Disabusing Bill Maher of a wrong comparison

Bill Maher recently compared Milo Yiannopoulos to Christopher Hitchens.

I’ve read almost all books Hitch has written, and have watched probably every video there is of him online. Admittedly, there are people who know him better than I do, but since no one famous has said anything about this, I feel like I have to. So please allow me to disabuse you from that nonsensical notion, Bill.

There are obvious vast differences between the bozo you had on your show, and Hitch. Like, you know, the fact that Hitch was one of the most well-spoken personalities you could ever find. The man spoke better than most write books.

But I’ll get right to the point that I think is confusing you: the fact that Hitch, like Yiannopoulos, said controversial things and was often politically incorrect, establishes absolutely no ground for a comparison.

Why? Because Hitch did so to argue reasonable, logical, sound points. He was the hammer of logic coming down on the face of hypocrisy and lies; whereas your guy the bozo on the show, is himself a hypocrite that lies all the time. Hitch was no racist. He went to Iran, my country, and talked to the people with sympathy to understand them. I would comfortably bet my life that if Hitch was alive he would not endorse anything associated with the racist group Alt-Right either.

Hitch liked controversial behavior in the process of providing rich, meaningful ideas. The bozo on your show is just using being controversial to sell books and speeches. Just look at the title of his recently cancelled book: “dangerous”; as in, “I’m that guy who you have to pay attention to because I say crazy stuff”.

Hitch said the most logical, the most well-informed, and the most honest stuff, in a controversial way. Do you see the vast difference? It’s almost as if Hitch would be an enemy of Yiannopoulos if alive.

You know he would.