Louie CK: Any Liberal Who Doesn't Like Clinton "Piece of Shit" [Op-Ed]steemCreated with Sketch.

in politics •  8 years ago  (edited)

Louie CK Bought Babe Ruth's Hampton's Getaway For $2 million

I'm a Fan of Louie CK


First let me say that I believe Louie CK to be one of the, if not the, funniest people on Earth right now. Unfortunately for him when we consider the fact that intelligence is not an indicator of one's resistance to bias it becomes reasonable to assume that sense of humor isn't either and in the video below he proves this in a spectacular fashion. From a more meta perspective, all of the people sharing this video on social media are doing a great job of demonstrating their own biases. Note that my argument in this article has nothing to do with Donald Trump. If you think they do, you've found an excellent opportunity to examine your own confirmation bias.

The Evidence of Bias

The first piece of evidence which suggests that this is more of a display of bias than any kind of rational argument is that no rational argument is actually provided. The closest thing to a rational argument is when he says that she should be President because she is a Mother. Not only is this objectively sexist (as a man is biologically incapable of being a mother), but it is also not an argument for Hillary Clinton to be President. By this "logic" any Mother should be President. Well, except a Republican mother, no doubt. That being said, based on CK's stated criteria for President it does sound like any Mother whom he likes, and who he thinks is "great" would qualify.

But He's Just a Comedian

But surely I am reading too much into this. After all, he's a comedian, it's not his job to make rational arguments. Well it's a good thing, because he's not good at making them. And what does this say about the countless people sharing this video on social media? Are they sharing it because they think it's funny or because they think he's right? Most would probably say both.

People share information when it resonates with them and it seems to me that CK's argument does a very good job of articulating the sentiments of the average Clinton supporter. I say "Clinton supporter" because CK is, in fact, in a minority when it comes to his beliefs. Most people do not like Hillary Clinton but he does. Even among registered democrats her unfavorability rating is incredibly low at 37%. That means that more than one third of democrats don't like her despite in-group bias! To give you a reference point, Obama's approval rating among democrats is around

86%. But she's great! ... Because a comedian says so. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YLPKepuaMp8/Vio6Fyv6HII/AAAAAAAC8qg/hdxINmrdGAU/s1600/1.jpg In-Group Bias Is Still a Thing This shouldn't come as a surprise though as CK lives in New York City, a heavily liberal and democratic city. Therefore CK's affinity for Clinton is easily explicable by the fact that the majority of people around him are going to vote for Clinton and were statistically predetermined to vote for whomever was offered up to them by the DNC. How often does CK hear the side of the people who support Trump and how often does he hear the side of people who support Clinton? Just listen to the cheers of the audience members (possibly in response to a subtle "applause" light). Clearly not a lot of conservatives, republicans, Texans, etc. in that audience, but at the same time CK doesn't see the absence of people, he sees unambiguous confirmation of his beliefs. David McRaney, author of the book You Are Not So Smart explained it quite presciently: Confirmation bias is seeing the world through a filter, thinking selectively. The real trouble begins when confirmation bias distorts your active pursuit of facts. Punditry is a whole industry built on confirmation bias. Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann, Glenn Beck and Arianna Huffington, Rachel Maddow and Ann Coulter – these people provide fuel for beliefs, they pre-filter the world to match existing world-views. If their filter is like your filter, you love them. If it isn't, you hate them. I Like Her Because This filter can be seen clearly when he states, "I think she's great. I really like her. I think she's really talented. I think she's super smart..." Again, most people do not like Hillary Clinton, so CK is in the minority and gives no meaningful explanation as to why he likes her. Obviously I have no way of knowing for sure, but it seems apparent to me that this behavior is a consequence of the fact that the majority of people he knows would have no problem with this statement, so he feels no need to elaborate. To him it seems self-evident because, though a conclusory statement, it is a commonly held belief among his people. This psychological phenomenon is called the false consensus bias (or effect). In short, we don't feel the need to back up claims that everyone we know agrees with and this is a perfectly rational heuristic. It's a waste of time (i.e. resources) to question claims we all agree on. The question is, who is "we?" The Sharers This also explains why so many people are willing to share the video despite the fact that there is no seriously insightful commentary within it. One cannot defend CK by claiming, "he's just a comedian, one shouldn't expect rational commentary," and then defend themselves for sharing it by claiming that they appreciate the rational commentary within. The people who share this video are clearly sharing it because he agrees with them, not because he is an expert or because he presents a powerful and rational argument in defense of his claims. This is further illustrated by what defense CK gives. He thinks she's great. He likes her. He thinks she's talented. These are all extremely vague concepts that cater well to confirmation bias, but offer zero genuine insight. Someone who agrees with CK will come up with ways that she's "great" all on their own. They aren't, for example, likely to think, "She is great at putting national secrets at risk by using a private email server, " or, "She is great at covering her tracks by using BleachBit to erase said server," or. "She is great at getting the FBI not to investigate her for crimes they basically admitted she committed, and then overwhelming them with so much additional evidence of wrongdoing that they are forced to reopen the case." Am I Biased? Yes Someone reading this who is ruled by confirmation bias is no doubt screaming at their computer screen that my interpretation is heavily biased as well. Congratulations, your bias has convinced you that my beliefs are the same as those expressed by a fictional person who exists in a hypothetical designed to prove a point, not to disclose my own personal political opinions. My opinion on Clinton's alleged crimes is that I would like to see a fair and unbiased investigation conducted by an uncorrupted law enforcement agency. If that is too much to ask for then I suggest we reconsider what we are focusing our attention on. Is She Great and Talented? Since it is rather difficult to even suss out whether a Secretary of State has done a good job because much of their work is classified and many of the policies that are implemented are not solely at their discretion, it is more likely that Clinton supporters would fill in this confirmation bias gap with platitudes that equate to her not directly and irrefutably plunging us into World War III, even though there is a perfectly reasonable argument to be made that her involvement in Syria is doing precisely that. It reminds me of when conservatives defended Bush for allegedly preventing terrorist attacks after 9/11, while ignoring that he was unable to prevent the largest terrorist attack on US soil from occurring in the first place. "He's good at preventing terrorist attacks ... just not the ones that happen." If You Don't Vote ... You're A Piece of Shit The icing on the cake of CK's non-argument is his claim that if you don't vote, "You're a piece of shit." Here again, confirmation bias allows the liberal to say simultanesously, "He's just joking ... but he's right." These are the same people who like to drone on about how we should have compassion for everyone and we should recognize the common humanity in all (which we should by the way), but when it comes to their own ideologies, like everyone else they resort to name calling and demonization. He does not say, for example, "That you should vote because your vote matters" because that is absolutely moronic. One vote in a few hundred million is statistically irrelevant. The only reason to vote is if people have convinced you that to not vote makes you a bad person and CK is certainly doing his best to promote that meme. https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/58196777.jpg Louie's Strawman CK really demonstrates his unfitness for commenting on such matters when he appeals entirely to a strawman argument when defending his claim that any liberal who doesn't vote is a "piece of shit." Despite the plethora of legitimate issues, including at the very least an official FBI investigation, CK decides to say that the reason these liberals won't vote for her is because she "has an annoying voice" and they just don't "like" her and he presents this information in a shrill, mocking voice, so you know he's not being juvenile. He then goes on to tell these people to "grow up," this coming from a man who just personified them as whining morons whose argument is literally a mirror image of his own. When he says he "likes" her that's enough for him, but when other people don't like her (again the majority of Americans) they're "pieces of shit." He then goes on to say, "We need a two-faced, conniving, crazy, someone who's just got a million crazy schemes, and by the way all of her shit is out there, every email she ever wrote is in the newspapers and she's not in jail which is amazing. But we need a tough bitch mother who nobody likes." Presumably this is how he rationalizes ignoring the pleas of liberal Bernie Sanders supporters who have ample evidence to claim that Clinton and the DNC colluded to subvert the Sanders campaign. This just supports his narrative that she is the "good" kind of two-faced, conniving, crazy, scheming, tough bitch who nobody likes. The cognitive dissonance is absolutely staggering, especially considering this was clearly a bit he thought out beforehand. First he says he likes her, then he admits"nobody" likes her. When presenting the position of those who do not support Clinton he claims that it's because they just don't like her or her voice, but when explaining why she should be President he argues that it's precisely because she is "two-faced, conniving, crazy" with "a million schemes" and by his own admission has miraculously eluded jail. And after all of this he has the gall to criticize anyone who doesn't want to vote for this person who, given his own description of her is obviously heinous. This highlights what really bothers me about meaningless drivel such as this. Louie CK's vote does matter because he gets to tell millions of people about it. It does, in fact, make sense for elites (people who are rich and powerful) to promote the idea that your vote matters (and again it is a statistical certainty that it does not and anyone who cares to disprove this can feel free to present a mathematical proof to the contrary) because if you listen to them you are more likely to vote the same way as them and so amplify their vote. Elites Always Support The Status Quo Candidate It also should come as no surprise that members of the elite support establishment candidates because the status quo has gifted them with their elite status. Of course, CK supports Clinton, he doesn't want anything to change! Things are working out just fine for him. Just don't talk to any member of the working class whose livelihood was decimated by the global trade policies spearheaded by the Clintons. Morally speaking I believe it is questionable to manipulate people in this way, but it would be relatively defensible if the given member of the elite were leveraging this power to promote a rational argument. He did not. Instead, undoubtedly without knowing, Louie CK is using his platform as a comedian (i.e. not an expert on who should or shouldn't be President) to spread personal propaganda. What Makes Someone a Member of the Elite? This is why we see elites acting in consistent ways that are often detrimental to the common good or consensus. CK of course would not consider himself to be a member of the .1% or the elite, despite the fact that his income clearly puts him there. To him the elite are probably "bankers" and "republicans" but not Wall Street enablers like Clinton. But the elite are people who use their massive influence to push their own agenda, and in this video CK is doing just that. I Still Like CK While this is not one of CK's finer moments, I still think he's funny, and what he's doing is perfectly human. There are evolutionary reasons for succumbing to our biases and one of the consequences of these influences are that there is always an elite. Hopefully some day CK will look back on this moment with regret and remember that the most valuable service he provides to the public is using comedy to question social norms, not using his influence to promote ideas that are clearly outside his realm of expertise. Hopefully he will glean from this moment in his life the only rational thing worth gleaning: that these are precisely the mechanisms through which powerful people rationalize and legitimize their use of power to subvert the will of the "ignorant masses." That being said another feature of the elite is that their will inevitably crumbles when face-to-face with the will of the people. https://youtu.be/MFOkBnYGfIM https://img1.steemit.com/0x0/https://steemimg.com/images/2016/10/12/Closingtext3ddb5.jpg / https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/obama-job-approval-democrats

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

He is a funny guy, and his social commentary, expecially when it comes to children, is usually spot on. Funny things happen when people, celebrities most of all, when politics are involved. People who are not independents, Libertarians and anarchists tend to pick sides. (see my own bias in action?) This red team blue team shit has brought us to a really bad place in America today, and people suspend their ability to think rationally when its red-team blue-team time. People become so emotionally invested in someone they have never met they lose their brains. Between this irrational false choice of two sides, and the incessant overreach of today's corporate media, we have reached the cliff. People like Louis CK are in a bubble. People like Hillary are in an ever more insulated bubble. No ideas are challenged by their peers, no thought they have goes any sort of reality filter, they are permanently surround by "yes-men" and all they hear all day is that every idea they have is great, and that the way they want things is perfect.

This piece is spot-on, and I think Louis is a symptom of the problem, not the cause, and certainly not the cure.

Very well said

@andrarchy I haven't read your post yet but I will.

I've seen all of CK stand up specials, most of his other stand up shorts, interviews and watch more than 50% of his TV shows.

I love your comment @cavemanrob. My take on this clip from louis is I don't think anyone is allowed to say all they really want on national television and from what I know from Louis I would be very surprise if what he said in this clip is his real stance on the matters he's talking about.

I'm not saying I'm holding any truth. These are just my 2 Steems on this.

I love his work, and so much of it is thought-provoking. This... well, it wasn't my favourite.

I like this video that expands on the old idea that "The jester is the only one who can tell the truth."

Haha hell yea. Louis Ck, Bill Burr, Bill Hicks, George Carlin = The Best. A fine point you've made though, comedians like these tend to let their mouths run at times. Pre-meditated acts definitely go a lot better for them than to be placed on the spot and expected to give a serious answer for these lads. In a way, Louis Ck is reckless about the situation probably because he really doesn't care that much. A comedians goal is to make people laugh about stuff, whereas getting down into heavy details about politics can often bore the public and give them reason to believe you're just another pretentious fool.

Interesting this post was as the top of my feed. I actually watched this video last night and what he said really pissed me off. As someone who chooses not to vote it really irritates me when people take the route of saying "you're a ____ if you don't vote". I think what people often forget is that voting in the United States is a right not an obligation. No different than my right to bear arms, it's a choice and not a requirement. Minus those who have lost their rights, having the right includes the right to not partake in said event.

This coupled with a radio advertisement I heard on the radio today basically saying the same thing "you're a piece of shit if you don't vote" almost lead me to going on facebook and ranting about the subject. I'm not one to discuss anything on facebook so that would of been out of my norm.

This shit pisses me off and I unfortunately like CK less now because of it.

Amen. Couldn't agree more. It's just a religious ritual that legitimizes the status quo. I mean, imagine we could only vote for one person and we chose not to vote? Would we be pieces of shit then too? Oh no, but we have TWO glorious choices. That changes everything (facepalm)

I concur on the funniest comedian alive comment. Love watching both his stand up and his TV show. Something I've noticed about myself is that the same thing I and other people don't like about Donald Trump, his unabashed and crude public criticism of others, is exactly the same thing I'm laughing at when Louis CK tears into a heckler or some politician he doesn't like. The only difference is that Donald Trump isn't funny and I don't like his style. I would be lying to myself if I didn't at least think about that and realize that I'm basically endorsing the behavior in one case and denouncing it in another simply based upon the feels. I'll finish this comment up by saying that I'm glad that I don't base my opinions on political issues on the commentary of comedians. It's a bit upsetting to me that LOT of people today do.

That is a REALLY good observation that I never considered. It reminds me of an episode of the "Trews" (Russell Brand's show) I saw recently where he was criticizing Trump for the whole "Grab them by the pussy" comment and I was just dumbfounded. Here was this supposedly enlightened comedian, former sex addict, acting like he hasn't made far more "offensive" statements. Just a quick youtube search finds him shamelessly hitting on women, talking about sexual acts, and making lude gestures. But like you said, I guess because he feels he's a comedian and those are just "jokes" it's different than when Trump says it in private. But I mean, you can't seriously tell me that out of all the presumably hundreds of women Russell Brand has had intercourse with he never ONCE placed his hand on a woman's privates without their express permission? That is obviously not true. But Brand's confirmation bias enables him to see Trump's situation as different, but little does he know he's just word-policing because what they really mean to say is that they don't like the way he SAID it.

Donald Trump did a better job promoting Hillary, than Louie CK did at Conan, when he said at the end of the second debate something to the effect that she was determined and that she never give up. How did she complimented him back? By talking about his kids. That is beside the point and kind of like going for a job interview and answering perfectionnist when being asked about your worst shortcoming ( I know, I used to say that in the past). Trump even nodded during the debates when he agreed with some of her points, so he sometimes seemed fair and she didn't really (my bias?) except maybe when she said she did a mistake with the emails which is in my opinion understating her failures for someone running for the highest holder of public office and trust.

I know nothing of Louie CK's career and it's not because I'm french Canadian because I know of George Carlin & Bill Hicks humour. Maybe it's only because I haven't got the chance to come around it, but just by that little sample I do not feel compelled to watch some of his stuff because to me that doesn't live up to the great American political humour I learned to enjoy and which we unfortunately lack in quality here in french in Quebec province. Ok, that wasn't a stand-up comic performance he was doing but still he looked like someone who can't be serious for one second even when trying to make a point about a political issue and the thing is it wasn't funny a bit. And if someone was to say that he was trying to articulate an argument by saying she is less corrupt than juvenile people would think or it's okay to make illegal things when it's in plain sight, I don't get it either. As for the mother thing: was he trying to advocate the nanny state instead of just playing the she's a woman card?

One thing I heard today is that young people often vote for the change candidate and this year it's Trump who is this type of candidate still in the race (unlike Sanders). So Louie CK's saying that young people should go to vote, and for Clinton, will probably fall into deaf ears.