Who Is Worse: Louis CK or His Audience?

Louis CK

I couldn’t finish Louis CK’s leaked comeback set. He started with an extended rant about how much money he’s lost over the last year, which set the tone for everything after: rather than self-deprecating, his message was mainly self-pitying. He cast himself as hapless victim of an anonymous but massively powerful brigade bent on purging unwanted ideas. Then he drew the boundary wider to include his audience in the united front against the politeness police. I gave up, because I have a day job.

(On a side note: “leaked” by whom? The audio I heard popped so loudly, the recording obviously took place on or near the stage. Coupled with the sycophantic requests for support, I suspect the leaker was more than physically close to the artist.)

More interesting than the set itself, to me, was the fan comments written beneath the content. I couldn’t help noticing nobody quoted favorite jokes, which comedy fans often do. Nobody cited favorite moments that made them laugh. Instead, the “fans” praised CK’s “anti-PC” stance, called him a hero, and lauded his set’s political positions. The audiences who responded positively to him were mainly motivated by his stances, not his comedy.

These people didn’t come to CK’s set because they wanted to laugh, apparently; they wanted to hear their prejudices ratified. They wanted to hear somebody tell them what they’d already been thinking, and their existing thoughts were apparently: how dare anybody tell me I shouldn’t mock the powerless? I have a god-given right to kick the weak! Punching down, for this crew, isn’t a poor choice; it’s a moral imperative.

I recall Roger Ebert’s review of an Andrew Dice Clay performance movie. Ebert noted that audiences didn’t primarily laugh at Clay’s jokes, they hooted their approval of his underlying bias. Ebert compared Clay’s set to a fascist rally, inasmuch ashe didn’t surprise his audience, he mainly sold them back their pre-existing beliefs. The word “fascist” gets thrown around heedlessly anymore, but sometimes it applies: Louis CK and the Diceman focus on displays of strength, and on creating a designated outgroup.

British psychologist Edward de Bono, who coined the term “lateral thinking,” dedicates a chapter to the causes of laughter. We know people laugh at wordplay, slapstick, and weird juxtapositions. But, de Bono notes, many people also respond with laughter when presented with clever arguments, sudden insights, and the solution to difficult puzzles. Laughter, de Bono posits, is a response to having our minds widened. Humans laugh when we become deeper people.

Listening to CK’s set, I noticed the audience didn’t laugh. Not in the sense, anyway, of a deep, rocking sound originating from the diaphragm and radiating through the chest, shoulders, and larynx. Instead, I heard two principal sounds: throaty cackling and applause. People make these sounds when they feel vindicated: when they watch their football team score at home, for instance, or when someone on the opposite team trips over their shoelaces.

At last. Someone has finally gone after the two dominant groups in society: kids who survived gun massacres and people who identify as gender neutral. That lot have had it too easy for too long.

— Nish Kumar (@MrNishKumar) December 31, 2018

Applause in particular is a sign of approval. As a sometime theatre participant, I know the desire many performers share to hear the audience applaud. But many classic shows, like Death of a Salesman and The Diary of Anne Frank, didn’t cause audiences to applaud; crowds left the performances in shocked silence. Because they knew these shows exposed a layer of social rot in which they themselves had participated.

They didn’t applaud, because the shows left them feeling convicted, rather than vindicated.

Louis CK clearly wants the opposite response from his crowds. He doesn’t want audiences to laugh, because laughter means they’re growing; he wants them to applaud, because applause means they’re unified. And that, I posit, is the motivation of the anti-PC squadron: to build an impregnable fortress of moral rectitude where they can feel good about their shared power.

When Louis CK fell from popular grace eighteen months ago, I urged caution. Unlike others whose sexual misconduct was exposed, like Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein, he admitted his transgressions and didn’t make excuses. I thought, if there’s a situation where forgiveness applies, it might be here--though I conceded that depended on how he comported himself going forward.

Sadly, given the opportunity to repent and learn from his misdeeds, CK has chosen to dig down and show no repentance. Worse, he’s chosen to ally himself with the existing, dying power structure, plant himself on a platform, and punch downward. To judge by the comments section, there’s an audience eager to join him in the effort.

What a missed opportunity.