Talya wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
I haven't listened to him extensively, but other than the aforementioned "Thomas the Tank Engine" narrative, that's everything I've heard. Claiming that means I haven't really listened to him is essentially just saying "but if you really listened you'd agree with me!"
The thing is, for the most part, you
would agree with Carlin. Certainly not everything, but most of it. His biggest comedic criticisms were reserved for the politically correct movement, social-activist groups (such as feminists and environmentalists), the english language itself (which isn't to single out English, more because it's the only language he spoke), yuppie culture, and the media. He'd have fit in just fine on an episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit!, it was probably one of his favorite shows.
If Carlin had a downside, it was his utter nihilism. Of course, through extreme schaedenfreud, he found it all rather funny, but he could not see an upside to anything in human culture--ANY part of human culture. In his later years, he seemed to truly believe that
homo sapiens were a species in decline, that we were pretty much devoid of redeeming qualities, and there is little hope left for us. It's a rather depressing view, if you can't sit back and laugh at human inadequacies, (years of reading authors like Douglas Adams makes that easier for some of us than others,) but some of us still hold out hope that we can evolve past our current issues.
All of the things in your second paragraph indicate why I would not find his commentary on the issues mentioned in the first paragraph either funny or insightful.
Douglas Adams is an interesting comparison. He is actually funny and clever and entertaining to read but he is no more insightful than Carlin. The concept of human inadequacies is one that strikes me as absurd. If you wish a religious viewpoint, the standard we are held to is so incredibly high that any comment on our inadequacies, evolving past them, or hope beyond the divine is absurd. If you look at it from a nonreligious perspective, inadequacies assume some standard we should be meeting, but which is totally undefined other than "higher than where we are" and where we are is not even defined, nor is any reason given why we should be meeting it, other than occasionally to satisfy the demands of hypothetical aliens who are arbitrarily defined as "better". Amusingly, these hypothetical aliens usually have all sorts of shortcomings of their own; unbelievable levels of self-righteousness being foremost.
Or to put it another way, it's simply a veiled lecture from a twit who thinks his opinion matters more because he's got a microphone. His commentary is not really any different from a teenager making fun of adults doing regarding issues he really doesn't grasp.