Jump to content

Talk:Bill Maher

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 147.147.221.201 (talk) at 12:21, 5 January 2024 (No mention he's a conspiracy theorist?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


Antecedent of "that"

The piece says,

~"In 2019, during a "New Rules" segment of Real Time with Bill Maher, Maher stated that he questioned Stan Lee's legacy, that comic books are not literature, and that adult fans of comic books "need to grow up".

Suggest that the editor clarify what is the antecedent of the relative pronoun, that before comic books. As written the closest antecedent is legacy, but I doubt that such was the intention of the editor. (TerryKave (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC))[reply]

I think it's just listing 3 opinions from Maher: (1) he questioned Stan Lee's legacy, (2) he thinks comic books are not literature, and (3) he thinks adult fans of comic books "need to grow up". CWenger (^@) 01:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention he's a conspiracy theorist?

He's definitely no Alex Jones but he is about one degree up from Joe Rogan for his penchant for pushing fringe theories especially around Covid or his virulent racism towards Asian countries' animal welfare (because the welfare of cats and dogs is virtuous compared to the welfare of cows, pigs and sheep in the American meat processing industry). His latest podcast with Seth Macfarlane has come under particular scrutiny for the utter bilge he was spouting about vaccines. In relation to this article, there is a normalcy projected here that does not address the fact that his views have become ensconced in conspiracy theories. I would like to point out it's quite noticeable; the disparity that this guy gets (who is politically aligned with the Democrats) with his watered-down pass of an article in comparison to Republican-aligned individuals who have shown interest in a QAnon topic because they are quickly labelled "supporters" of this conspiracy. Articles like this one on Maher show the inequity of this site where the lack of parity between topics of the same ilk make it look like articles have an agenda. WP:NPOV is all well and good, but it's what missing from the article that is just as conspicuous as to what is in them. The unbalanced views of Maher needs to be addressed, he might make an off-color remark in a joke but I think that's his shtick in getting a dubious point made that goes under the radar because it's meant for laughs not for commentary.147.147.221.201 (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]