Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views :

Louis CK on Evolution

/
/
/
219 Views

It should be no secret that we love Louis CK and would happily post everything he does if it had to do with any of the topics of this site. Happily, this newest clip is about evolution! It’s an outtake from his new special, which comes out December 10. Enjoy!

Excerpt, for those at work:

I think evolution is responsible for why everything is the way it is. Some people don’t believe in evolution, some people don’t believe in it, and that’s okay, I don’t think they’re stupid, but I think that most people who argue against evolution, sound really stupid.

Because most people that argue against it, they say shit like, “Well I ain’t a monkey!”

“That’s not . . . no one said that you were . . .”

“Well my DADDY ain’t a monkey!”

“Do you just want to keep going back until you find a monkey? Did you read the thing? It doesn’t sound like you read it. It didn’t happen in 1972. Why are you fighting this?”

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest

27 Comments

  1. I love Louis CK. He’s one of the most intelligent, scathing, insightful comics working today. He makes me laugh and cry alternately. Anyone who hasn’t discovered his show should check it out.
    And no, I’m not being paid for this endorsement.
    Plus, he’s a redhead. I love me some redheads.

  2. Pretty funny. But did he really say that the human species is pasty-looking? The whole species?
    Also the idea that animal sex is rape is used by plenty of people to justify human sexual violence, so it’s not new and it’s potentially disturbing.
    That said, I’ve watched some of his other routines and thought he was very funny, and very smart.
    I can’t recommend this one, though.

    • This isn’t a classroom. It’s a stand-up routine. “pasty looking” fit the flow of the joke. If you listen to his other stuff, it’s obvious he knows that not everyone is white.

      Actually … he’s not exactly white himself. Did you know that he’s half Mexican?

      Also, he was talking about the differences between humans and other animals in that routine. When he says that he’s pretty sure animal sex is all rape, what he’s saying is that human sex is not. That was pretty clear. and quite clearly the complete opposite of what those rape-apologists claim.

    • Rape is rather common amongst some other animal species, and that fact doesn’t become less true because some idiot might argue that that makes rape “natural” and okay for humans to do. Louis CK takes the fact and turns it into something funny, subversive and anti-rape. I don’t have a problem with that.

        • Agreed. Rape is only rape because there’s an assumption that among humans we value an individual’s preferences and rights regarding their own bodies above others’ wants. That assumption doesn’t apply to most animals. Ditto for murder.

          • I disagree. There was a time where marital rape was not considered rape by most people AND THE LAW. The majority opinion on the morality of marital rape was that it wasn’t rape. Does that change the fact that it was sex involving an unwilling, unconsenting partner?

    • I should point out that while the idea that animal sex = rape is incorrect, rape is quite common in various animal species. Ducks are a good example: males often force themselves onto females, sometimes even drowning the female in the process. I think it is correct to call such behaviour rape, wouldn’t you? Of course, people who use examples such as this to justify rape, are just idiots.

      • If I watched a male duck drowning a female duck in an attempt to mate I would find it very disturbing, because it would feel like watching a human rape. But I still don’t think it would be appropriate to call it rape, which means something very specific, and only exists within a context where consensual sex is possible or normal, as Redsky said. Redsky’s murder parallel is also really apt.

        • Yeah, okay. I sort of agree, but, to come back to the example of ducks (and some other birds), consensual sex does exist and is generally the normal situation in these animals. Nevertheless ‘rape’ occurs. So, personnaly, I think the term can be applied when it occurs in animals in which the most common situation is a form of consensual sex. In fact, I can’t really think of an animal species in which ‘rape’ is the most common mode of reproduction.
          The problem is here, I think, that certain issues which apply to humans (like the value of an individuals preference mentioned by Redsky for example) can’t be applied to animals. Because of this, one could choose to apply a different term for animals. Perhaps it would indeed be better to stick to terms like coercive sex or forced copulations in the case of animals, but I think the term rape does make clear what is going on(despite it not being an ideal term to describe the behaviour of these animals).

          Did any of this make any sense? And my apologies if there are spelling/grammar errors in my comments. English isn’t my native language.

    • When I read that this is an outtake I was saddened, but now I understand and I support the decision to cut this part from the publication.

      I didn’t catch the racism though (shame on me), only read it here in the comments. What killed it for me was the rape-thing.

      Not because of the whole animal excuse, but because he portrayed rape as a female apathetically standing there and just taking it.
      Rape can be like this, but it makes it easy to minimise the violence involved in rape when such a subtle example is used.

      Also I don’t like rape jokes, even when they’re anti-rape. It just feels wrong to me and I appreciate when people are understanding of this sentiment.

    • Oh, totally.. I was trying to explain that but I think I failed. But I do think it makes it a much more poignant point when you consider that his first language was Spanish, not English. His experiences clearly gave him a really great perspective on the subject of race.

      • Definitely. The best comedians usually have quite a bit of experience and perspective to work from on their bits (even though there are a rare few that can work with things they aren’t very tightly bound up in).

        *I am a total comedy nerd*

          • You know Patrice O’Neal, who just passed? Everyone keeps talking about how great of a comic he was. But, he just wasn’t that great. He relied HEAVILY on sexism. “Men do that, women do this.” And I bet it’s because of his experience with men — and how the men he knew growing up treat women.

  3. I really enjoyed it until he said “humans are terribly designed” (or something like that). And that was when I cringed. Why did he use the word designed?? It completely negates the insight of his previous statements and any that follow. I realize that it is just one small statement but when you use the word “design” when speaking about evolution related concepts, it implies a “designer”…. Ruined the whole sketch for me.

    Anyone else notice that? And cringe??

    • Yeah, you’re being entirely too pedantic. Sometimes you just have to enjoy a joke without analyzing every bit and piece of it. “Design” worked with the flow of the joke. And it’s not supposed to be taken 100% literally.

      We’ve already covered the fact that rape might not be the right term to use for animals, but the idea of rape is what makes the joke. It’s what makes it funny. Because we are comparing human and animal behavior.

      It’s a joke. Not a classroom.

Leave a Comment

This div height required for enabling the sticky sidebar