Skip to main content

Bill Maher Stupidly Trashes Student Protestors

 


Bill Maher thought he was being funny when he vilified student protestors in a recent show. But he was actually doing the whole of humanity a great disservice.

I gave a much more accurate and empathic account of the main motivation of these protesters in a prior post on this blog entitled The Psychology of the Student Protests.

As an Interpretive political scientist, I observe that the cause of, or reason for, those protests is the strong sense of compassion in the students for their fellow human beings in Gaza who are suffering deeply from the merciless slaughter of their family members, friends, and neighbors.

There are many issues involved in making this observation, which I addressed in my other post on the subject. I noted that the students have erected those “encampments” as an expression of their shared feeling of urgency that the killing and suffering in Gaza be stopped now.

With over a million viewers, Maher could have helped to reduce the widespread misunderstanding of what is moving the protesters by telling his audience the truth.

A second point I made is that such misunderstanding is possible because so many people don’t have the same intense feelings as those students. In this absence of understanding, people often make up stories, or pseudo-explanations, about why the protesters are acting that way.

For example, one person I know suggested that students are attracted to the encampments by the amorous opportunities the tents provide. Well, lots of the students are in their 20s, so maybe there is a particle of truth in what he says.

But that doesn’t account for why the encampments were set up in the first place. (The same fun could be had in the dorms.) So, this seems to be a pseudo-explanation made up by my friend to appease his desire to understand what’s going on.

Bill Maher is another instance of someone who doesn’t understand the protesters, but who makes up a far less benign pseudo-explanation for their behavior. Indeed, his “explanation” is mean, malicious, sadistic, and totally wrong.

He calls them “the Hamas-backing college protesters,” who are “morally confused,” and he says they “side with the people who ruthlessly oppress women,” in other words, Muslims.

Utterly lacking in the sense of urgency the students feel for the Gazans, and incapable of understanding those feelings, Maher says they ought to protest the treatment of the women living under Sharia Law. The current protests seem so pointless and misguided to him that he thinks the students should be given a cause more worthy of their “instinct to protest social injustice.”

That’s like the passenger in the back seat of a car saying to the driver, whose on his way to the grocery store, “why don’t you go to the car wash, instead?” In other words, Bill Maher doesn’t understand the mission of the students. He can’t comprehend their urgent, even desperate, desire to see the killing and misery of their fellow human beings ended immediately.

Maher sees the same images of the suffering in Gaza, but because he lacks the compassion that drive the students, he completely fails to understand them. Instead he scolds them for “blocking Monday morning traffic.”

Maher represents the failure of communication between the protesters and much of the general public in the US today. He re-enforces the ignorance and misunderstanding of his fans.

He also contributes to the anti-protester propaganda spread by the US corporate media. The aim of this media is to serve the arms industry and other special interest lobbying orgs that benefit from, what the ICC calls, “a probable genocide.”

Unhappily, the protesters may have a long way to go before a critical mass of Americans share their compassion and then demand an immediate stop to the killing.

 

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.

The Political Science Interpretivist

https://interpretat.blogspot.com/

@InterpretivePo1 

 

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How the “But For” Test for Causation in Law can be Adapted to Political Science

For social science, as for law, the concept of “causation” can  take on different forms. These forms of causation are “outside   the box” of the old Newtonian concept of causation. That is, a   one-on-one collision. For example, the “8 ball” in a pool game moved to the corner pocket because the cue ball struck it at the intended angle. The cue ball did that because Minnesota Fats hit the cue ball just right with his pool stick. This is a mechanistic model of causation. In that model, the list of causes prior to Minnesota Fats could go back endlessly; or at least to the Big Bang of 13.8 billion years ago, which, mechanistically, is thought to be the First Cause of everything. However, for the most part, social science, like law, envisions human behavior as conduct for which the actors are responsible. This need not be a “moral” responsibility, for which moral blame is attached. Instead, “causal responsibility” is simply a matter-of-fact, or practical, concept...

Executive Immunity – Beyond the Hype

                                           The media and fund raising emailers are having a ball screaming “the sky is falling! The Trump Supreme Court has given Trump ‘absolute immunity’ for whatever he wants to do as President. He’ll kill us all!” But that’s far from true. The United States v Trump The case is known as US v Trump . In its opinion, the Supreme Court didn’t give Trump anything. In fact, the Court remanded the case to the District Court, and told the lawyers for both sides to start all over again. This time, they have to consider three important points. Before explaining these, lets see how the case got to the High Court. As you probably know, Trump was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury for several criminal charges alleging a conspiracy to change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. (SCt's Opinion, page 2. All references to the Opinion.) In the...

RIP Prop 33 😭 What happened?

Why did Prop 33 lose in California? Here are three reasons, although there could be more:  1) Out of state billionaire real estate special interests, combined with in-state millionaire Landlord orgs, spent over $121,000,000 on telling scary falsehoods to Californians. Like, rent control will cause rents to go up, and affordable housing will disappear. They just needed to cause enough confusion about the meaning of Prop 33 to get the voters – even tenants! – to vote no.   2) As I explain in a vid on YouTube,* the California Legislative Analyst presented a biased and negative summary of Prop 33 in the Voter Guide. That was sent out to 22M Californians. For many voters, it was the one and only thing they would read about Prop 33. The law requires the Legislative Analyst to suggest the economic impact of a prop for both state and local gov – but only a negative view was given, and only for the state gov – “tens of millions” would be lost in tax revenues, it said. But renters w...