George Carlin: conspiracy theorist?

[Dunstan]

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

A good point to keep in mind. Even if Carlin said something during a routine, it isn't necessarily evidence of his real views. I mean, Carlin had a whole bit about how he prays to Joe Pesci....

Checkmite's argument has two steps: that Carlin's routines contained conspiratorial thinking about elections being rigged, and that this demonstrates that Carlin himself was "unstable" in his later years. I don't think he's established the first part yet.

 

[Gazpacho]

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.

He said (on-stage and off-stage) that elections provide an illusion of public choice. To go from that to mere "rigging" or "predetermination" is a leap on your part. Think more systemically.

 

[Oz1976]

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."

I used to love George Carlin, but if you can't see how this rant in 2005 is lending toward conspiratoid thinking, I don't know what else to say...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqdCvfe12nM
He clearly says "The Owners" of this country, the elections are a charade to give americans the illusion that they have freedom of choice.... etc etc...very conspiratorial in nature. And this isn't a ROUTINE, this was on the Bill Maher show as a panellist.

 

[Dunstan]

I used to love George Carlin, but if you can't see how this rant in 2005 is lending toward conspiratoid thinking, I don't know what else to say...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqdCvfe12nM
He clearly says "The Owners" of this country, the elections are a charade to give americans the illusion that they have freedom of choice.... etc etc...very conspiratorial in nature. And this isn't a ROUTINE, this was on the Bill Maher show as a panellist.

You -- and Checkmite -- seem to have a great deal of difficulty in distinguishing between two very, very different propositions:

1. Elections don't matter because the two dominant political parties don't differ significantly on the issues that fundamentally determine what happens in this country (or, to the extent they claim to differ, they don't actually do anything differently with their power).

2. Elections don't matter because the NWO (or whoever) rigs the result and chooses who the winner is.

You're accusing Carlin of expressing view #2, but I think it's pretty clear from the context -- especially in the standup routine linked earlier, where he does a long preamble about candidates only being as good as the electorate -- that he's expressing view #1.

I don't happen to share view #1, but it's not some fringe conspiratorial view, it's a matter of opinion arising from which issues you consider important. If you believe, as I don't but many do, that nothing of importance will change until there is [radical redistribution of income, restriction of corporate spending on elections, or any other policy that both major parties have no interest in], then yes, elections are pretty irrelevant and the choices are illusory because they only affect (allegedly) superficial or minor things like whether the top marginal tax rate is 36% or 39.6%, or whether we have a Republican president authorizing military actions which Democrats criticize as reckless warmongering or a Democratic president authorizing the same military actions which Republicans criticize as insufficiently muscular. It's basically the view of 2000 Nader voters -- many of whom have since changed their minds on the subject, of course.

 

[madfoot]

I don't happen to share view #1, but it's not some fringe conspiratorial view

Actually, I've encountered skeptics who have essentially said just this. It's disheartening.

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.

This is part of the thing that annoys me about skeptics, though. They take this scientific burden of proof, which works fine with observable science, and try to apply it to politics and history. It's an absurd standard. Academics and intellectuals don't use it. The reason it's absurd is because politicians, moguls, and other political agents have methods of concealing their actions from public eye. For example, given a strict burden of proof, we might not be able to prove that the government abuses its counter-terrorism tools, because these actions are shielded from judicial review via the state secrets doctrine. So should the skeptic believe that the government doesn't abuse counter-terrror tools until proven otherwise? I think that's absurd.

I'm bad at articulating this, so I'll quote what I saw someone else say yesterday on Reddit's /r/skepticism:

Yeah, what I'm talking about isn't conspiracy theory; it's the idea that our leaders and CEOs do all sorts of things that can't be verified by evidence due to the clandestine methods they use.

I have friends who are much more informed than me who have a knack for perceiving such things...they can read between the lines because they know how to use inductive reasoning and the facts to discover what the truth probably is. For example, we can look at data and see that the war on drugs is not employed to rid the country of drug use in its primary objective; it's used to make people money. Can I verify this with hard evidence? Not that I know of.

I wish skepticism had a branch in political understanding like this. If Brian Dunning, Steven Novella, James Randi and the like would tackle this subject, I would be dazzled.

 

[RedIbis]

I didn't go through the youtube clips, so I don't know if this quote is in them, but George, as usual, hits the damn nail right on the head:

"The limits of debate in this country are established before the debate even begins, and everyone else is marginalized or made to seem either to be communist or some sort of disloyal person. A kook, there's a word. And now it's conspiracy see, they've made that something that should not be even entertained for a minute, that powerful people might get together and have a plan. Doesn't happen! You're a kook! You're a conspiracy buff!" - George Carlin

 

[timhau]

I mean, Carlin had a whole bit about how he prays to Joe Pesci....

Can you prove he didn't?

 

[Oystein]

Cute. Can you prove he's wrong?

Apart from observing that this is off-topic to the George-Carlin thread, I hope you know you are reversing the burden of proof. You try to support a claim by quoting an opinion on a primary source, while the primary source itself is available and known to you, but you admit you would't bother to read it.

So you fail by default, no debunking needed, by refusing to point to the actual evidence.

I got news for you: I DID read the relevant portions of the 901-pages document, and they clearly show that your man is WRONG.
Or rather he is intentionally misleading.
I suppose that's because he is a politician with an agenda.

 

[Oystein]

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

Got a quote from the link to support that assertion? If you are alluding to 1:45ff, I don't think he is saying the election results are predetermined or a fraud as such - he says the results are meaningless - nothing significant changes because you elect this or that candidate. All candidates on all sides are the incompetent, dishonest result of a system which is dominated by incompetent, disinterested consumerists.

 

[Oystein]

...
This is part of the thing that annoys me about skeptics, though. They take this scientific burden of proof, which works fine with observable science, and try to apply it to politics and history. It's an absurd standard. Academics and intellectuals don't use it. The reason it's absurd is because politicians, moguls, and other political agents have methods of concealing their actions from public eye.

This is patently absurd. In Post 28, you refer to a specific section of a specific law, and post claims about it, but admit that you did not even READ that law. Well, friend, just read that particular section (1031), and learn that these claims are absur, they are plain FALSE. Law IS a matter about which objective truths can be established: The law that the President will allegedly sign (or has already signed?) does NOT provide for the possibility of "us" being locked up indefinitely! It describes VERY narrowly the circumstances when a VERY narrowly defined circle of persons - those who have already engaged in violent acts of war against the USA or are members of declared military enemies of the USA - can be put into custody.

For example, given a strict burden of proof, we might not be able to prove that the government abuses its counter-terrorism tools, because these actions are shielded from judicial review via the state secrets doctrine. So should the skeptic believe that the government doesn't abuse counter-terrror tools until proven otherwise? I think that's absurd.

I'm bad at articulating this, so I'll quote what I saw someone else say yesterday on Reddit's /r/skepticism:

Bait and switch.
Previously, you were making claims about what a particular section of a particular law says.
Now you are talking about how politicians can abuse laws - read: Do things that are NOT actually covered by the law. These are two totally different things! Please stick to what the law says, if you make claims about what the law says.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

This is part of the thing that annoys me about skeptics, though. They take this scientific burden of proof, which works fine with observable science, and try to apply it to politics and history. It's an absurd standard. Academics and intellectuals don't use it. The reason it's absurd is because politicians, moguls, and other political agents have methods of concealing their actions from public eye.

The effects of politics don't exist in some dimension outside our observable universe.

For example, given a strict burden of proof, we might not be able to prove that the government abuses its counter-terrorism tools, because these actions are shielded from judicial review via the state secrets doctrine. So should the skeptic believe that the government doesn't abuse counter-terrror tools until proven otherwise? I think that's absurd.

But such abuses would most certainly have observable effects.

 

[John Albert]

This is part of the thing that annoys me about skeptics, though. They take this scientific burden of proof, which works fine with observable science, and try to apply it to politics and history. It's an absurd standard. Academics and intellectuals don't use it.

Absolutely wrong. Academics most certainly do accept the burden of proof, all the time in fact. Citing sources and providing objective evidence to back up one's assertions is fundamental to all areas of academics.

The reason it's absurd is because politicians, moguls, and other political agents have methods of concealing their actions from public eye.

Conspiracist balderdash. A lack of evidence does not constitute evidence.

Just because something is "concealed" via "methods" does not mean those methods cannot be penetrated, subverted or betrayed. It happens all the time with conspiracies. Any conspiracy bigger than a handful of people is bound to be discovered sooner or later, and the likelihood of it being discovered sooner is an exponential function of the number of people involved.

For example, given a strict burden of proof, we might not be able to prove that the government abuses its counter-terrorism tools, because these actions are shielded from judicial review via the state secrets doctrine.

I don't suppose you would happen to have any evidence to back up that (highlighted) assertion, would you? You do realize the United States Department of Justice is a judicial review body, with jurisdiction over any criminal legislation that is binding on US citizens?

So should the skeptic believe that the government doesn't abuse counter-terrror tools until proven otherwise? I think that's absurd.

There's no need to believe the government doesn't abuse its counter-terrorism laws without proof. You see, proof of those abuses does indeed exist, and has even been reported by political news outlets on both the right and the left, and also by the ACLU.

Who perpetrated this most egregious breach of US security?

What agency is responsible for exposing this privileged state secret out into the open for all to see?

Was it an intrepid army of Chinese computer hackers, penetrating our most secure computer networks from halfway around the world?

Was it some gender-conflicted Army specialist with delusions of grandeur and an axe to grind?

I know, it's gotta be that rapey, toe-headed bastard Julian Assange and his merry band of tattle-tales, right?

Nope. None of the above.

The culprit responsible for leaking this information so pertinent to national security was none other than the US Government itself, the US Department of Justice, to be precise. They issued a report. So much for your grand conspiracy allegations.

Being skeptical of laws and critical of the government is a very important and worthy attitude, but it's important to stick to the facts and not let our imaginations run away with us. Having suspicions is one thing, but turning those suspicions into detailed, specific allegations of wrongdoing without a shred of evidence (or even bothering to investigate the actual facts) is where conspiracy theorists run right off the rails every time.

 

[John Albert]

As for George Carlin (the actual topic of this thread) he was certainly extremely critical, given to fiery and hyperbolic political speech. But I have no reason to believe he was actually a conspiracy theorist.

I've been a fan of his for almost as long as I can remember, ever since I was a kid in the late 1970s & early '80s, laughing my ass off to The Hair Piece, Toledo Window Box, and FM & AM. I've read his first 4 books (having received most of them as Christmas gifts, ironically). I've watched all of his TV specials and (I think) most of his live performances on YouTube. Right after he died, I spent the better part of a week watching every piece I could get my hands on, show after show, one bit after another, for hours on end. At that time, there was so much discussion of his legacy and his message, with people comparing his later material to Lenny Bruce and Bill Hicks. I can see the resemblance to both of those guys, but I have to agree with KuriousOrange, Eddie Dane and others that he may have ranted and raved like a maniac, but he never actually ran off the rails into the crevasse of blatant CTism.

George Carlin strenuously insisted that the American people have gone soft on consumerism and been led astray by a cadre of ambitious rich and powerful interests, but he never lent credence for a minute to the vapid ravings of 911 Truthers or blatantly called the Kennedy assassination a government conspiracy. He wisely cautioned us not to believe outright anything spoon-fed to us by our government, but always to question and doubt, and to realize there's always some significant something that we're not being told. He's like my grandpa warning me, "don't take any wooden nickels."

I'd say his political views were definitely extremist in the sense that they acknowledged and focused mostly on just how fractured and rigged the entire system is. His message was certainly alarmist. His was a harsh skepticism, one that shared a long border with cynicism. One gets the impression his worldview was grounded in some difficult lessons learned the hard way, but tempered by an appreciation for the true beauty and awe of life and a genuine compassion for the plight of the average people. For all of George Carlin's acerbic vitriol, a sincere compassion seemed to resonate through the bombast. In that way, he was a populist in the most classic sense. Hearing him speak, you get the feeling he's really on your side, on our collective side. He clearly comes across as a champion of the little guy, bellowing the battle cry to take the fight straight to the arrogant, soulless money-grubbers and all the corrupt powers-that-be they've bought and paid for. Was he an advocate of class warfare? Certainly, but was he a Marxist or a socialist? I don't remember ever hearing him openly advocate for communism or collective ownership of the means of production.

As much as I admired the guy, I'd hate to think he'd given himself over to the weak conspiracy logic. If he ever did, I'd have to acknowledge it with a heavy heart. So far I haven't seen any evidence that he did, but not for any lack of exposure to his material.

 

[Nosi]

Absolutely, the banality of evil. No Illuminati, secret technology or space ninjas required.

*Passes the barf bag*

 

[Oystein]

As for George Carlin (the actual topic of this thread) he was certainly extremely critical, given to fiery and hyperbolic political speech. But I have no reason to believe he was actually a conspiracy theorist.

I've been a fan of his for almost as long as I can remember, ever since I was a kid in the late 1970s & early '80s, laughing my ass off to The Hair Piece, Toledo Window Box, and FM & AM. I've read his first 4 books (having received most of them as Christmas gifts, ironically). I've watched all of his TV specials and (I think) most of his live performances on YouTube. Right after he died, I spent the better part of a week watching every piece I could get my hands on, show after show, one bit after another, for hours on end. At that time, there was so much discussion of his legacy and his message, with people comparing his later material to Lenny Bruce and Bill Hicks. I can see the resemblance to both of those guys, but I have to agree with KuriousOrange, Eddie Dane and others that he may have ranted and raved like a maniac, but he never actually ran off the rails into the crevasse of blatant CTism.

George Carlin strenuously insisted that the American people have gone soft on consumerism and been led astray by a cadre of ambitious rich and powerful interests, but he never lent credence for a minute to the vapid ravings of 911 Truthers or blatantly called the Kennedy assassination a government conspiracy. He wisely cautioned us not to believe outright anything spoon-fed to us by our government, but always to question and doubt, and to realize there's always some significant something that we're not being told. He's like my grandpa warning me, "don't take any wooden nickels."

I'd say his political views were definitely extremist in the sense that they acknowledged and focused mostly on just how fractured and rigged the entire system is. His message was certainly alarmist. His was a harsh skepticism, one that shared a long border with cynicism. One gets the impression his worldview was grounded in some difficult lessons learned the hard way, but tempered by an appreciation for the true beauty and awe of life and a genuine compassion for the plight of the average people. For all of George Carlin's acerbic vitriol, a sincere compassion seemed to resonate through the bombast. In that way, he was a populist in the most classic sense. Hearing him speak, you get the feeling he's really on your side, on our collective side. He clearly comes across as a champion of the little guy, bellowing the battle cry to take the fight straight to the arrogant, soulless money-grubbers and all the corrupt powers-that-be they've bought and paid for. Was he an advocate of class warfare? Certainly, but was he a Marxist or a socialist? I don't remember ever hearing him openly advocate for communism or collective ownership of the means of production.

As much as I admired the guy, I'd hate to think he'd given himself over to the weak conspiracy logic. If he ever did, I'd have to acknowledge it with a heavy heart. So far I haven't seen any evidence that he did, but not for any lack of exposure to his material.

Nom'd

 

[Nosi]

As much as I admired the guy, I'd hate to think he'd given himself over to the weak conspiracy logic. If he ever did, I'd have to acknowledge it with a heavy heart. So far I haven't seen any evidence that he did, but not for any lack of exposure to his material.

Given himself to conspiracy logic...no.

Posthumously yanking chains...if reading this thread says anything...HELL YES.

 

[Venom]

Yes he was a conspiracy theorist in a way. I can excuse him for his non-methodical approach to everything he was suspicious about, but c'mon, I have to admit he's a bit wacky and way too into this conspiracy stuff, relying on Ad hoc assumptions.

Now Bill Hicks, that's a true conspiracy theorist.

 

[KuriousOrange]

Yes he was a conspiracy theorist in a way. I can excuse him for his non-methodical approach to everything he was suspicious about, but c'mon, I have to admit he's a bit wacky and way too into this conspiracy stuff, relying on Ad hoc assumptions.

Now Bill Hicks, that's a true conspiracy theorist.

Do you have an example?

 

[Venom]

Do you have an example?

Basically some of his quotes (paraphrased a bit):

Questioned about 9/11:

"I think it's important to always question everything we are told.....etc."

In one of his skits:

"Like there's no way powerful people would get together to do something malicious" rolleyes.

Someone accuses him of brewing up CTs. His response:

"You don't need a formal conspiracy for this to work; these guys went to the same university, worked in the same company,...."

Basically Trutherspeak, whether or not he was actually a truther. He was known to have an extreme, and I would say, unhealthy, aversion to government.

C'mon. Let's admit it. It's intellectually lazy for him to spout some of these things and leave it at that.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

um, no.

This is part of the thing that annoys me about skeptics, though. They take this scientific burden of proof, which works fine with observable science, and try to apply it to politics and history. It's an absurd standard. Academics and intellectuals don't use it.

Actually, as an honest-to-go academic historian I can say with certainty that this is not quite true. I can't just write an article that says X and insist people believe me. I have to show my evidence and lay out my logic; because document 1 says this, and document 2 says that, and the census report of 1900 says the other thing, then X. Other experts in the field can then come back and say "but document 4 says otherwise, doesn't that invalidate your theory?" and the discussion builds from there.

We can't rerun the 1912 election, change a variable, and see who wins this time, so it's not hard science. But it's most certainly supposed to be evidence-based and has to follow the basic rules of logic.