1

2

I understand and sort of respect what Jillette tries to do, but he really annoys me. I kind of seem him as a libertarian Bill O'Reilly. It's not the worst thing in the world to go after sacred cows, but his exposés at times seem a little too one-sided to be credible. Not that he doesn't have and make valid points, there just seems to be a level of pedantry and faux incredulity that's a bit off putting.

Not that he doesn't have and make valid points, there just seems to be a level of pedantry and faux incredulity that's a bit off putting.

He's a bit like Moore, Spurlock, et al., in that he is a professional windmill-jouster (not to say that 'Teller' doesn't also write bits, but it's hard to 'tell').

I don't always like his style, but it's great to see these 'untouchable' figures get put into some sort of perspective... even if it makes one person question the (frankly ridiculous) idea of 'sainthood' it's worth the airtime.

Have you seen the PeTA one?

On tonight's episode, they compare PETA co-founder and president Ingrid Newkirk to Adolf Hitler, cutting from shots of Newkirk at an animal rights conference to stock footage of Hitler's youth. "Cheap shot?" says Penn in the narration. "Well, you bet it is. It's beneath us, but we're not the first to use the Nazi analogy." The show then takes PETA to task for its 2003 "Holocaust on Your Plate" action campaign, which juxtaposed images from concentration camps with images of industrial meat processing. I'm not sure which makes me more uncomfortable, PETA's manipulation of a genocide or Penn and Teller's breezy character assassination, but the moment made me pine for a less sensational approach. I'm more accustomed to professional doubting Thomases like Skeptic Society director Michael Shermer, whose wonderful book Why People Believe Weird Things manages to debunk all kinds of bad thinking—including that of Holocaust deniers—without resorting to calling anyone a Nazi.

http://www.slate.com/id/2098134/

Aggressive, narcissistic zealotry is always grating, condescending, boring and counterproductive.

I'm not fully on board with taz, but I'm not far off either. In my view, in his zeal to be an iconoclast, Jillette mostly wanders too far in the other direction.

He proceeds from the aphorism that "people are flawed" and the idea of sainthood is bs. Fine, great, I could not agree more.

But when he gets to the point of demonizing the subject is almost falling prey to the same behavior he is criticizing. Like Michael Moore, he starts out with a good thesis, but he goes so far in one direction, and denies any contradicting theses, that it weakens his own argument.

* I don't know all that much about Mother Teresa, but I do know something of Christoper Hitchens. Hitchens's speculation that Mother Teresa's practices caused the unnecessary deaths of "millions" seems specious and unsubtantiated. I can't hear a claim like that without thinking that there's bs at the root of that as well, but it serves Jillette's thesis, so he doesn't question it.

* Was Gandhi a racist? Probably. It doesn't make it right, but he was also a product of his time and place. He probably had some other flaws that he was unable to transcend for all the other good he did.

Winston Churchill is also revered by many today, but before the onset of WWII, he was regarded as something of an anachronistic racist crank himself And you hardly ever hear about that.

But what troubles me a bit further than that is what Jillette is doing seems to be in service of some agenda or other. It's a bit like what the right wing has tried to do to Martin Luther King's reputation over the years. Claims of womanizing, shoddy academics, etc. Whether this is true or not, it's largely irrelevant to the man's accomplishments, and it's entirely intended to (inexplicably) discredit the entire civil rights movement. Fortunately these efforts have been futile, but you do see the same pattern over and over again from people on both sides. It's tiresome.

Penn Gillette is smart and funny, but his ego is so far out of control, it's hard to like him much. But the people pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes provide a critically useful service, especially in the US these days, where the media have cheerfully chosen to muzzle themselves.

I'm a big fan of the Penn and the show, and more often than not agree with what they're saying. But you've got to take him with a grain of salt, because he'll walk all the way to extreme edge on a topic as if everything in life is black and white.

There have been times where I've agreed with what he's saying, but still thought he was being a dick in his delivery. But most of the time I laugh my ass off and nod in agreement. When the show is called BullShit you shouldn't expect subtlety or waffling.

As much as I admire Penn and Teller's motives, their delivery is really off-putting. To the point that their preaching to the choir (and whipping some of em up into a high fury), and no one else.

"...Whether this is true or not, it's largely irrelevant to the man's accomplishments, and it's entirely intended to (inexplicably) discredit..."

I completely agree, psmealey, and it's the reason I can't really identify myself with so many well-meaning movements. I want to lessen the amount of hate and vitriol in our society. Mr. Pen and Mr. Teller preach an opposing viewpoint.

His This I Believe for NPR.

His voiceover style reminds me of the jackass "oooo, that's gotta hurt" guy from Maximum Exposure.

He is an entertainer. He entertains me. I would never look to him for enlightenment. And if I did - I suspect he would mock me for it. And rightly so.