2500% Spike In Google Search Results For ‘Trump’ And ‘Fascist’ Shows Dems’ Violence Incitement Problem
Democrats and their allies in media, academia, rent-a-mob, and activist circles have ramped up incendiary language.Democrats and their allies in media, academia, rent-a-mob, and activist circles have ramped up incendiary language.Bill Maher attempts risky intervention on Trump-deranged pal Rob Reiner: 'You have to talk to people'
A casual conversation turned into a deprogramming session when Bill Maher recently hosted the notoriously Trump-hating director Rob Reiner on his "Club Random" podcast.
Maher urged the MAGA-mad mogul to see the importance of keeping communication open with his political opponents, citing Barack Obama's skill at dealing with Republicans during his presidency.
'Every fiber of your being wants to be like, "I got to get this person to not see it that way."'
"Politics is about making deals. It's about bargains," Maher said, lamenting that liberals like Reiner are not willing to work with the current administration.
Tokin' moderate
Reiner, meanwhile, countered that today's GOP is beyond reasonable discussion.
Maher, noting that the Democrats do not have "any power," said that the idea of purposely not having conversations with conservatives is a pointless endeavor.
"The idea of, 'We don't talk to you when we don't even have the power?' Of course, you have to talk to people," Maher explained.
But Reiner interjected.
"Before you have an exchange, you have to agree on certain facts," Reiner said.
Return to condescender
Maher's tone switched, the way it often does when he himself is speaking to someone he completely disagrees with.
"No, you don't. You can't. Once you start down that road ... you just have to talk to people," the host said.
The portly producer then offered up an example that showed he does not see much worth in talking to someone who is on a different page.
RELATED: Bill Maher urges left to stop comparing Trump to Hitler
“No, no, you talk to people," Reiner asserted. "But if somebody says, 'Two plus two is four,' and the other guy says, 'No, it's not,' how do you begin the discussion?” he asked.
"Because, Rob, that’s a slippery slope," Maher replied, already sounding defeated.
"If you start down that road of, 'I can't talk to you if you believe this crazy thing,' you just can't," he continued.
Reiner, 78, legitimately seeming like he wanted to hear Maher's advice, asked, "What do you do?"
A player's prayer
The "Real Time with Bill Maher" host admitted that while he has never been married, his experience in long-term relationships has led him to be able to accept the fact that he doesn't have to agree with everything someone says.
"It's very like a relationship. ... And I know there are moments where the person is believing something, and you just — every fiber of your being wants to be like, 'I got to get this person not to see it that way, 'cause I just think it's f**king nuts.'"
But if that person wants that relationship to last, Maher continued, they will have to learn "three little words that are most important to any relationship."
"They're not, 'I love you.' They're, 'Let it go,'" he revealed. "Sometimes you just have to let it go."
RELATED: Chris Pratt mocks Trump haters for being 'allergic' to good policy, defends RFK Jr.
Over the moon
Maher gave examples of speaking with someone who does not believe the lunar landing of 1969 happened, or even Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whom he disagrees with on many topics.
The reason Democrats need to reach across the aisle is because there were a lot of places where "the Democrats did f**k up," Maher said.
On his list of DNC gaffes was the U.S.-Mexico border, DEI initiatives in colleges, and "elite universities, where the kids are raised to be these anarchist, America-hating anti-Semites, and there is zero diversity of opinion."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The anti-reality crowd’s new anthem: ‘You can’t make me!’
Our digital age has brought many benefits. Lately, though, I’ve noticed how it’s enabled the spread of a persistent malady.
Call it the digital-era version of “spaniel selective hearing.”
Sometimes it’s willful ignorance. Other times it’s just denial. Either way, it’s intellectual evasion wrapped in self-satisfaction.
In her book ”The Invaders,” paleoanthropologist Pat Shipman explains that modern humans and dogs have been partners for 40,000 years. Over time, we developed specific dog breeds optimized for various jobs like herding, protection, and hunting. Once firearms became common, even ordinary people could hunt waterfowl. So we developed spaniels with excellent noses, all-day energy, non-territorial instincts, and a gentle, cooperative temperament.
The latter qualities were especially important: You and I might bring our personal gundogs to the field to hunt together, so each one needed to be attuned to its human and not challenge the other for turf control. Today we see their sweet spaniel faces with big eyes and their love of people in homes and as therapy dogs.
But something changed.
Back then, spaniels were often kennel-raised and fed once a day. They depended on their humans, so they stayed alert and focused. Today’s dogs? They’re beloved pets — well-fed, spoiled, and sometimes a little too independent.
This phenomenon was dubbed “spaniel selective hearing”: the condition in which your dog “can’t hear you” because it would rather be doing something else. It’s real. And it’s made worse by how cute and cuddly these dogs are otherwise.
In today’s world of digital abundance, I’m seeing the human version of this problem — and you probably are too.
You share an article that lays out certain information and reaches a conclusion. Immediately, someone in your circle dismisses it outright, saying, “The author is a partisan,” simply because she disagrees with him.
RELATED: When the mainstream media’s left-wing bias costs them credibility
Press further, and she will respond with three “neutral” links — maybe NPR, the New York Times, or one of those permanently anti-Trump conservatives who call themselves principled.
Then, if the facts from your original article prove difficult to refute, she might pivot. She might offer her own “analysis,” which, oddly enough, ends up reinforcing the exact same claims made by the author she just dismissed.
But don’t expect your interlocutors to admit that. Why?
Because they’re neutral. Because context doesn’t count. Because you can’t make them go there.
Sometimes it’s willful ignorance. Other times it’s just denial. Either way, it’s intellectual evasion wrapped in self-satisfaction.
Like spaniel selective hearing, this rapidly spreading malady is the product of abundance — in this case, the overabundance of digital information and opinion pieces by a plethora of people with a wide range of actual expertise and insight.
Maybe we should call it “deflective data deployment” or “convenient data fencing.” Or, better yet, “I won’t go there, and you can’t make me!” syndrome.
Whatever we call it, we need to call it out.
We need a label that diagnoses this behavior. Confronting it is the first step toward reviving healthy public discourse and breaking us out of our echo chambers.
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com