this ish
 
 6 months ago '12        #338
djgist 1 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$1,757 | Props total: 2312 2312
Bill is a constant voice support black issues and calling out dumb racist fu*ks. He made a joke and it was fu*king funny! Used n*gga not ****** big difference!
I see a lot of black celebrities talking sh*t on Bill all over twitter but let's see if the donations to black causes match what Bill has given
Hakim Cobain gave props
 
DigitalGhost and 5 others slapped this ish
 
 6 months ago '05        #339
bootsy 
space
space
space
$1,838 | Props total: 591 591
 djgist said:
Bill is a constant voice support black issues and calling out dumb racist fu*ks. He made a joke and it was fu*king funny! Used n*gga not ****** big difference!
I see a lot of black celebrities talking sh*t on Bill all over twitter but let's see if the donations to black causes match what Bill has given
sh*t was not funny. Stop defending that bullsh*t. Motherfu*ker shouldn't have said it. And I don't give a fu*k if he used n*gga, ******, negro. Those words shouldn't come out of your month on fu*king TV. fu*k outta here defending that sh*t. And I'm sure their donations probably exceed Maher's. He don't give that much to black causes.
Hakim Cobain and 1 others slapped this ish
 
 6 months ago '07        #340
Bkjj11 3546 heat pts3546
space
avatar space
space
$92,229 | Props total: 69828 69828
I'm black and Maher shouldn't have said it. That's a behind the scenes with close friends kinda talk. But I'm not outraged or upset cuz Bill is not racist at all.
Hakim Cobain and 3 others gave props
 
Home      
  
 

 






most viewed right now
 45
Image(s) inside dannielledai
9 comments
1 day ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 33
Image(s) inside Ukrainian Fashion Model Mariya Melny Thong Bikini
29 comments
1 day ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 19
Image(s) inside olliejayy (those pierced nipples...)
53 comments
1 day ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 13
Video inside Every retarded thot think they a dime on IG
9 comments
1 day ago
@wild'ish
most viewed right now
 11
Image(s) inside 'The Walking Dead' Fans Are Flipping Out That AMC Is Promoting Sunday'..
77 comments
1 day ago
@movies
most viewed right now
 7
Article inside How Apple has won (and kept) my business
69 comments
1 day ago
@tech
most viewed right now
 7
Video inside Dec 9 - Scientists Create Vitamin A-Rich Fruit That Could Save Many Lives
31 comments
1 day ago
@news
most viewed right now
 7
Image(s) inside Air Jordan 11 "Win Like 96" finally releases after a long history of r..
63 comments
2 days ago
@gear
back to top
register contact Follow BX @ Twitter Follow BX @ Facebook search BX privacy