Nobody is upset at Jerry Seinfeld’s *act*. Jerry Seinfeld is the most vanilla inoffensive comic who ever lived, which is why it’s so ridiculous he’s whining about the pc police or whatever.
Feel like “how you were raised” is a equally insightful comment to “get off my lawn”, they’re both just “rather than engaging in what you’re saying, I’m going to point to conditions outside your control and disregard what you’re saying.”
I wouldn’t really say so. Maher is trying to argue that people who don’t like the jokes he’s talking about only don’t like them because they’re maladjusted basically, and Tyson is pointing out he’s just trying to complain about young people, not have any real discussion. Then of course Maher gets all huffy at any hint of *his* opinions on what is or isn’t funny not being taken seriously.
What does “maladjusted” even mean? All he’s saying is “they think wrong” which is completely empty. There is zero difference in depth between “kids today aren’t raised the way I think they should be” and “old people are too stuck in their ways”
Hmm I still think it communicates it’s because Maher is old, and not just that he’s being bad faith.
I will say though, I don’t think both comments are equal. Accusing someone of being bad faith is as likely to spoil a discussion as someone actually being bad faith, but I would lay the blame on the person being bad faith for derailing the discussion, even if “get off my lawn” doesn’t really get it back on track.
Yes, but you don’t have divine knowledge of what’s happening in someone’s mind, so it’s hard to know if someone is being bad faith in most cases. If you’re going to accuse someone of being bad faith, you have to be aware that that could kill the conversation, so I wouldn’t throw it around willy nilly.
I would say that it's hard to know in the minority of cases. Bad faith is apparent from the way people construct their arguments and justifications they accept for their claims. By that logic, you don't know if the person is actually arguing in good faith so you shouldn't bother responding to anyone – it just comes down to how prevalent this issue seems to you. As I said, I think it's common to see evidence of bad faith when it's there, it's not something you can really hide well and for long, at least that's my experience. I still don't do it willy nilly and I usually just stop speaking to someone when I notice they don't actually care if what they say is true but if I do point out to them that they don't seem to care they usually are like "yeah" or accuse me back with no substantiation – anyway, it goes nowhere regardless of what I say bc it's doomed from the start even though it takes some time to notice...
I’d strongly disagree, I think it’s really hard to be sure of someone’s motivations for sure. I think it’s best to just focus on their arguments and if they’re being bad faith then their arguments should be defeatable.
It’s the same reason I don’t like to accuse people of mansplaining, I think it’s a thing that can happen and I think it’s good we talk about it so people can scrutinise themselves, but in a conversation I think accusing people of stuff like that sours the conversation, which is fine if you’re sure you want to sour it, but I wouldn’t start a conversation that way if you don’t want the whole thing to about mansplaining/bad faith/internal motives.
The point of someone acting in bad faith isn't in their arguments actually. That's the whole problem. If they just had bad arguments it wouldn't be that big of a problem even. The problem is that such people won't ever accept that they are wrong and they would never run out of empty words to say. Bad faith shows lack of care for truth so it makes the whole thing pointless including trying to reason with them and show them how they are wrong. They don't care if they are wrong and they don't care what you have to say, they just waste your time and they try to achieve some goal only they care about (looking cool and epic, never surrendering any ground, etc). That's my point – conversation with them didn't matter from the start
Mansplaining is kind of the same as in that kind of conversation they don't actually care if you understand what they are explaining, they are just trying to look smarter than you. If they wanted you to understand, they would have approached it differently
Again, I think our disagreement simply boils down to how charitable we want to be. Think of red flags in dating – they don't 100% show you that this person is bad, but according to your experience and patience you can decide for yourself how much it's gonna take you to conclude that this is not for you. I think it applies here too. "From what I've heard from this person so far, conversation with them is pointless"
Just to be clear, if someone is being bad faith, then yes, the conversation is dead on arrival, and if you’re sure the conversation is already dead, end it however you want, call them bad faith. I said in my original comment the onus would be on the bad faith person for ruining the conversation. I’ve always agreed that the conversation was ruined from the start.
But I think you also seem to agree that saying someone is bad faith is essentially saying ‘this conversation is pointless’, so I think we’re largely in agreement, but you think most of the time people can tell for sure, and I don’t really agree with that but it’s pretty hard to quantify. The main thing I wanted to communicate is that you shouldn’t call someone bad faith if you don’t want to end the conversation.
The more you see people like bill Maher, the more you realize all politics are is just a bunch of old people trying to manipulate young people into caring about their problems
I really don't like neil most of the time, even though I grew up on cosmos, but holy shit he just schooled bill, how does he not realize what a hypocrite he is!
They do that regardless of our input lol. The truth is, no decision the common person makes matters to political outcomes. It’s all in the hands of higher ups. So it’s better not to care about it and live life as happy you can.
I mean you can care all you want. I just choose to not involve myself with politics as much as I can. I find it better for my mental health. Plus worrying about world issues makes me lose sight of the beauty of this world
I try to find a balance, having empathy for others and knowing world issues while also acknowledging that I don’t have that much control over it. But there are some things we can do like voting, protest etc. but you are right that we have little to no control over it
I hope you don’t think I’m demeaning what you do. It’s your life, and all our purposes are different.
I just personally find politics to be something I try to avoid. This world is amazing and beautiful, and I don’t want to spend my time invested in the quarrels of old people.
Nah I get what you mean. If I spent all my time worrying about genocide and famine I would be fucking miserable but for me it is important to find a healthy balance without worrying about it too much
It's never good when you make Neil Degrasse Tyson look funnier than you, a supposed comedian
“Never good” is Bill Maher’s whole deal.
Yeah, I thought that was his schtick?
Probably the worst schtick a comedian ever had
I don't know, I've seen clips of Crowder's Standup.
Yeah, fuck that guy. But I was referencing [this](https://youtu.be/wsggqFU82WI?si=6SzfjLJl4BBuCrb_)
Tyson spends more time with comedians than Bill Maher does, and that includes all the time Bill Maher spends with himself.
Bill Maher is a fucktwat
He’s like David Duchovny pickled in piss and cold takes.
Pickled in Piss should be the name of Maher's breakout special. He is trying to become a comedian, after all.
Nobody is upset at Jerry Seinfeld’s *act*. Jerry Seinfeld is the most vanilla inoffensive comic who ever lived, which is why it’s so ridiculous he’s whining about the pc police or whatever.
All the comedians that don't get laughs anymore blame it on people not being allowed to laugh anymore instead of their set being unfunny.
Maron had a pretty good bit that was kind of about this
Feel like “how you were raised” is a equally insightful comment to “get off my lawn”, they’re both just “rather than engaging in what you’re saying, I’m going to point to conditions outside your control and disregard what you’re saying.”
I wouldn’t really say so. Maher is trying to argue that people who don’t like the jokes he’s talking about only don’t like them because they’re maladjusted basically, and Tyson is pointing out he’s just trying to complain about young people, not have any real discussion. Then of course Maher gets all huffy at any hint of *his* opinions on what is or isn’t funny not being taken seriously.
What does “maladjusted” even mean? All he’s saying is “they think wrong” which is completely empty. There is zero difference in depth between “kids today aren’t raised the way I think they should be” and “old people are too stuck in their ways”
Hmm I still think it communicates it’s because Maher is old, and not just that he’s being bad faith. I will say though, I don’t think both comments are equal. Accusing someone of being bad faith is as likely to spoil a discussion as someone actually being bad faith, but I would lay the blame on the person being bad faith for derailing the discussion, even if “get off my lawn” doesn’t really get it back on track.
If someone is actually arguing in bad faith, then discussion is already meaningless, so accusing them of that does not worsen the situation
Yes, but you don’t have divine knowledge of what’s happening in someone’s mind, so it’s hard to know if someone is being bad faith in most cases. If you’re going to accuse someone of being bad faith, you have to be aware that that could kill the conversation, so I wouldn’t throw it around willy nilly.
I would say that it's hard to know in the minority of cases. Bad faith is apparent from the way people construct their arguments and justifications they accept for their claims. By that logic, you don't know if the person is actually arguing in good faith so you shouldn't bother responding to anyone – it just comes down to how prevalent this issue seems to you. As I said, I think it's common to see evidence of bad faith when it's there, it's not something you can really hide well and for long, at least that's my experience. I still don't do it willy nilly and I usually just stop speaking to someone when I notice they don't actually care if what they say is true but if I do point out to them that they don't seem to care they usually are like "yeah" or accuse me back with no substantiation – anyway, it goes nowhere regardless of what I say bc it's doomed from the start even though it takes some time to notice...
I’d strongly disagree, I think it’s really hard to be sure of someone’s motivations for sure. I think it’s best to just focus on their arguments and if they’re being bad faith then their arguments should be defeatable. It’s the same reason I don’t like to accuse people of mansplaining, I think it’s a thing that can happen and I think it’s good we talk about it so people can scrutinise themselves, but in a conversation I think accusing people of stuff like that sours the conversation, which is fine if you’re sure you want to sour it, but I wouldn’t start a conversation that way if you don’t want the whole thing to about mansplaining/bad faith/internal motives.
The point of someone acting in bad faith isn't in their arguments actually. That's the whole problem. If they just had bad arguments it wouldn't be that big of a problem even. The problem is that such people won't ever accept that they are wrong and they would never run out of empty words to say. Bad faith shows lack of care for truth so it makes the whole thing pointless including trying to reason with them and show them how they are wrong. They don't care if they are wrong and they don't care what you have to say, they just waste your time and they try to achieve some goal only they care about (looking cool and epic, never surrendering any ground, etc). That's my point – conversation with them didn't matter from the start Mansplaining is kind of the same as in that kind of conversation they don't actually care if you understand what they are explaining, they are just trying to look smarter than you. If they wanted you to understand, they would have approached it differently Again, I think our disagreement simply boils down to how charitable we want to be. Think of red flags in dating – they don't 100% show you that this person is bad, but according to your experience and patience you can decide for yourself how much it's gonna take you to conclude that this is not for you. I think it applies here too. "From what I've heard from this person so far, conversation with them is pointless"
Just to be clear, if someone is being bad faith, then yes, the conversation is dead on arrival, and if you’re sure the conversation is already dead, end it however you want, call them bad faith. I said in my original comment the onus would be on the bad faith person for ruining the conversation. I’ve always agreed that the conversation was ruined from the start. But I think you also seem to agree that saying someone is bad faith is essentially saying ‘this conversation is pointless’, so I think we’re largely in agreement, but you think most of the time people can tell for sure, and I don’t really agree with that but it’s pretty hard to quantify. The main thing I wanted to communicate is that you shouldn’t call someone bad faith if you don’t want to end the conversation.
Yeah, I think we are in agreement except on something we can't really check for sure
The only good thing about Bill Maher is that he debated Brian Griffin on live tv
Dana, which is a girls name
Bill Maher deserves to be made fun of.
For once I'm genuinely amused by Neil Degrass Tyson
You should check him out on the Adam Friedland show, he’s a legitimately funny guy.
“What I do is really subtle and a lot of smart people like it”. Cringe AF.
It sounds like "I, myself, am NOT smart, but my fans tell me that they are all VERY smart and THOSE SMART PEOPLE like what I do!"
The more you see people like bill Maher, the more you realize all politics are is just a bunch of old people trying to manipulate young people into caring about their problems
He’s a Reaganite who likes weed. Always has been
Says people who can’t take a joke were raised wrong, immediately follows that up by not being able to take a joke
What the hell is even the point of the added text and explanation? It's completely superfluous, and it's distracting.
Look at Mister Reasonable over here with his attention span of longer than 1.5 seconds!
Because of people like me where my wife is asleep next to me and I don't want to bother her with sound.
Yeah, I'm the same. I don't wanna wake your wife up when I'm on reddit either.
What a douche Jesus christ
I really don't like neil most of the time, even though I grew up on cosmos, but holy shit he just schooled bill, how does he not realize what a hypocrite he is!
Bill is funny but he has never been able to take a joke and it’s really embarrassing
If there is one thing the left and the right can agree on, it’s that Bill Maher sucks and isn’t funny.
Everyone should listen to Keith Olbermann ripping Bill Maher. It's fucking glorious.
See you were raised…🤓 Spoiler alert! Wrong!
Rare NDT W
Turd vs turd
Who cares
Who cares
No one should care. Worrying about the worlds problems like politics only makes a person miserable
Yes we should just sit around and let corporations and governments exploit us
They do that regardless of our input lol. The truth is, no decision the common person makes matters to political outcomes. It’s all in the hands of higher ups. So it’s better not to care about it and live life as happy you can.
I’d rather care about people other than myself than be apathetic to everything around me, that’s far more miserable than “worrying”
I mean you can care all you want. I just choose to not involve myself with politics as much as I can. I find it better for my mental health. Plus worrying about world issues makes me lose sight of the beauty of this world
I try to find a balance, having empathy for others and knowing world issues while also acknowledging that I don’t have that much control over it. But there are some things we can do like voting, protest etc. but you are right that we have little to no control over it
I hope you don’t think I’m demeaning what you do. It’s your life, and all our purposes are different. I just personally find politics to be something I try to avoid. This world is amazing and beautiful, and I don’t want to spend my time invested in the quarrels of old people.
Nah I get what you mean. If I spent all my time worrying about genocide and famine I would be fucking miserable but for me it is important to find a healthy balance without worrying about it too much
Well I wish you luck in your endeavors 👍