Louis C.K.

So, they're linked because people you disagree with on one are statistically more likely to be people you disagree with on the other?

Notice that this is a) a generalization and b) completely unrelated to the actual individual in question. It's a conclusion about them based in the reactions of people other than them. You're coming to conclusions about this person based on what (you feel) other people generally think about each issue. How can that be described as anything other than prejudice?

How on earth does this demonstrate a link between the two?

Speculating that he may be leaning into conservative iconoclasm is fine and dandy. But it doesn't relate in any way to your seeming equation of "sexually harassed multiple women" with "made an edgy joke about shooting survivors," as if they were part of some kind of ideological continuum.

I recall us having a discussion very recently where I pointed out that "technically legal" isn't much of a defense, and that there are any number of issues in which you'd be the one making that point yourself. Frankly, the entire idea of systemic racism is based on the idea that the defense/distinction you're drawing right here is mostly meaningless, or at least not the only consideration.

It's very disconcerting how quickly seemingly core ideological rules get jettisoned in these discussions. Generalizations are bad...but white dudes are always something something. Judging people by their appearances is bad, but lol look at these fedora-wearing neckbeards all in lockstep on something or other. Legality is a crude baseline that misses how miserable a mob can make someone's life within the law...unless I don't like what they have to say, in which case the fact that it's technically legal means there's no issue.

I can potentially have a substantive and meaningful discussion with someone who holds nearly any ideology. But there's no discussion to be had with someone whose only ideology is "what helps me argue the point I'm arguing today?"

There's a lot of pretty blatant misrepresentation of these jokes going around, too. Examples:

The joke is explicitly about people who do not merely "request [to] be treated with respect," but with people who essentially demand it.

Now, you can argue that's not especially common, or at least not representative, or whatever. Or you can argue that no trans people should be joked about. But you can't just pretend the joke, which is explicitly about demands and ceases to make any sense if you pretend otherwise, is targeting humble requests for empathy.

The joke is not at all that it isn't "cool" to lobby for gun control. The joke is that a victim's moral authority doesn't translate into policymaking authority.

For the record, I don't particularly like what I've heard of the set. I find it more angry than funny and will be sorely disappointed if this is what his comedy sounds like going forward. His ability to offend equally while still finding truth and insight in controversial topics was one of his best qualities and he'll be ordinary at best if he abandons it for conservative iconoclasm. But geez, argue with what's actually being said, at least.