Log in
The man who made a movie mocking religion is standing up for the Jewish people.
And he’s virtually alone in pop culture circles.
Bill Maher’s 2010 film “Religulous” poked fun at Christianity and other faiths, leaning into his atheism and wit.
Now, Maher is the only mainstream late-night host to call out the shocking rise of antisemitism, especially on the political Left.
He did it again Friday night via his “Real Time with Bill Maher” showcase.
BILL MAHER on Dem politicians: “As long as [your] faith isn’t Jewish, you’re good.” https://t.co/HnWIFK7JgY
— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) August 22, 2026
[Dana] Bash, CNN’s chief political correspondent, noted that Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico “wears his faith on his sleeve in a way that he believes will help him.” Mr. Maher responded, “Well, in the Democratic Party, as long as that faith isn’t Jewish, you’re good.”
When Ms. Bash pushed back, saying “you said it,” Mr. Maher replied that he said it “because it’s true.”
RELATED: MAHER V. STEWART FOR SOLE OF DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Maher repeatedly calls out both the lack of outrage over antisemitism and its deep roots within the Democratic Party. Right-leaning pundits like Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, J.P. Sears and others have leaned into antisemitic tropes, too, but they aren’t part of the mainstream GOP.
The press secretary just telling the truth, as always. pic.twitter.com/DDhC41zLBR
— JP Sears (@AwakenWithJP) August 15, 2026
Tucker Carlson: “Israel is the most evil, genocidal state that controls America.”
VS.
Also Tucker Carlson: “But I’m not attacking Israel.” pic.twitter.com/aMjILopQh0— Nathan Livingstone (MilkBarTV) (@TheMilkBarTV) June 12, 2026
It’s a massive problem, one that late-night stars like Jon Stewart, Jimmy Kimmel, Seth Meyers and Jimmy Fallon won’t touch.
And then there’s Mark Ruffalo.
The “Avengers” star is one of Hollywood’s most strident pro-Palestinian voices. And, as is often the case with that sub-set, the messaging can appear critical of more than just the Jewish state.
This week, Ruffalo attacked the proposed Paramount/Warner Bros. Discovery merger, but he didn’t stop there.
The actor shared a video of Oracle Executive Vice Chair Safra Catz discussing the company’s assistance to Israel after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023 terrorist attacks. “Look how she revels in what we now have come to see as a genocide, which was built on an apartheid system of oppression powered by Oracle,” Ruffalo wrote on his social media channels.
Team Paramount swiftly fired back, accusing the star of spreading antisemitic language.
“We are, as always, troubled when antisemitic tropes are invoked in purported service of a business dispute. Words like ‘genocide’ and ‘apartheid,’ applied to a corporate transaction, aren’t just wrong — they’re a bridge too far, and they cheapen the very real suffering those words are meant to describe.
The mega-studio wasn’t the only one to lash out at Ruffalo. Sharon Waxman, the veteran Hollywood journalist and founder of the far-Left TheWrap.com, took the unusual move to call out Ruffalo directly.
This statement by Mark Ruffalo is profoundly shocking. This crosses the line from merger opposition to incitement: “Look how she revels in what we now have come to see as a genocide, which was built on an apartheid system of oppression powered by Oracle.” https://t.co/21m2tC7gox
— Sharon Waxman (follow me on Threads @sharonwaxman (@sharonwaxman) August 21, 2026
Ruffalo shared a speedy defense of his comments on social media in response.
Mark Ruffalo Rejects Paramount’s Claim His Anti-Merger Comments Were “Antisemitic”: “My Views Should Never Be Interpreted as Hostility Toward … https://t.co/4PAVXCsa5H
— The Hollywood Reporter (@THR) August 23, 2026
The good news? The rise of antisemitism is being talked about across the culture. That it’s happening on late-night talk shows and via A-list stars means it will get more attention.
The bad news? Too many significant figures are either feeding the hatred or doing little to stop it.
The post Pop Culture Puts Antisemitism on Blast (Finally) appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.
[Note: If you have somehow avoided hearing about Jason Arday, see my earlier post on “Cambridge University’s Disgrace”.]
Jason Arday has apparently killed himself due to the public scandal surrounding him. This is an extreme bad outcome that nobody wanted (plagiarism and fabulism are not capital offences). Who is to blame? And what can we learn?
1. The Ne…
Toby Sterling, reporting for Reuters:
The Dutch Data Protection Authority has fined Uber €825 million ($966 million) for deactivating driver accounts through automated systems without adequately informing them, according to an August 17 decision reviewed by Reuters.
The penalty would be the second-largest issued yet under Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation. It is behind only a €1.2 billion fine imposed on Meta by Ireland in 2023 for unlawfully transferring European Facebook users’ data to the United States. Meta is appealing.
Uber said it would also appeal. [...]
The Dutch authority confirmed the decision later on Friday. “Uber has committed serious infringements,” in deactivating driver accounts without warning or human involvement, the organisation’s deputy chair Monique Verdier said in a statement. “From one moment to the next they no longer had any income ... A computer should not make decisions on its own that have (such) major consequences.”
This really takes the cake:
GDPR rules ban decisions made solely by computer algorithms when they have a significant impact on people’s lives, saying such decisions require meaningful human review and a way to challenge a decision.
Uber temporarily suspended accounts of some drivers who were suspected of fraud, including when its systems concluded drivers had taken unnecessary detours to inflate fares or accepted trips without intending to complete them. Uber said such suspensions were usually brief, and it did not permanently deactivate such accounts without human review. Drivers with low customer ratings were sometimes permanently deactivated by computer, the Dutch agency said. Uber disputed that, saying it had never automated permanent deactivation decisions.
The company said one reason it considers the fine disproportionate is that only a small number of drivers were affected, with 126 having been deactivated in Europe as a result of low customer ratings in 2021.
It’s possible that Reuters’s reporting is incomplete, but there’s no allegation here that the grounds for these suspensions were incorrect. Uber suspended drivers who were pulling long-haul scams against customers to run up fare prices, and doing the annoying thing where they accept a ride and then never show up, hoping the customer will eventually get frustrated and cancel the trip themselves. (My understanding is that drivers do this when they’re driving for, say, both Uber and Lyft. They’ll accept a ride from Uber and then if a more appealing offer comes from Lyft, they’ll accept that one too and just never pick up the customer they accepted from Uber.)
Per this fine, it’s unlawful in the EU for Uber to monitor its drivers for pulling scams against customers, or just never picking riders up, leaving them stranded. I mean, I’m not a member of the “Uber Labor Practices” fan club, but one of the best things about Uber compared to taxis is that they monitor for and take action against scam drivers.
This isn’t a two-sided conflict between employees (drivers) and a big corporation (Uber). It’s three-sided. Where does customer experience factor into this? The drivers were scamming customers, and Uber took action to stop it. This sounds to me like a system that works. The EU regulation doesn’t seem to factor in customers at all.
From “Court slashes $50M judgment against Alex Jones over falsely calling Sandy Hook shooting a hoax,” NPR (Aug 21, 2026):
A Texas court on Friday slashed a $50 million judgment to about $6 million against Infowars founder Alex Jones after he falsely claimed the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school mass shooting was a hoax.
Of course:
The ruling does not affect a $1.25 billion judgment against Jones in Connecticut, but is a legal victory for him after he and his company, Free Speech Systems, were found liable for damages for claiming the mass shooting didn’t happen.
Of course, all types of intellectual property, including trademark and reputation rights/defamation law, should be abolished:
- Kinsella, The Problem with Intellectual Property
- “Defamation as a Type of Intellectual Property,” in A Life in Liberty: Liber Amicorum in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe (2024)
- Aggression” versus “Harm” in Libertarianism
- Hoppe on Property Rights in Physical Integrity vs Value
- The Patent, Copyright, Trademark, and Trade Secret Horror Files
Next Page of Stories