Support for Bill Mahr: Down with Semantic Simplification

[Chip McDonald]

I just saw a blurb that Bill Mahr is getting ragged - for saying it's cowardly to use standoff weapons in place of sending in troops. This obviously is not a disparagement of the bravery of the military. It was used in context of comparing this tactic to what most other nations *have* to do, which is use humans. It looks like he's getting rebuked from every angle. This is ridiculous. I'm tired of this trend towards semantically simplifying what people say and then warping the intent. This seems to be a new trend - ignore the implied intent of a statement and the way it's structured, and imply that it leans differently than it does. I see this being done here in these forums, and I see it everyday as well. If people don't have enough comprehension to understand a statement they shouldn't be given the stage to denounce it based on their left-handed interpretation of it. This kind of thing is ruining our civilization; we can't *have* civilization if *we can't communicate*. HOW THIS IS ON TOPIC I personally think there are differing types of intelligence. I think an assemblage of intelligences are common today that is socially tactically very aware, but may be faltering otherwise. I think society is becoming infused with people who are good at succeeding in a social situation not based on technical performance, but merely personal interaction and being *perfectly adequate*. *Perfectly adequate* describes so much of today's society - it's basically how everyone approaches their job it would seem: figure out how to do it adequately as best possible, *nothing* more. It's almost like a new philosophy. Likewise - I think while there is an overall "suck factor" involved in today's music, the *true* common denominator that turns True Music Lovers off is adherence to that concept. Pop music today is Perfectly Adequate, never more, never less. It fits a demographic expectation *just so*. One doesn't expect to hear a new Beatles or Jimi Hendrix on the radio anymore, does one? It's not because it's not *possible* - it's because what's on the radio falls into the niche of being Perfectly Adequate. It *can't* be better - once it's better it then falls on the other side of that bell curve, it then potentially offends the philosophy of the raving horde that follows the philosophy of the Perfectly Adequate. To like something more than what is Perfectly Adequate might imply that one's self is somehow inferior. Which is politically incorrect. Which poetically brings me back to Bill Mahr. Mahr is being skewered because he doesn't fit a mold of Perfectly Adequate Left or Right winger. I think this applies metaphorically to music - you're not likely to have a chance today unless you're perfectly adequate, and you'd better not exceed expectations lest you be cast out like Mahr. So the trick is learning to make music that is Perfectly Adequate. What a flickted notion... ------------------ [b]New and Improved Music Soon:[/b] http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[Dylan]

[quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b]This seems to be a new trend - ignore the implied intent of a statement and the way it's structured, and imply that it leans differently than it does.[/b][/quote] Unfortunately, Chip, I don't think that this is a new trend. People have been misquoted for a while now. It happened to John Lennon when he was very loosly quoted saying that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus. Some lousy radio DJ's made a big deal of it and the end result was thousands of people burning their Beatles records. But regardless, I totally agree that this issue needs addressing. It's a complete shame what happened to Bill, but I think that the public will soon see what he *really* said soon. -Dylan This message has been edited by Dylan Walters on 09-21-2001 at 10:43 AM

[gmd]

Mahr's a dork. He need's to watch his mouth. He insulted our military and he's getting the flack he deserves. (I've never thought he was particularly funny or talented anyway...)

[Anderton]

<> So Chip, you hate left-handers, huh? Paul McCartney was left-handed, therefore you must hate Paul McCartney. And insurance figures show that left-handers live 13 years less than right-handers. That must make you very happy. RELAX, THIS WAS ONLY A SIMULATION!!! I just wanted to support Chip's point by showing how easy it is to get ticked off about something that has no real relevance to a point being made. Now to get serious. The concept of "just adequate" actually has a name in the TV industry called LOP (Least Objectionable Programming). The theory is that when people flip channels, the LAST thing you want them to do is tune out. So, if you show something that isn't objectionable, you have a better chance of people staying tuned in. If you're offering the least objectionable programming at that time, then the theory is that most people will tune into what you're doing. I think pop music kind of follows the same trend, but to be fair, there is some GREAT music out there. It just isn't being shoved down the mass market distribution channels.

[Dylan]

Whether or not you think that Mahr's a dork is irrelevant. We live in America and all have to the right to criticize our country as we see fit. That's what makes us American, having the freedom to freely express our opinion. Bill was only criticizing our actions because he loves this country and wants to see it improve. A detailed explanation for this can be found http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010919/re/attack_media_sears_dc_3.html here. -Dylan

[Anderton]

Maher is an abrasive personality. That's why he's on TV. And he shoots from the hip sometimes. He's in the business of getting ratings, and the occasional shocking/controversial statement helps in that quest. But be that as it may, the subject of communication is important. There seems to be less concern with precision in language, which I think is tremendously important. People seem to simply lack a love of language, and the satisfaction that comes from being able to say what you mean in an eloquent, non-ambiguous manner. It's all part of the general de-evolution of gentility, sacrificed to faster, and arguably more superficial, times.

[Anderton]

Actually, now that I think about it, Maher's lack of precision got him into trouble. "Coward" is an emotionally charged word. Had he said "we've enjoyed the luxury of being able to conduct wars by air, without having to send in ground troops," he wouldn't have gotten into trouble.

[good morning]

Yeah, but "coward" is what he meant, and I think his use of the term was perfect. It will make politicians (and even the military) think. He didn't make clear that he felt the politicians are cowards. That's where he lacked precision. He's right about the courage it takes to crash land a plane into a building. I wish, on the whole, that people would stop calling terrorist acts "cowardly." It's a feel-good expression only, a cheap way to think we're stronger than we are and to feel courageous. To face your enemy and happily die to take him down takes courage. Even our own warfighting doctrine pits strength against weakness. That's how battles and wars are won. This enemy is different. Terrorists don't have a large army, navy, and air force. But they do have money and a very strong will. So they use what works: bombs left in buildings, planeloads of people...maybe gas in a subway next? Terrorists succeed when they make us feel we've lost our freedom. That's why Bush keeps saying, in effect, get on with your lives, be strong, be free. Freedom is what this country stands for -- our "center of gravity." It is OUR source of strength. That's what the constitution is about and why the military oath of office is "to support and defend the constitution...."

[Anderton]

<> I know what you're saying, but I would like to respectfully disagree. I don't think it was courage that motivated the hijackers to slam a plane into a target. I think it was fanaticism. And here's why it was cowardly: killing all those people was like taking candy from a baby. No one was prepared. It was a sneak attack, no one was given an opportunity to defend themselves. Would these people have walked into the WTC and tried to do the same thing, knowing that there were armed people in the building? The dictionary says a coward is "One who lacks courage to meet danger or difficulty." I do not see the hijackers as having to meet either danger or difficulty in doing what they did. It was easy, and they were never threatened...except, of course, for the plane that went down in Pittsburgh.

[kudyba]

Want to know another reason why it was cowardly? Because no one has taken "credit" or stepped up to the plate to claim responsibility...

[not coaster MODERATOR]

Bill M has been quoted referring to retarded children as the mental equivalant of dogs. Special needs parents such as myself (down syndrome son) are not too excited about what this man says. Am I over-simplifying his semantics? This message has been edited by Cereal on 09-21-2001 at 12:06 PM

[Dylan]

[quote]Originally posted by Cereal: [b]Bill M has been quoted referring to retarded children as the mental equivalant of dogs. Special needs parents such as myself (down syndrome son) are not too excited about what this man says.[/b][/quote] Damn, that's horrible! I had no idea he said that. That is simply inexcusable. What brought him to say such a thing? -Dylan

[strat0124]

JEEEEEEEZZZZZZ......does anyone really know what standoff weapons are for????????? I used to shoot them, and I know full well. It is an offensive weapon and it saves US lives. I'm not a big fan of collateral damage either, but these are different times. And besides the rules of war have changed dramatically. The weapon of choice is the Tomahawk, and the latest of these are equipped with GPS (unlike the Gulf War) with topographic mapping and can pinpoint a position and either take them out or confuse their forces long enough for a special forces unit to do the job without taking many losses or ANY losses. Cowardice in war? I don't think it can be defined by ANYONE who has never been a combatant. Bill seemed to let emotions get in the way of rational thought.....I won't hold him accountable. I haven't attained deity status yet.

[good morning]

That's right, Craig, courage is not what motivated the terrorists. Motivation is another subject entirely. They live and die for their (view of) god. Religion is incomprehensibly powerful sometimes. But again, without a standing force to fight a conventional war, what else would you expect terrorists to do? They see us as the enemy. We need to deal with that -- militarily, and also (hopefully) by re-examining and adjusting our energy and foreign policies. Kudyba, they want to destroy our sense of freedom. Taking credit won't further that cause, especially now that they know as a nation we will go to war with them. Gloating doesn't take courage, and in a war it's likely a bad idea. If Bush had not declared war, and had we reacted only on a small scale by finding those culpable and leaving it at that, then maybe gloating would work. They'd strike again and make clear to everyone who they are and their intention to do it again and again. They would win that way. Cereal, punchy words like his get people to think, which can be good, but extremely offensive, too. I don't know the context of his remarks. Was there malice in his words, or was he being lazy and thoughtless? Sometimes, sharp words like that can make people think and change their behavior for the better. Recently I saw a show about cop training in Maryland. There had been too many cases of cops killing people, only later to find out the victims were mentally disturbed/retarded. The victims were simply incapable of acting in a traditional, rational way when confronted by a bunch of armed people shouting at them. So now the cops are learning to look for signs of mental disturbance and how to respond and control the situation. Everyone learns and thinks differently. If a cop needs to think "dog" while aiming a deadly weapon at a mentally ill person's chest, then someone's life will probably be saved. And in everyday situations, maybe it would make an ordinary citizen help someone. On a metro once, I saw a stranger get out of her seat and put a hand on a very disturbed man's shoulder and say something to him. He had been standing up, moving bizarrely, and speaking loudly to no one. His response to her was immediate and calm. He just sat down and smiled and stared at her afterwards. This did not bother her. I felt like a heel for not taking initiative as she did.

[David R.]

What I just hear on NPR was that Bill was criticized for saying the hijackers were not cowards, which has been the popular concensus. The hijackers, in mind, were worse than the lowest form of pond scum shot out of an amoeba's ass. But cowards, they were not. Bill Mahr's show, called Politically Incorrect, is one of my favorites. I don't agree with everything he says, but he brings up points that make people think. -David R.

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by Anderton: [b] So Chip, you hate left-handers, huh? Paul McCartney was left-handed, therefore you must hate Paul McCartney. And insurance figures show that left-handers live 13 years less than right-handers. That must make you very happy.[/b][/quote] Hey, wait, I, but... [b]RELAX, THIS WAS ONLY A SIMULATION!!! [/b] A *VERY* good one. That's EXACTLY what I was talking about... The ironic thing is that it looks like it has happened in this very thread.... ------------------ [b]New and Improved Music Soon:[/b] http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by Anderton: [b]Actually, now that I think about it, Maher's lack of precision got him into trouble. "Coward" is an emotionally charged word. Had he said "we've enjoyed the luxury of being able to conduct wars by air, without having to send in ground troops," he wouldn't have gotten into trouble.[/b][/quote] The thing is, he was using it within the context of what had just been spoken, which was a reference to (essentially) the conviction of the people of the rest of the world in their actions regarding terrorism. He was constrasting the luxury we have in battle to that, and elliptically saying that has something to do with the way the arab world percieves us. Ariana Huffington didn't flinch at it or anyone else on the show, or the audience - because it was in context. Sigh. ------------------ [b]New and Improved Music Soon:[/b] http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[steadyb]

[quote]Originally posted by gmd: [b] Mahr's a dork. He need's to watch his mouth. He insulted our military and he's getting the flack he deserves.[/b][/quote] No, he didn't insult the military. In fact he is one of the biggest supporters of the military. I saw the show in question, and now his comments are being taken out of context. I have a feeling that [i]you[/i] heard about this second hand, and are jumping on the bandwagon to attack him because he has other views you disagree with. Try not to be such a dork.

[steadyb]

[quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b] The thing is, he was using it within the context of what had just been spoken, which was a reference to (essentially) the conviction of the people of the rest of the world in their actions regarding terrorism. He was constrasting the luxury we have in battle to that, and elliptically saying that has something to do with the way the arab world percieves us. Ariana Huffington didn't flinch at it or anyone else on the show, or the audience - because it was in context.[/b][/quote] Exactly right Chip.

[alphajerk]

oh noo.. the advetisers are cancelling! that show since it went on the network has been nothing BUT ads... there is so little show now. it was much better on comedy central. and simply bombing other countries IS cowardly. and my dog is smarter than most retards i have come across in my life. yeah, it sucks for those countries and it sucks for those kids. i can believe people are suprised by either comment, they arent new ideas... and unfortunately life isnt fair. i like bill maher, i dont agree with everything he says either... but at least he will stick his neck out there and say what he feels. i had to pick up my jaw off the floor several times during his show at howard university, but even the overly predominant black crowd and panel took his comments wiht a grain of salt and saw them as constructive to the conversation without being offended. unfortunately tolerance has gone out the window in america right now. its a shame, especially when the major religious base is supposed to teach tolernace. i will still use fedex even though i dont think their actions were proper in pulling ads but i doubt i will go to sears [didnt before] but i think both companies are PUSSIES!

[KenElevenShadows]

<> < I know what you're saying, but I would like to respectfully disagree. I don't think it was courage that motivated the hijackers to slam a plane into a target. I think it was fanaticism. > ------------- I'd generally go along with this. I see the reasoning. Just the same, though, I really wish that some of 'em woulda chickened out of getting on the plane...y'know, a little more cowardice woulda been nice. ------------------ Ken/Eleven Shadows/d i t h er/Nectar http://www.elevenshadows.com 4 music, travel, more! http://www.cdbaby.com/elevenshadows

[Calfee Jones]

Maher's show is called Politically Incorrect! So that's what he does. He often seems to take provocative stances in order to provoke! It's called show biz...

[gmd]

SteadyB---Have you ever served in the military? Well, I have, and I don't appreciate Maher's comment in or out of any context. He was trying to be funny and provocative in an old Viet Nam era "style" of humor, when it was hip to put down the military and our government. Now he realizes it wasn't funny and was very offensive and is trying to cover his rear. I stand by my earlier statment, he's a dork... This message has been edited by gmd on 09-21-2001 at 03:44 PM

[steadyb]

[quote]Originally posted by gmd: [b]SteadyB---Have you ever served in the military?[/b][/quote] Yes I have, as did my father and my younger brother (who served in Panama and Desert Storm with the 82nd Airborne and Rangers). But nice try. Bill Maher wasn't trying to be funny, and he isn't backing off of his statements now either. You obviously didn't see the comments, or you're just not that sharp. I stand by [i]my[/i] earlier comment...try not to be such a dork. This message has been edited by steadyb on 09-21-2001 at 05:31 PM

[steadyb]

[quote]Originally posted by gmd: [b] I've never thought he was particularly funny or talented anyway...[/b][/quote] Maybe Blockbuster will hold you a copy of Porky's 3. I can't imagine [i]that[/i] being too far over your head...

[strat0124]

I am a vet of both Lebanon and the Gulf war and Ole Bill has alot of balls in my humble opinion making a statement like that, especially since I recall he's never served. This is a free country and he is quite funny but this was a bit insensitive considering the focus of whats been goin down. He is just ignorant of military tactics, so I don't fault him but he has an audience who are easily influenced. So you guys shake hands ok?

[Anderton]

Strat0124 - well said. Bonus points.

[meccajay]

Sad to say but this isnt a 'normal' war and we wont see normal tactics. If we send cruise missles or 50,000 troops and tanks we will see the same result. We attack them and bomb there headquarters and kill there people - They take out a school and kill 400 children in Ohio! We assasinate Bin Laden and certain leaders of the Taliban- They gas a subway during rush hour in Boston, NY or Chicago. . .war over. They win.

[gmd]

Ok, SteadyB---If as a veteran you are not offended by his remarks so be it. Maybe it bothers me more as I come from a family with a long military history. My dad in fact is a retired Colonel who served for 30 yrs. and is a decorated Viet Nam veteran. Never a complaint from him about that horrible part of our history either. He went, he served proudly, end of story. Grandfather got the purple heart in WWII. I served but (fortunately) never had to see combat. Maher's remarks were very insensitive indeed in light of what is going on in our country now. Bottom line: you are entitled to your opinion. And as for your "Porky's" comment above, let me point out that at no time during our little disagreement did I insult you in that same or any other manner...

[steadyb]

[quote]Originally posted by gmd: [b]And as for your "Porky's" comment above, let me point out that at no time during our little disagreement did I insult you in that same or any other manner... [/b][/quote] You're right. I apologize.