For Ben Affleck, It's Ridicule Before Reason

Townhall.com ^ | October 11, 2014 | Tony Katz

[Kaslin]

Ben Affleck's recent turn on Real Time with Bill Maher - his ranting, nonsensical and history-altering tripe during a smart, reasoned and valuable conversation about Islam and the world - exposes a myriad of truths about the actor and director, and about Liberalism.

The conversation between Maher and author Sam Harris started off reasoned and clear; Liberals need to stand up for liberal principles, and Liberals need to be honest about these principles when speaking about the Muslim world. After just 60 seconds of conversation between the two, Affleck interjected with his first of many caustic statements. His demeanor was aggressive from that one minute mark, and only got more aggressive and dismissive as the conversation went on.

Was it this anger that made Affleck unable to properly quote the Declaration of Independence? After asking Harris if he was the only person who could "codify" the doctrine of Islam (a strange, odd, peculiar question meant to incite,) Affleck said:

You're saying, if you want to be liberals, believe in liberal principles. Like Freedom of speech. Like we are endowed by our cre... forefathers with inalienable rights. That all men are created equal.

Affleck couldn't say "Creator." Why? That's the phrase. "We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

It wasn't our forefathers who gave us those rights; they come from Nature and Nature's Law. Getting away from a man, like a king, giving other men their rights is exactly the thing they were declaring independence from!

So why couldn't Affleck say it? Did he simply forget in the haze of his growing anger? Or, would the admission of the truth make him a traitor to his Ideological Obedience; to Liberalism.

Credit Evan Sayet for his work on the Unified Field Theory of Liberalism. Today's Liberal in America isn't just wrong. They are as Sayet posits, "As Wrong As Wrong Can Be," and they will, with all facts and truths at their disposal, side with evil over good, wrong over right, and the despot over a freely elected leader and people.

Everyone watching and listening understood that Maher and Harris were discussing radical Islam. If Affleck could have simply contained his disgust for Maher at that moment, he would have heard Harris try (and he tried multiple times) to "unpack" his thesis.

Harris explained clearly his view of concentric circles in Islam. He named three of them - Jihadists, Islamists and then the "conservative" Muslim. Harris repeatedly stated that it is these inner most circles (and not Muslims as a whole) that are the problem. It was Maher who interjected, rightly, that Muslims as a whole (and not just in the United States) seem far too indifferent to these inner circles. To back his claim, Maher pointed to a PEW poll in Egypt, where 90% of the population supported the death penalty for those who leave Islam.

CNN's Dean Obeidallah disagreed with this point, stating:

Maher then cited a Pew Research poll that he claimed found that 90% of Egyptians supported the death penalty for those who left Islam. I'm not sure where Maher got his numbers, but a 2013 Pew poll actually found only 64% of Egyptians supported this -- still alarmingly high, but not 90%

Oh. 64% see it as a positive. That's so much better.

Affleck would have none of Harris's facts and Maher's data. He called their comments "ugly," and accused them of both racism and anti-Semitism, trying to compare Harris' statements to someone who says Jews are "shifty" or saying something negative about black people. (Affleck didn't get too specific on what would be said about black people, but he made sure to bring it up to try and denigrate those he disagrees with.)

Even New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof joined the racism bandwagon, saying Harris and Maher's comments had a, "...tinge a little bit of the way white racists talk about African Americans."

There was no refuting of facts. No mention from Affleck or Kristof of other polling data or empirical evidence to counter what Maher and Harris stated. There were no anecdotes, other than not blaming all Muslims for the acts of the Jihadists and Extremists, which Maher and Harris repeatedly stated and agreed with.

Reason was not Affleck's mission. Ridicule was.

Back to the CNN article, Obeidallah wasn't done. He also stated what he saw as a huge problem with Maher's position on Islam:

Maher's remarks dismayed American Muslims across the country but won applause from all the hosts on Fox News' "The Five." When you're a progressive and a gaggle of Fox News hosts praises your views, you know something is seriously wrong.

And this is the problem with the American Liberal. As Obeidallah sees it, the issue with Maher's viewpoint is that conservatives agree with it! Why is Affleck so pissed in this segment? Not because he actually cares about Islam or Muslims, but because Bill Maher didn't stick with the Liberal/Progressive point of view!

For Affleck and Obeidallah, Maher committed a crime! The crime was he used his eyes, his ears and his mind to recognize a problem and then spoke out about the problem. The crime was honesty. Honesty is not allowed in progressive circles.

The punishment for such a crime? Ridicule, shame and - at times - outright abandonment. Whether that be a lifetime ban, or a specific time frame unknown to the victim. Just ask Juan Williams.

Affleck, Obeidallah and the Progressives lie - to us, themselves and each other - daily. Liberals/Progressives view honesty as a crime. Affleck couldn't be honest about the threat of radical Islam nor the words in the Declaration of Independence, because to do so would be hurtful to his Ideological Obedience to Liberalism.

That just isn't allowed. The ridicule will continue.

[Hoodat]

But its nice to see him get a little taste of some of the hate he’s given conservatives over the years.

It has happened before, which is why he invites three liberals on his show to face the one conservative opponent. That way, if he loses one of the liberals, his side will still outnumber the other. I remember once liberal invitee Christopher Hitchens flipping off people in the audience for booing when he expressed his support for the war against al Qaeda.

[ontap]

Can’t stand Bill Maher...but even a blind hog finds an acorn every once in a while... he’s right on about Islam!!!

[Objective Scrutator]

[Scotswife]

I recommend following David Burge on twitter

[Objective Scrutator]

My theory on why Harris and Maher (both committed Leftists) are pretending to criticize Islam is because some of the liberal hedonists have finally grown to understand that Islam wouldn’t exactly tolerate their hedonism. Maher and Harris are trying to shift the Overton Window into saying, “All reasonable criticism of Islam comes from the Left, criticism from the Right is just racism.”, thus keeping these Leftists from becoming libertarians or genuine moderates.

Note that Harris is trying to make the empirically false “not all Muslims!” argument, and both Harris and Maher will also make the empirically false “but also Christians” arguments. Both arguments are deliberately constructed towards ignoring the millions of Stealth Muslims who will happily implement Sharia and special rights for Islam the moment they gain power.

[Roger Kaputnik]

My thoughts as well. Ever since college, I’ve been convinced that liberalism/progressivism appeals to mental midgets and intellectually dishonest people. Which is why I never waste my time or energy debating with them, because you can’t have a rational, fact-based conversation with an irrational person with an infantile state of mind.

[OldNewYork]

His best role ever was as two-time high school senior O’Bannion in Dazed & Confused.

[Borges]

You’re over-thinking it. Maher and Harris just hate religion.