The following was originally posted by Sandy (one of the contributors to Diversity Ink) on his blog Best Seat In the House on 7/8/11. He was kind enough to let me feature it over here as well.
Maher Comes Out With Race-Based Attack On Kim Kardashian
Bill Maher was at his predictable worst as he used Twitter as a platform to issue what was, by his standards, a fairly standard distasteful attack of Kim Kardashian. One sort of expects that Maher will say tasteless things, but then there are comments that are even bad for his standards (such as his standards are).
It started when Kardashian Tweeted this in response to the verdict in the case of Casey Anthony (you can look it up on your own if you don't know about it):
“WHAT!!!!???!!!! CASEY ANTHONY FOUND NOT GUILTY!!!I am speechless!!!”
Maher, smelling blood in the water, responded as he Tweeted the following:
“Kim Kardashian is upset with Casey Anthony verdict? Ur father defended O.J.! Starting the Kardashian tradition of getting black men off.”
A few thoughts about the original comment and the response went through my head:
1. He has probably been looking for an opportunity to unload this kind of comment on the Kardashian women.
2. He perhaps has some underlying issues with the Kardashians and their relationships with black people.
3. He is tired of seeing the Kardashians with guys like Reggie Bush, Lamar Odom, etc... Maybe he wants to see them getting off more guys like Steve Nash, Dirk Nowitzki and Bill Mah ... nevermind
4. His comment smacks of racism (not that he cares one bit about what anyone things of him ... good, bad or indifferent ... this is how he makes his money).
Do you think Bill Maher's response to Kim Kardashian's tweet was racist?
13 comments:
Rich wrote(via Facebook):
Actually, I thought Maher's comment was pretty funny. His only real mistake was even bothering to respond to her tweet to legitimize anything she might've typed. I'm still trying to figure out what purpose the Kardashians have in life besides being sperm receptacles for sports stars.
I admit that I laugh at a lot of Bill Maher's stuff, but I also find him to be a self-important blowhard and a sexist. I also get tired of his anti-religion schtick. But, Kardashians dating black guys has been the subject of many jokes from him and Chelsea Handler and others for a while now.
-Jay
Misogynistic jackass is more like it, with regard to Maher, but I do admit I laughed at his tweet response to KK. One would think she would of realized someone would come back at her w/that one.
The Kardashian's exist only in the minds of young females or horny guys..the only rubes they could find for a bunch of sisters that have little to offer, other than looks and name recognition.
I do watch his weekly show..he has an interesting array of guests.
I hope no one's giving Maher a pass because of the whole "comedian" thing. That shouldn't get someone a pass, especially someone like Maher who is one of the worst bigots we have in mainstream America. (Not my standard.)
If he gets a pass, it should be because it's not racially motivated. It's clever (and not nearly as nasty as Maher usually is).
I don't see anything wrong with the comment at all. And I do find it funny.
In my opinion, the devil-may-care attitude about Maher enables it. It offers comfort and allows him to go even further off the edge of decency.
He is becoming progressively nastier, and people are caring less and less.
I used to be a big Maher fan. I won't hate. I'll laugh when it's due. But he's little more than a highbrowed hammer of hostility these days.
Jay: It's great to see you over here! I don't catch Maher's show as often as I'd like so I don't see the sexism as much... not to say it doesn't exist.
Dusty: I wonder if Kim got any other tweets which pointed out in a less humorous way the fact that her father was part of the O.J. "Dream Team".
Josh: My pass to Maher has nothing to do with him also being a comedian.
"In my opinion, the devil-may-care attitude about Maher enables it. It offers comfort and allows him to go even further off the edge of decency."
The same can be said about any pundit who pushes the envelope. Just think of the excuses people on the right make for the number of nasty comments made by the likes of Beck and Limbaugh.
Blowhards on the right get no love from me either.
I've been in here to defend some of the people on the right against racism, because calling someone a racist or implying race is a motivating factor is a huge pet peeve of mine.
But I'll also defend Maher against racism (although I do think he's the progressive equivalent of a "racist") in this particular instance, and I defended Stewart against it.
I know I'm probably classified as the "righty" when I stop by here, and that makes me giggle, seeing as I'm probably more socially liberal than most here (a glance back at our previous discussion), but I'll defend anyone against racism if I think it's some BS. It just so happens that the same deference isn't given to those on the right, since you brought it up.
Rush saying that about Kardashian, the "getting black men off" bit, would probably earn him a big R on his forehead.
So the side-playing nonsense is just nonsense, and it's definitely to be expected.
But I am glad that people aren't just letting him off the cook with the whole "he's a comedian" bit, because comedy is absolutely subjective and I believe in "professional" comedy the same way I do with "professional" poker.
Josh: Although I wouldn't be one of them, there would be people who accused Rush of being a racist had it been him instead of Bill Maher who wrote the tweet. It wouldn't be fair to tag Rush as being racist in that situation, but he's made his own bed when it comes to race relations in this country. Then again, I doubt Rush would be clever enough to write such a tweet. More often than not, Rush's brand of "humor" is the stuff you'd expect to hear on a school playground.
In regards to you being more socially liberal than most here, if by "most here" you mean the right-wingers who've frequented this blog since its launch, you'll get no argument from me. However, saying you are more socially liberal than them is like calling Moe the smart Stooge. On the other hand, if you think you're more socially liberal than the actual liberals here, I seriously doubt you are.
When you defend Fox "News" the way you do, why would we not consider you a rightie? Outside of the “Common” controversy, I can’t think of an instance when you didn’t come to the defense of Fox.
Also, the various comments you’ve made here (including once labeling yourself “NON-liberal to the fullest”) have earned you the “rightie” classification as well. So unless you’ve changed your tune recently, the “rightie” tag will probably stick. Giggle away!
I am a non-liberal to the fullest and damn proud of it. In the political sense.
I absolutely detest what the idea of "liberal" has morphed into on the political stage, a vicious, with-us-or-against-us, toe-the-line, spend-to-save, red-tape-tangled, likeminded-instead-of-right-first mess created by politicians whose only goal of seeking election is to seek reelection.
Politically, I am more fisically conversative. Limited government, spend far, far less money, abolish the fed and get all federal government out of micromanaging state business. Etc x1000
Socially, I snub the idea of religion, want to get out of the conflicts we're in, don't mind amnesty for non-criminal immigrants, don't feel as if I have a right to say whom should be married or which drugs they can use, and I'm pro-choice, for stricter gun regulations, and actually believe America can operate with a single-payer healthcare system (just not with open borders and this particular government in charge).
As to my defending Fox, I'll defend anything or anyone if I think the attacks are BS. It just so happens that the Fox-is-evil theme gets a lot of traction here. Anything considered "right" in general.
Having watched a lot of cable news, I've never seen as much diversity of opinion as I do with Fox.
That's just me. No secret you--and many others 'round here--disagree. No sense in arguing about that. But from my observation, that particular network outshines the competition in where diversity truly matters in 2011.
Sure, it's more akin to being the least snarky kid at journalism school, but news today is what it is.
I consider political liberals (give it any name: progressives, wing-nuts, neo-pinkos - the hardcore believers) to be incredibly inept at every single thing they do in life, except for making people believe everyone else is the enemy.
At that, they're masters.
The hard right gets under my skin also. But I can't view them as master manipulators as I do the hard left. The folks worshipping at the feet of uberright-wingers, a lot of them at least, also believe Jesus lives in sweat stains.
Chicken or the egg for me.
Josh: Change a few words in your sentence about your detesting what political liberalism has become and it would describe how I feel about the devolution of political conservatism.
In case I haven't made it clear previously, I don't criticize Fox because they lean right. I call them out for claiming to be fair and balanced (when they are anything but) and for their constant barrage of distortions and lies. The irony is that if Fox was truly fair and balanced, many devoted viewers would turn the channel.
You said you'll defend anything or anyone against BS attacks. Do you go to conservative blogs and debate them on issues where you hold socially liberal views? Do you defend liberals/Democrats when conservative bloggers launch personal attacks against them? Just curious.
This is what Maher does. He is a media whore who has made a good living off of being tasteless. He reflects rather poorly on all who lean to the left.
Trestin: Although Maher gets a pass from me on this one, he has crossed the line on occasion. For example, the shot he took at Sarah Palin and her son Trig. It's at the 1:22 mark of the clip here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/17/bill-maher-talks-sarah-pa_n_465487.html
Based on your comments, would you say that Maher is the left's version of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck?
Malcolm, I don't go to many blogs at all. I don't even keep up with my own blog. I think my last post was more than a year ago.
Racial issues intrigue me, and that's why I stop by here. As I said - it just so happens that Fox and the "right" come up a lot here.
I also post on non-Fox-related topics on this blog. This being an example.
As for "fair and balanced," I guess that's just relative to everyone. I don't watch guys on the network like Hannity, so the rest seems okay to me. If it doesn't someone else - it doesn't.
Josh: Fair enough. As for Fox and the right being the subject of many posts here, you have to ask yourself why that is. If you think it's because I like picking on them w/o just cause, guess again.
Post a Comment