George Carlin: conspiracy theorist?

[KuriousOrange]

As usual the CTist has already decided what the "truth" is by searching out others/information who/that agree with their already decided point of view. It's laughable that CTists call themselves "truthseekers" when in actual fact that is the last thing they want. What they're after is comfirmation of their skewed world view and come here only to fight. They would be much better off reading some actual facts about the subjects which they obsess about rather than coming here to argue. Arrogance and ignorance are common bedfellows. Starting with "i know nothing" will always get you further in life than "i know it all".

 

[Oystein]

There is (or was) a video on YT of him answering questions about 9/11.
He was a borderline Truther.

I found that hugely off-putting, but have forgiven him because he so accurately expressed my feelings about religion.

Not really. It doesn't seem like he thinks 9/11 was an inside job, he just didn't act like a pedantic douche about it like you expected him to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pow5_UYKaJ8 (video you're referring to?)

I don't think anyone seriously doubts that the people who constitute the money elite hang out, often co-operate, and are doing what they can to gain and keep power.

Yet Carlin offers no opinion on the truth value of any of the CTs that we are discussing here - none on Kennedy, none on 9/11. In none of the videos presented in this thread is there a hint that he believes that any particular CT is in fact true. At most you might construe his words as meaning that TPTB could in principle have conspired here and there. But really: Only in principle.

On 9/11, he gives sound advice: Don't go for a new investigation. It just won't give you any new results. It's useless.

He gives more sound advice: Be skeptical! Always!

 

[carlitos]

LewRockwell.com is a publishing site of libertarian authors. Are you going to conflate that entire ideologies with conspiracy theorism because you don't like Lew Rockwell's friends?

Edit: Also, "ignoring substantive posts that show there wasn't a conspiracy" is a strawman, since I didn't necessarily say there was a conspiracy. Is it a conspiracy theory to criticize fascistic laws and policies? I'm not sure. Sometimes it seems like folks here would say so.

And yet you started the topic in the Conspiracy Theories sub-forum.

Lew Rockwell is a paranoid, conspiracy-theory believing idiot.

 

[Childlike Empress]

And I think we can add Gore Vidal to the list of former icons who I can't take seriously any more due to stupid CT nonsense.

The problem is with you. Ever thought about that?

 

[madfoot]

No, it's a conspiracy theory to say that this law is "fascistic". Using such a loaded term pre-supposes your conclusion, that its actual, hidden intent is to be used in a "fascistic" manner, like interning honest citizens, rather than to be used in its ostensible capacity, that is, to provide emergency shelters during emergencies.

Yeah, see, I disagree with this. I don't care what the intent is; gay-bashing Christians have the best of intentions, but they're still insane and deserve to be called out as such. I feel the same way about recent bills like SOPA and the NDAA's infinite detention provisions. When a law being passed is objectively fascistic, I will call it fascistic.

And yet you started the topic in the Conspiracy Theories sub-forum.

Because, apparently "skeptics" believe civil libertarianism and conspiracy theorism go hand in hand. That makes it on-topic.

 

[Horatius]

Yeah, see, I disagree with this. I don't care what the intent is; gay-bashing Christians have the best of intentions, but they're still insane and deserve to be called out as such. I feel the same way about recent bills like SOPA and the NDAA's infinite detention provisions. When a law being passed is objectively fascistic, I will call it fascistic.

And if this law is "objectively" fascistic, you should be able to quote those exact parts of the law that support this conclusion, shouldn't you?

If you haven't read the law in question, enabling you to do this, your opinion is in no way "objective", it's nothing more than your knee jerk reaction.

So, any time now, provide the objective evidence for this law being "fascistic".

 

[Border Reiver]

Actually - can you define "Fascistic" first?

 

[madfoot]

And if this law is "objectively" fascistic, you should be able to quote those exact parts of the law that support this conclusion, shouldn't you?

If you haven't read the law in question, enabling you to do this, your opinion is in no way "objective", it's nothing more than your knee jerk reaction.

So, any time now, provide the objective evidence for this law being "fascistic".

IANAL. I don't think it's reasonable to ask me to read a 901-page bill to be able to comment on it. So I'll defer you to the experts.

Sen. Levin on Section 1031 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5Oo3gzj2oc

 

[Oystein]

IANAL. I don't think it's reasonable to ask me to read a 901-page bill to be able to comment on it. So I'll defer you to the experts.

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/vvEh4.jpg[/qimg]

Sen. Levin on Section 1031 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5Oo3gzj2oc

So to show how politicians are dirty rotten scoundrels willing to go to any despicable depth if it suits their self-interest, you quote - a politician?
Classic Fail.

 

[madfoot]

So to show how politicians are dirty rotten scoundrels willing to go to any despicable depth if it suits their self-interest, you quote - a politician?
Classic Fail.

Cute. Can you prove he's wrong?

 

[332nd]

Cute. Can you prove he's wrong?

Can he prove he's right?

 

[Checkmite]

George Carlin seemed to me to be increasingly unstable in his later years. The last couple of clips (I can't say shows, because I did not feel compelled to watch the entire things) seemed to drop all pretense at being a standup comedy routine and were pretty plainly just an angry foul-mouthed diatribe against both the government and the people, that his audience would laugh at uncomfortably, almost as if they were afraid not to. During his "performance" the guy was literally physically bent over, face twisted with all the hate he was spewing.

 

[Dunstan]

George Carlin seemed to me to be increasingly unstable in his later years. The last couple of clips (I can't say shows, because I did not feel compelled to watch the entire things) seemed to drop all pretense at being a standup comedy routine and were pretty plainly just an angry foul-mouthed diatribe against both the government and the people, that his audience would laugh at uncomfortably, almost as if they were afraid not to. During his "performance" the guy was literally physically bent over, face twisted with all the hate he was spewing.

It's a matter of opinion, I suppose, so I can't say you're objectively wrong, but this description is so far removed from what I've seen that I wonder if we're talking about the same guy.

And if you're complaining about "foul-mouthed diatribes," then I question whether you ever appreciated Carlin at all. He was doing that long prior to his "later years."

 

[Checkmite]

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. I know about his historical use of profanity to comedic effect but there was a marked difference in the quality of his act as time went on.

In one of his routines he explicitly claimed that democracy was fake and elections in the US were rigged as a simple matter of fact. That's pretty securely on the "conspiratoid" side of the line.

 

[Pacal]

I feel like there's an intellectual laziness when it comes to skeptics on politics, some unreasonable faith in both the rationality and benevolence of public agents.

You are just mouthing standard CT crap about people people who dare to doubt their crack-brained ideas. Skeptics of CT are constantly accussed of "loving" the government and similar stuff, when not being accused of being government shills.

I am someone with very strong Anarchistic political leanings yet I find CT crap to be so much idiot twaddle. But I am regularily accussed of being a government tool on all sorts of forums for daring to doubt, say 911 was a inside job, Kennedy was not killed by, (insert flavour of the month CT), Shakespeare actually wrote the plays credited to him etc.

Aside from the point already made that how corrupt and degraded the whole political process already is is plain as day and not hidden; this CT crap ignores the bottomless well of human idiocy, greed and corruption makes perfect, airtight conspiracies very very hard to pull off and the conspiracies we're talking about involve vast numbers of people so that pulling off a "perfect"vast conspiracy is unlikely in the extreme much less doing it over and over again.

Thus when Vidal talks about the Mafia murdering Kennedy, does he in the slightest recognize that the Mafia has been leaking like a sieve for over 30 years now and yet nothing remoutely substantive as leaked out linking the Mafia to the Kennedy assasination. Hell the Mafia couldn't keep from being implicated in Hoffa's death.

A standard rule of thumb is that the more complicated, intricate a conspiracy is and the more people that are involved the more likely it will a) fail and or b) fail to keep secret. Conspiracies like that involving 911 would have involved very large numbers of people and so are inherrently improbable.

 

[Dunstan]

In one of his routines he explicitly claimed that democracy was fake and elections in the US were rigged as a simple matter of fact. That's pretty securely on the "conspiratoid" side of the line.

Post it.

I'm pretty sure I know the bit you're thinking of, and your account is not accurate.

 

[Checkmite]

Here is Carlin stating that the results of elections have been predetermined for quite a while and elections themselves are essentially fraud.

 

[Dunstan]

Here is Carlin stating that the results of elections have been predetermined for quite a while and elections themselves are essentially fraud.

He says no such thing. Seriously, this isn't a matter of interpretation or opinion at this point, you're just misrepresenting him.

He spends the first minute explaining that he doesn't complain about politicians "sucking," because they are "the best we can do," as they're the natural product of American schools, culture, etc. "If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. . . . The public sucks."

 

[varwoche]

I reject argument via naked link. If you claim Carlin is a truther or a CTist, post his words here for examination.

p.s. Let's not forget he was a comedian.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Can you prove he's wrong?

That's not how it works. If you're not already a full-blown conspiracy theorist, you've certainly got the foundation and are building a nice frame.

Can he prove he's right?

This is how it works.