George Carlin: conspiracy theorist?

[KuriousOrange]

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."

He has a point. Do you just accept everything you're told?

In one of his skits:

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

This isn't evidence he believes in conspiracy theories, it's evidence he believes there are conspiracies and corruption. Would you disagree that these things happen?

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,...."

He actually said This Full clip here

By saying there doesn't need to be a "formal" conspiracy, i would say he's denouncing the CTists and saying that there is no cover up and the way the system is structured makes it easy for those with money, power and vested interests to get what they want by spending money in congress/lobbying etc.

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.

He had an aversion to one particular government and the ties it has to oil & big business, not aversion to any and all governments. Being against the Bush government (or any other government) doesn't make him a conspiracy theorist.

 

[Gazpacho]

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

It's called skepticism. You might have heard of it.

I don't think it's been emphasized enough that he was talking to a fan at a book signing. Someone who apparently likes him. Someone who took time out of the day to go see him. And most importantly, he was on the job for his publisher. Politeness and diplomacy apply in such a situation.

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.

I can't read this as anything other than authority-worship. You apparently think that every cynical remark about authority (nb: not "government") must be followed by "but I'm sure it's all for the best", even if you're not, really. I don't have the same view. Those who have power also have the means to defend it morally. It's not anyone else's obligation to do so.

 

[Venom]

Putting down CT's by saying "you don't need a formal conspiracy?" I strongly disagree. It's a lot more like saying it's okay to suspect this and that out of thin air because it's not a formal conspiracy.

I just can't stand it when someone makes accusations out of ignorance. Positive arguments I am comfortable with.

This is why I think free thinking is overrated. You get much better results sticking to science.

Now in this particular area, let's look at Hitchens. He clearly didn't know a whole lot about Global Warming either, but he was reasonable enough to say that we should act as if it is caused by man-made emissions, for the sake of the environment.

I don't blame Carlin for not being certain about AGW (who can), but to go on rambling cliches about how climate has always changed before so it won't be terrible is pretty low.

 

[Gazpacho]

Putting down CT's by saying "you don't need a formal conspiracy?" I strongly disagree. It's a lot more like saying it's okay to suspect this and that out of thin air because it's not a formal conspiracy.

I just can't stand it when someone makes accusations out of ignorance. Positive arguments I am comfortable with.

Then start digging into the writings of the American academic left. (No, not liberals, left.) There's more than you'll be able to read.

 

[Checkmite]

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.

He did not say that elections are meaningless because all candidates are the same; he specifically says that elections are meaningless because "this country was bought and paid for a long time ago".

 

[Dunstan]

He did not say that elections are meaningless because all candidates are the same; he specifically says that elections are meaningless because "this country was bought and paid for a long time ago".

And your point is? That statement is entirely consistent with what the poster you quoted said.

 

[Checkmite]

"Bought and paid for a long time ago" certainly sounds like predetermination to me. You honestly don't see how anyone would come to that conclusion? How about when he in the next sentence refers to elections as something "they" bring out every four years to fool the public?

 

[Dunstan]

"Bought and paid for a long time ago" certainly sounds like predetermination to me. You honestly don't see how anyone would come to that conclusion? How about when he in the next sentence refers to elections as something "they" bring out every four years to fool the public?

I don't see how any fair person could come to that conclusion, no. Especially given all the surrounding context in which he explains his thoughts about elections, and how voters such, garbage in, garbage out, etc.

I see how someone who is straining to support a thesis would come up with your interpretation, yes. But that's a pretty unfair thing to do: "This person is an irrational idiot -- here are some things he said that I think can be interpreted to mean he was saying something irrational and idiotic." Especially when that person is dead and can no longer clarify any ambiguity.

 

[madfoot]

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.

Well, it does say that, this is just a matter of fact. I think it's rather unlikely that our government will snatch people under the cover of night and send them to the gulags, but under the law as signed, they can do that. "Associated forces, or anyone giving aid to associated forces" is not a narrow set of circumstances.

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

And I never said it did. I just find the kneejerk reaction against skepticism here to be absolutely appalling.

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 understand the distinction, but I feel like JREF users don't. If you talk about Waking Up the Sheeple and Rich and Powerful Interests, people will assume you're some kind of awful conspiracy theorist, possibly an anti-semite, and relentlessly bash you. It's kind of pathetic.

I see how someone who is straining to support a thesis would come up with your interpretation, yes. But that's a pretty unfair thing to do: "This person is an irrational idiot -- here are some things he said that I think can be interpreted to mean he was saying something irrational and idiotic."

Describes people here perfectly, tbh.

 

[Checkmite]

I don't see how any fair person could come to that conclusion, no. Especially given all the surrounding context in which he explains his thoughts about elections, and how voters such, garbage in, garbage out, etc.

I see how someone who is straining to support a thesis would come up with your interpretation, yes. But that's a pretty unfair thing to do: "This person is an irrational idiot -- here are some things he said that I think can be interpreted to mean he was saying something irrational and idiotic." Especially when that person is dead and can no longer clarify any ambiguity.

Hyperbole is unnecessary; I never claimed the man was an idiot. But to me it seems that he was under the impression that the country was run by some kind of "they" and that the trappings of democracy, such as elections, were literally meaningless. I think your refusal to concede that someone might reasonably interpret his comments that way signifies bias on your part.

 

[Dunstan]

Hyperbole is unnecessary; I never claimed the man was an idiot. But to me it seems that he was under the impression that the country was run by some kind of "they" and that the trappings of democracy, such as elections, were literally meaningless. I think your refusal to concede that someone might reasonably interpret his comments that way signifies bias on your part.

That's nice. And I think your refusal to concede that you're wrong signifies bias on your part. So that's a constructive line of argument.

 

[madfoot]

But to me it seems that he was under the impression that the country was run by some kind of "they" and that the trappings of democracy, such as elections, were literally meaningless.

What reason is their to believe that elections are meaningful?

 

[Checkmite]

We can start with the fact that a person who gets the majority of votes actually does get into office...

 

[Gazpacho]

We can start with the fact that a person who gets the majority of votes actually does get into office...

You'll find people ready to argue whether that's actually true, but even if it is, that's not the point. A great deal of vetting occurs long before the final two-party decision.

You might compare it to those "Sexiest Man/Woman Alive" magazine "contests" that — wouldn't you know it? — always happen to pick someone who is already famous.

 

[jimtron]

We can start with the fact that a person who gets the majority of votes actually does get into office...

Gore got more votes than Bush in 2000, but I don't remember Gore as president.

 

[madfoot]

We can start with the fact that a person who gets the majority of votes actually does get into office...

John Jackson vs. Jack Johnson?