RIP George Carlin
I was very deeply shocked today to hear that the legend, George Carlin, died.George Carlin was a serious comic who really knew how to write a damned joke. He knew how to make his audience laugh whether they wanted to or not.
Most of his jokes made you start laughing even while your brain was thinking "Wait a second... Are you allowed to say that?"
I respect that.
I respect anyone that can take you outside your own mind so much that you laugh no matter what.
The man wrote a routine all about the worst words that you really aren't allowed to perform in public.
He then went on and PERFORMED IT PUBLICLY.
Think about that.
The man had balls.
He built his career around one of the most controversial, obscene comedy routines of the time and then eventually got a job doing the voice over for a children's show.
Yes, the guy who gave the world "The Seven Words You Can't Say On Television" is the same guy who explains to your kids why Thomas the train can't get up that hill.
That's a freakin' career.
Can you imagine his audition?
Producer>> Okay, what might Thomas say in this situation?
GeorgeCarlin>> Can he call Percy a C---sucker?
Producer>> Umm...
Producer>> No.
GeorgeCarlin>> What about Motherf---er?
Producer>> ...
GeorgeCarlin>> Wait, wait. We can do a rhyming thing.
GeorgeCarlin>> C---sucker, Motherf---er.
GeorgeCarlin>> Toss in a few train whistles and we're done.
You may not know this, but I swear.
A lot.
It's kind of a side effect of the job. If I didn't swear on a regular basis, I'd probably develop a brain tumor.
I try not to swear on the blog because a lot of people tell me they read this at work. I don't want to get those people in trouble.
So, I tone it down a bit.
Earlier when I said freakin', I didn't mean freakin'.
But I really doubt your boss is going to call you into his office over the word "freakin'".
Boss>> Do you know why I called you in here?
You>> Not really.
Boss>> You've been looking at obscene websites on your computer.
You>> What do you mean?
Boss>> Don't deny it.
Boss>> That one blog had the word "freakin'" in it.
Boss>> For shame!
Boss>> You'll have to leave Amish Dutch Country.
You>> Are you serious?
Boss>> You're gosh darned right I am.
Boss>> Turn in your butter churn and get the gosh out.
Boss>> Pardon my language.
Sure, I use the word "ass" occasionally. And I suppose "retard" might not be the nicest word ever.
But I don't go for the big ones.
Just because I don't use them here, though, doesn't mean I don't use them.
Gosh no.
Thus, I have great respect for the man.
And, given my general lack of respect for most people, that says a damned lot.
Plus, this is probably the only time you'd see "S--t, P--s, F--k, C--t, C---sucker, Motherf---er, and T--s" on a tombstone.
At least... For a guy people actually liked.
posted by Goblin Smithy @ 6:55 PM
30 Comments:
He DIED?!
...Aw, dude...That sucks.
I agree with you, [GM] Dave.
George Carlin rocks.
This comment has been removed by the author.
He is one the the greatest comics that ever lived. And he is getting a award for it.
He is one the the greatest comics that ever lived. And he is getting a award for it.
It looks weird if I don't break it up.
http://www.reuters.com/article/
entertainmentNews/
idUSN2328397920080623
I raise a glass in honor of Mr. George Carlin. He was one ... funny guy.
(self-censored sailor mouth)
Originally I thought I'd mourn for him. But then I thought that if Carlin could see people being depressed over his death, he'd be all "Get the fuck over it, you bunch of god damn pussies!"
So, instead I open a 40 in his honor.
George Carlin truly was great. He didn't even need to swear too. He was f***ing funny even without cursing. He shall be missed. I can only hope his soul didn't fly up and get stuck on the roof.
*tips his c***-sucking hat, and gives the legendary comic a moment of mother-f***ing silence*
Ha! I have to agree with daniel on this one.
Great man, great comic. He'll be missed.
Ha! I have to agree with daniel on this one.
Great man, great comic. He'll be missed.
Ha! I have to agree with daniel on this one.
Great man, great comic. He'll be missed.
Rat sh-t, bat sh-t, dirty old tw-t!
69 -ssholes tied in a knot!
Hooray! Lizard sh-t! F-ck!
He will be very missed.
Rest in peace, George (on a rooftop somewhere).
To be honest, I really don't see the humor in just stringing together a bunch of profanities. Call me old fashioned, but the man who has to resort to profanities is the man too stupid to express himself otherwise.
[Profanity munged by grudging choice.]
@charlie:
The humor's not in the profanity.
The humor's in how we react to it; why we react that way; the way we pretend we're not reacting, the hypocritical self-righteous bullsh*t we spew out while insisting that others not give us anything to react to; the strange and curious notion that the body and its functions are obscene...but killing other people and the systematic abuse of power by our governments isn't; the quirks and idiosyncrasies of language; the way that religion and the religious have decreed that certain subjects, words, phrases, and ideas are sinful and offensive, but others aren't, and We The Sleeple just smile and nod and watch a few more hours of roller derby.
You can kill on prime time television, but you can't f*ck. The writing can suck all it wants to, but the actresses can't. We can have an assh*le on TV every January for a political speech, but if we see one on NYPD Blue it's a $1.2 million fine. We're expected to take it up the back door from politicians and industrialists, but if we take it up the back door from our sexual partner we can be arrested for it. Where lying to congress about a blowjob is grounds for impeachment, but lying to congress about weapons of mass destruction gets you elected to a second term.
We live in a country where 19 brown people can blow up a couple of buildings and all the brown people everywhere are hated for it, but a few hundred white men can screw us all for centuries and they're called heroes and patriots.
We live in a culture where need is a crime and greed is an aspiration; where the 'sanctity of life' is a euphemism for the sanctimony of the lifeless. Where holding a rally in white sheets to celebrate the hatred of blacks, women, catholics, jews, gays, and latinos is protected free speech, but a beautiful woman taking her shirt off in public is criminally obscene. Where schools have more money to fund sports programs than for education; where we cut spending on health care to build weapons; where a waitress making $2.70 an hour has to fork over 25% of her income to taxes, but a corporation making billions pays a tiny fraction of that...and a church making billions pays nothing at all; where thousands of uptight white women will look down their noses and preach about how evil abortion is, but not one of them will adopt a crack baby; where the way to honor and preserve the miracle of life is to kill doctors. Where the state and big business have the right to tell you who you can delegate vital decisions to if you become incapacitated, and even who can visit you in the hospital, based on your adherence, or lack thereof, to a government-sponsored support system for a religious ceremony...and that's called the separation of church and state. Where a rich man of any color can get away with murder, but a poor man will go to prison for smoking a little grass.
That's what I learned from those seven words, and the man who had the cojones to drag them out in public.
If all you got from it was a bunch of cussing...I would respectfully suggest that you weren't really paying attention.
Way to preach it, John.
And Dave, I concur wholeheartedly. 'Foul language', as some sanctimonious pezzonovanti like to call it, is vital for mental health. It's the way we cope with frustration and the soul-numbing stupidity of our general everyday life.
Swearing is what keeps us from bludgeoning the source of our anger in the cranium. Honestly, who doesn't prefer some naughty language over a tire iron upside one's head?
The idea of assigning morality to language is ridiculous. Language is a tool that we use to convey out thoughts. If you remove the words, others will be invented to replace them because the thoughts behind them will always exist. The only difference between an F-bomb and the word "freak" is that there is no social stigma against "freak". Everyone knows what you mean when you say "freak". The intention is still there, so why is that okay?
If you want to eliminate profane words, you will need to find a way of eliminating profane thought. Good luck with that.
Nice job John! Damn all those self righteous... wait...
I drink the water.
And, since I apparently wasn't even read...
I never said anything about the morality of the words, did I? I was speaking of the intellectual bankruptcy of the words. Pay close attention to my words this time, so you can understand what I am saying.
To say that it is hypocritical to blast the language and not the problems with politicians and all is stupid. Why? Because you're assuming that I (or anyone else against profanity) don't MIND the politicians and such on television. I do mind. I hate the injustices and manipulation going on in those areas.
It's not hypocrisy to be against all forms of wrong-doing or unintelligence.
I find it slightly comical that you slam hard on the "big" problems, but then let the "little" ones go. As if you yourself dictate which are greater and lesser crimes. Tell me, how do you enjoy your celestial throne? Because it seems to me that by setting yourself up in a position to judge what is lesser and greater crime, you make yourself out to be deity.
I'll give you a hint: ALL wrongdoing is wrongdoing; the man "smoking the grass" as well as the man committing murder.
And also it seems that you have some sort of inherent bias against religion. Many times in your response you point to the evils of a religious group or another, whether they be "telling us what sin is" or "making billions but paying nothing." The former is a blatant misrepresentation of a religion and the latter is a gross strawman. Not ALL churches are making billions. Not ALL churches are fleecing their people. Furthermore, the ones that are doing so do not represent religion as a whole.
You cannot judge the philosophy by its abuses.
And Aen, you fail.
I am perfectly mentally sane...likely moreso than you.. and I do not swear. I do not THINK swears. *shrug* So apparently either your claim is falsified to justify your unintelligent blathering or you are just ignorant.
Hello from an infrequent poster.
I have to say that wherever Mr. Carlin is he will most definitely not be "resting peacefully". He was a great man for social commentary as well as some of the simpler things in life (fault ridden chocolate pudding anyone?). Georges use of words commonly viewed as "foul" were not the sum of his art as many people seem to imply. They were a smaller piece of who the man was, and what he did in his life. What I saw was that he used these words as shock value in many cases to make people sit up and pay attention to the other words he used.
Now I understand that not everyone can listen past those words. Some people find themselves proud of his courage or "balls" to drag these words out into the public view and discuss them (albeit in a comedic vein).
Some people dislike such language, and shut their ears to the other words said so that all they hear is "S--t, P--s, F--k, C--t, C---sucker, Motherf---er, and T--s".
I urge you to look past that into some of the other things he did, and said. He was a good person who made his way creatively through life.
And what I meant by "I have to say that wherever Mr. Carlin is he will most definitely not be "resting peacefully". "
Is that I think wherever he is ... he'll be commenting in his own fashion on whatever is happening there.
@ charlie:
First and foremost: I can judge whatever I choose, by whatever standard I choose. I'm human, and I have that right.
Second: Did you just equate smoking grass with murder? I think you did. Let me read it again...yeah, sure enough, you sure did.
Here's what I learned by listening past the 'profanity' - I don't assume that something is objectively wrong simply because somebody said so. There's a dangerous, insidious corollary assumption there that any law is a good law, and any rule is a good rule, so long as the bureaucracy that creates it has its heart in the right place.
History, however, teaches us that this is rarely the case. Tyrants from Attila to Mugabe have relied on just this kind of thinking to maintain and hold their power. "If the government/church says so, it must be right!"
You'll protest; you're obvious not entirely ignorant, and you'll bristle hard at having this pointed out to you...but if you're honest with yourself, this is precisely the kind of thinking that you have endorsed.
There are hundreds of laws on the books that I am subject to that I wasn't asked about, wasn't consulted on, wasn't given a choice about, and don't represent my interest in the least...yet if I violate those laws, I'm guilty of 'wrongdoing' by your standards. More disturbing, I'm equally guilty of 'wrongdoing' whether I drive without a seatbelt, smoke a bong full of fruitloops, or viciously murder a family of five. I'd be willing to bet that you break at least a half-dozen laws every day without even realizing it.
I don't want to monopolize Dave's blog with a rambling, esoteric philosophical discussion on the relative merits of laws, but I do want to say this: anyone who doesn't stringently question the laws they are subject to, deserves to be subject to them.
As for religion...you're right. I have absolutely no use for it, I think it's the biggest crock of nonsense ever foisted upon the minds of human beings. More people have killed and died in the name of their "God" than for any other reason, ever, put together, from the Crusades to 9-11. I firmly believe that if more people tried to emulate their alleged saviors, dieties, and messiahs rather than trying to force everyone around them to worship their god and obey their rules, the world would be a much more peaceful and productive place. If you're really interested in a deeper look at my thoughts on religion, feel free to Google "Chicken Soup For The Atheist Soul." If you're particularly interested in taking up this discussion elsewhere, bookmark that site and wait. I'm sure I'll give you something to talk about, eventually, but I really don't want to turn [GM]Dave into John Henry's Soapbox. I ahve my own space for that.
I also do not wish to monopolize this blog comment zone, but would appreciate further discussion. Thus far, you have not called me a bigotted, ignorant, religious nut. That at least shows you have more intellect and more courtesy than most non-religious people with which I've spoken, and that is a breath of fresh air.
Now, as to your comment about judging laws...The problem with your distinction is that you are judging laws by some moral code. You see a law and decide: "That law is wrong" or "That law is right." How do you arrive at such a moral code? There are a few options:
1. There is an objective moral code to which all things are subject. I have a hunch you will reject this idea out of hand, as it suggests some kind of objective moral law-giver. But perhaps not.
2. Morals are subjective and relative, as they are made by man. This one is obviously false, as you prove with your judgment of laws. If they are subjective, then when you judge one moral code or another, you are obviously not USING that moral code to judge itself; you are using some outside code. Furthermore, if morals are subjective to man, then they change and fluctuate with differing generations.
3. There is no moral code at all. This one is impossible, as it would necessity a lack of value or meaning in life. Nihilism went this route, and at least they were honest enough to propose that since there was no moral code, there was also no meaning or value in life. Why? Because values and meanings stem from moral issues. By valuing something, you are (in a sense) saying that thing is worthy. Worth stems from a moral issue.
Now to your critique of religion. I find it astonishing that people make such claims of religion. Let me dissect them quickly:
1. Crusades - Anyone who really studies history knows that this was done in the name of religion, but it was not ABOUT religion, nor were the criminals associate with this overly TRUELY religious. This was about land and power, nothing more.
2. 9-11 - Do you really think this was the result of Osama? I would encourage you to do some study into it, and if you do, you may find that this was not the result of "terrorists" but of an inside job. If that be the case, then that disarms that critique of religion altogether.
Furthermore, when you say that religion is the perpetrator of several atrocities, you forget a couple of things:
1. One cannot judge a religious or philosophical system by its abuses. If I kill in the name of America, does that make America bad? If I kill in the name of Buddhism, does that make it bad? No. What makes a system bad is its theological or philosophical outworkings. Something is not false because some pretenders did bad things with it. Jesus Himself would never have approved the horrid things done "in His name" by false believers vying for power. He did not teach those things. Judge Christianity by its teachings, not its abuses, friend.
2. You also are apparently unaware of how many deaths are on the hands of atheistic philosophies (ala Social Darwinism, Nihilism, etc). Hitler was a confirmed believer in social Darwinism, and tried to create the "uber mensch" (a nihilistic term). In his mad quest to do this, he killed over 6 million people, and brutally tortured many more. Stalin was a Marxist (an atheistic philosophy) and under his cruel rain, over 20 million of his own people were killed. Pol Pot, same story, only 1.4 million Cambodians. How many Chinese died under Communist oppression? The list goes on and on and on.
So before one can blame religion for a body count, one first has to recognize and admit that if you really want to look at body counts, atheism has more than any religion of any time. Heck, in just the 20th century, there is a higher body count for atheism than probably all the previous centuries put together.
george carlin was a brilliant man who made people look at the world in a totally different light, he will be missed
John Henry DeJong: 2
Charlie:0
Luna,
Thank you for adding your obviously well-thought out and hard-studied commentary on the existing discussion. It is clearly obvious that you are a deep thinker. You present compelling evidence, and I'm forced to give you the stage. [/sarcasm]
You fail.
so not to laugh at stupidity or give them more reason to blabber on but... you cant condemn people for their crappy thoughts on humanity and say profanity and degrating humor isnt funny... youre reading f*in GM dave dude... wtf. if u didnt find it funny, you wouldnt be here so zip ur pie hole and go run for mayor.
Right....because we all know that just because someone finds objectionable material in something, he can't POSSIBLY find it funny at ALL.
It's not at all like people can read the parts they like and just kinda ignore the bad parts. It's not like God gave us a sense of discretion and discernment, after all!
Charlie - your original comment was
"To be honest, I really don't see the humor in just stringing together a bunch of profanities."
You can say whatever you like after the fact, but that first comment showed a complete failure to understand Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words" act. John accurately skewered that failure to understand. Your arguments afterwards, no matter how valid they may be, cannot overcome the fallacy of your original statement.
Meanwhile, Carlin was a very funny man both before and after "Seven Dirty Words."
Dude, you can swear on the internet you know... It's not a tribute to Carlin if it doeasnt contain the words uncencored.
Indeed, Charlie, your rhetoric, as impressive as it may be, does not excuse the inane and futile attempt you made at sounding magnanimous with your first comment.
I made no comment at you, by the by, so I don't really see where this hostility came from. I was just typing something down and giving myself a laugh, like we all do.
I just thought John's initial statement was spot on and I endorsed it with some egging-on on John AND Dave's behalf.
Carlin, in no way, ever HAD to resort to dirty language to make his point, or be funny. His material is funny with or without the words he uses. He was addressing the half-baked attitude people have toward them. John 'skewered' the point dead-on. And you cannot address these words without saying them.
Then you went on to talk about the crusades or something... I dunno, reading your writing is more mind-numbing then a then a Scottish lobotomy.
Though I will admit I do have my share of mental afflictions, the claims you boast on this public forum hint towards a much more disturbing ailment on your behalf. The fact that you put grass-smokers and child rapists in the same basket makes this painfully obvious.
I guess when YOU type things down, you're trying to give yourself an ego-induced erection, not a laugh.
And, quite frankly, saying that you don't swear or think swears... I am going to have to opine that you are a colossal liar.
But, I suppose the internet affords the forum, AND the anonimity, to turn a seemingly educated individual such as yourself into self-righteous prick. Like John said, if you review your arguements correctly, you are endorsing a manner of thought that equates misdemeanors to crimes against humanity.
Also, Atheism having a higher body count is debatable. You'll do well to remember that Hitler, as well as the Aryan majority, were deeply Catholic. And the church pretty much shut it's trap during the slaughter.
Atheism and religion may both have blood on their hands, but at least atheism doesn't try to boast to a higher, yet false, moral standard. It's the hypocrisy that is appalling.
No matter what kind of literary gun you pull out against my ignorant little mind, you shot yourself in the foot pretty early into the game. I'd rather be a intelligently ignorant that moronically educated like you.
No, sir, YOU fail. Completely and embarrasingly.
Post a Comment
<< Home