Ladies and gentlemen, every time I think this woman can't become more of a living, breathing piece of satire, new clips surface of her saying something off-the-wall crazy.
The number one challenge here that we see is, of course, the First Amendment in the United States...
She doesn't necessarily disagree with the idea of rights, but notice how she LOVES the idea of rights applied to platforms, then switches to the adjective "tricky" when talking about individuals.
Platforms and the companies behind them are not people. Freedom of the press does not exist because the press itself has God-given rights, but because the individual people who publish have the right to distribute their speech.
The problem is, Maher doesn't believe in the individual. She believes in institutions controlling people for the sake of overturning the "white male Westernized construct":
Me being told that white Western [read: Christian] men are the root of all evil for the millionth time in my life:
This woman is now a top-level gatekeeper at a taxpayer-funded news organization. Scary as heck.
The logic here is actually pretty simple (these affluent woke people aren't the most complex philosophers). Maher believes, like all woke people, in the Marxist idea of class struggle and equality of outcome. The Western world and its values produced the world around us, but that world is very complex and produces inequities. Seeing ALL inequity as bad, they are unable to separate the good (inherent rights, equality, technological revolution, long life expectancy, widespread education, abundant charity, global markets) from the bad (slavery, racism, sexism, etc.).
Instead of studying history and realize that these bad outcomes are the norm the world over in every civilization that has ever existed, and that actually, Western civilization was the first to end practices like slavery, they draw the opposite conclusion. They say the bad is a result of Western patriarchy, individualism, and Christian tradition. The only way to fix this problem is to get rid of those things, but to carefully "deconstruct" them so we don't get rid of the good values [humanistic principles] that we want to keep.
They don't realize that you can't deconstruct the foundation of a house without collapsing it. But the best way to try is to use the power of a big institution like Wikipedia or NPR or the CDC to force this dissection. Platforms having rights is therefore the ultimate good. Your individual right to speech, meanwhile, is inconsequential to the common good that this process will bring. Anyone who points out that collapsing civilization to save civilization is suicidal lunacy is silenced for "the greater good."
Moral busybodies are the worst!
"Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - CS Lewis
P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇
