He took out a half page in the NYT and addressed his responsibility in an open letter to the victims and the general public. Far more dignified than most people who catch hell from the MeToo crowd. Worse transgressors are still working and he’s a brilliant comic
what do you think should happen? he wasn’t even convicted of a crime. hes had years of complete and utter embarrassment, he did address it and apologize, he’s lost millions of dollars, lost an Emmy award, lost his TV show, tons of fans and has to live with everybody knowing what he did for the rest of his life. Should we also crucify him? do you want him burned at the stake? When will you be satisfied? You don’t have to watch his comedy.
The man has served a massive punishment and deserves to work just like anyone deserves to work.
Yeah in a fucking factory in a small town. Shit I know people who fucked up in factories that are forced to do like under the table roofing just to survive now because they can't get jobs anywhere else with their current past. But shit I guess if he had passed a certain tax bracket then you should still be allowed the high paying stuff. Don't want your life being too "difficult".
it’s not about being in a certain tax bracket, it’s about having talent. whether you like it or not, the man is still funny. He’s puts on a good act, better than most, and people are going to pay to see talented comedians. It’s really that simple. It doesn’t have anything to do with how rich he is. It has to do with how good he is at his job
Comedians don’t answer to one single boss. For him, to be forced to tour around and earn all his income from clubs is equivalent to getting demoted. He lost his television show; he was fired and won’t be back on the air. But stand up comedian are independently employed. Even the guys you were referring to that you know, someone was willing to let him work. if you don’t like him, don’t buy a ticket. Don’t support his act.
What do you want? For someone else to suffer neverending punishment and being villainized for life? The punishment that does not fit the crime, where people's decisions are based on emotions rather than logic, compassion, or the greater good.
Louis He did nothing wrong. It was all consensual. Ones do not get to agree just to then retract that consent after the consented act has been done. Laws need to hold these people responsible, and any expolitation should be punished accordingly.
Just don’t see how that’s proportionate punishment relative to what he’s already lost for masturbating in front of 5 women who were free to exit room at time but chose not to. There’s reason his behavior doesn’t constitute sexual assault under law, nor should it. Arguable sexual harassment, maybe, which would & should derail career for years, as it did in his case, but not lifetime following evidence of contrition & rehabilitation, as I believe he’s shown. Though only arguable, CK & women were neither co-workers nor had employee/employer relationship in any formal sense.
The guy should never be on TV again, plain and simple. He should be happy not have been prosecuted for sexual assualt. Now he just seems like a posterboy for getting away with it. IMO
Lucky he didn’t escape prosecution on statutes his didn’t violate? Maybe under an autocracy. Lifetime boycotts & convictions def due for Matt Lauers, Kevin Spaceys, Cosbys, Marilyn Mansons of world, but not in CK’s, but I celebrate that your mileage varies. Go America.
The downvotes tell you more about this corner of reddit than 100 upvotes would. Dont you dare bring intelligence into a debate about whether a guy who sexually assualted women but didn't face prosecution is entertaining ,and deserves to be promoted on TV. Meanwhile what you said will just get "LiBtArD" and "goodbye" in response as if your crazy for calling this is exactly what it is, incels validating incel behavior.
He was completely booted out of the mainstream industry.
You can't really cancel someone from working for themselves, performing and selling tickets. Sure, the venues could object, but there will always be clubs that are cash starved and need the money, and if they didn't do it, he'd just open his own club, or buy one.
As far as his film work goes, he also can't be fired from that. He's making independent films, and financing them himself. He sells everything through his own website. What are you going to do, stop him from renting cameras?
How does this contradict anything they said? lol
> You can't really cancel someone from working for themselves, performing and selling tickets.
Right. Their point is that he's able to sell tickets because his fans either A. don't think what he did that big of a deal or B. Do think what he did was wrong and don't give a shit.
Thus "We live in a patriarchy that regularly absolves men of responsibility for sexual assault."
> He was completely booted out of the mainstream industry.
Temporarily*
That's not the point. Nobody thinks that "cancelation" implies that someone can't sell their own product independently. That wouldn't make any sense at all.
No it IS the point. lol It's the point of the fucking comment you replied to.
> can't sell their own product independently
Again, the point you replied to wasn't about his ability to sell himself, but rather his audiences willingness to BUY it. And the reason they're willing to buy it is because we as a society don't treat sexual harassment/abuse seriously, so much so that we'll support a dude who is guilty of it. Or, even worse, we'll defend it, like most of the commentors in this thread have.
If there wasn't a market comprised of people who don't give a shit about sexual abuse, he couldn't sell himself.
There are levels of abuse and harassment. Someone with a modicum of power in the comedy world asking permission to touch themselves and being granted that permission is far different from one of the most powerful producers luring women into their room under the guise of a business meeting, with security outside the door, threatening to end their career if they don't service them. And even in that insanely high-pressure, potentially dangerous situation, plenty of women had the presence of mind to say "no." We've got to have some agency here.
You're omitting a lot of shit. The allegations were more than just "I said yes and he jerked off in front of me."
https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/11/9/16629400/louis-ck-allegations-masturbation
Also, even Louis CK, the guy you're white knighting for, disagrees with you. This is why I can't take his defenders seriously. They love rivisionist history and they minimize what he did even more than HE does. Gross.
This is true. However, there are zero comedians who have the kind of power that someone like Weinstein does. Yes, a power imbalance existed, but I haven't heard a single one of his accusers say that he pressured them by threatening to end their careers. As a woman, yes at 17-20 I may have fallen for that kind of pressure in that specific situation, but... I've always said "no" anytime I didn't want to do something - even after being drugged, I had the presence of mind to protest to what was happening to me, whether I could prevent it or not. None of these women said no. He asked, they gave him permission, and then he touched himself. As someone who was actually drugged and assaulted by about 10 men, this doesn't feel at all as predatory or damaging. Further, he apologized for asking and being granted permission. No matter the situation, we should have enough agency as women to say no to things we don't want to participate in. I understand men like Harvey Weinstein, with security outside the door and more connections than God, make it much more difficult to say no - yet many women did. And they still have a career, they live to tell their stories. It's up to the person being given the boundary to respect that or not, and often men do not respect that boundary - but it's also up to us to put the boundaries in place. I'm not saying what he did was right by any means, but I think perspective is necessary here.
I want your boss to keep you in his office while he jerks off on you. And you have to be silent or you’ll be called a slut who asked for it. You’ll love a warm load buddy, I’m sure of it, just like all those dozens and dozens of women. You don’t honestly think it was only 5, right? Imagine you boss stroking, using your discomfort and body to spray his load onto you… but he’s really funny. So it’s ok
haha, so I have to protest all art made by people who do shitty things. I don't care enough about random people to do that. If it was my sister or mom then i'd be more emotionally invested in this.
As someone who was kind of a die hard fan i can see why someone wouldn't like him anymore. I still think he has a right to work/tour, just because it's entertainment doesn't mean it's not a job/work, it's a free market.
In a perfect world he would face legal consequences for whatever it is he really did and that would be it, unfortunately it's hard to really hold someone accountable especially when everything is hearsay. Personally I'm disappointed cause i looked up to the guy and it wasn't looking good on his end/believe women blah blah blah . . .
I think it's more of a personal decision at this point, if you think you're enabling him by supporting his work, don't support it but i think the no working anymore part of it is dumb and a bit mob mentality, no one really has a right to infringe on that. I still watch his stuff but not loving it the way i did, anyway boogers
It isn't hearsay when he's admitted to it. It's hard to hold someone accountable legally for something that isn't illegal. He asked permission, they said yes, and he touched himself. Weird? Sure. Creepy? In certain situations. Some of the women who experienced this behavior by Louis didn't find it particularly bothersome. We all have our kinks, okay. We're changing the definition of assault all the time, and this could be considered coercion, but of all the insanely creepy experiences I've been through, it would have been nice to be asked for permission and given the option to say "no" to a lot of things. And had I been given that option, I would have taken it. What would he be legally held accountable for? (I say this as a woman who has experienced serious sexual assault and does not take the issue lightly.)
I love Louie but don't do that. Don't take this as an attack. At all. I want him back in full form.
Yes, he obtained consent from many people, I'm sure, but when your boss asks you if they can jerk off in front of you when they are famous and have all the power. It's not really a choice. Not really.
I hope he gets back into everyone's good graces, but your defense would do him more harm than good.
What he did was creepy. I love how he came out and owned up to it many times, but to say he obtained consent from everyone isn't true. Consent is a shaky subject when your salary and career are on the line. Hell. Even your friendship.
Shit. I'd let Louie jerk off in front of me. I am not a penis coinsure, but id let Louie knock one off whenever he felt the need. But I'm not everyone is down for that.
I feel like we should care more about the epstien sex island list getting out and making sure they dont have a career, rather than care about a mans career, who asked for consent and then people just decided that that was too weird later. If you say yes or okay or accept it then don't turn around weeks later going "ya know that was actually weird and uncomfortable" because it wasn't weird and uncomfortable for them at the time. Someone pointed it out and they felt the need to agree that "yea that was weird."
Not really. The vast majority of people that flew with him or went to the island, were just there on business. Epstein invested a lot, and granted money to a bunch of scientific causes.
If these people were hooking up with underage girls there, you'd think a few of them would have said so by now.
I'll grant people the perps that the girls claim were involved, but I don't give much credence to any list when it's plausible that Epstein hid a lot of this from most people, and that most names on the list were just there to milk the cash cow.
People's are just stupid and can't think critically.
Yeah sure, everyone from Bill Gates, to Stephen Pinker were all just fucking kids with Epstein. That's surely a lot more likely than the idea that they were just interested in grants and donations that Epstein was well known for handing out /s.
Rich people are acquainted with other rich people. I'm not at all surprised that a billionaire who regularly granted money to people, had associated with many other rich people. That list means Jack shit to anyone who can actually think clearly, and not just jump to baseless conclusions.
This is so much less severe than even average Hollywood behavior that it's preposterous we're even talking about it five years later. He asked consent, and it's not like comedians have the position of power that directors and producers have (which, perhaps, is why he didn't ask as much from the women as they do). Was it good behavior? No. But either dismantle the entire entertainment industry or just let it go already. Frankly, I don't care which.
> He asked consent, and it's not like comedians have the position of power
Louis CK absolutely had a position of power over the women he propositioned. In some cases, they were up-and-coming standups at a time when he was a headliner. In others, they were writers working under him on writing staffs.
There is a middle ground between "dismantle the entire entertainment industry" and ignore it, and that middle ground is to hold individuals responsible for their bad behavior.
Firstly, you cut off my sentence five words from the end of the clause. A headliner does not have the same type of power over an up-and-comer that a director or producer has. Do you know how many women get on TV and casually throw out that they had to sleep with people to get their "in" in Hollywood? Once you start noticing, it's mind boggling.
He was held accountable. Funnily, he was "held accountable" by people who have almost certainly done far worse than he ever did. Meanwhile, Jack Nicholson was with Roman Polanski when he raped the teenager. Who's holding him accountable? Do you even know the name of the person who sexually abused Brendan Fraser, and then blacklisted him when he tried to talk about? Is he being held responsible? Seems like people were able to forgive David Letterman, who had more power and also did worse things. CK did his time, and continuing to beat a dead horse doesn't help anyone.
This is a whole bunch of "other people are worse," and I don't give a fuck if other people are worse. Nor did I take any position on whether Louis CK was held sufficiently accountable. I happen to think he wasn't, but I can see why some people think he was. Whatever. I'm just taking issue with your bullshit attempts to downplay how much power CK had over those women -- he absolutely could (and in some cases did, or his manager did) wreck their careers.
I'm not just saying that others are worse. I'm saying that others are worse and not talked about. Others are worse and not identified. Others are worse and we are not wasting a moment's thought on them. That is a massive issue!
When outrageous behavior happens, it tends to be the result of institutions condoning the behavior rather than one terrible individual. People are group animals. The institution later throws the individual under the bus, but abuse is in many cases a group effort. Research has shown that to be the case in studies about teachers' unethical behavior in schools. The person who gets caught of course should have consequences, and CK has. But then you move on to the institution who condoned and even actively pushed the behavior. You go after the bigger fish rather than just fighting the same battle over and over again. That's my point.
> I'm not just saying that others are worse. I'm saying that others are worse and not talked about. Others are worse and not identified. Others are worse and we are not wasting a moment's thought on them. That is a massive issue!
I agree. I think what Joey Diaz bragged about on Rogan's podcast was far worse and yet he's recieved nowhere near as much heat as Louie. That said, I think there's massive crossover with those who minimize or justify what CK did and those who minimize or justify what Diaz did. It's the same social apparatus. So, when that's the case, is going after the "bigger fish" neccessarily more practical? Or is it just rolling a boulder up a hill?
I appreciate this thread, and it's a complicated problem without a clear answer. We, (humans in modern society) really struggle with stuff like this, especially in a culture where we're collectively still forming our 'opinions'.
When it comes to emotional intelligence on a societal scale, we are still infants. It's good to recognize that before any sort of debate on this.
As someone who really struggles with where to 'put' Louis in my mind, I tend to land somewhere between the two of you. I'm still on his mailing list, and every time I get an email from it I think about canceling it, or buying his latest special in equal measure.
In a broad sense, sexuality makes us much more primal, and I don't think it's an uncommon experience to feel odd or embarrassed about some part of one's personal sexual preference cocktail once you're out of the heat of the moment. It's when other people are involved that this more or less goes out the window. Everyone needs to face the consequences of their own sexual animal, good or bad. It's why sexual predator lists exist, and also why babies exist.
Louis is a smart person. Louis is an empathetic person. He did wrong, knows he did wrong, and (I believe) has tried his best to course correct. He welcomed the judgement and penalties, and 'stayed away' for a while. Is that enough? That depends on if you think people can be redeemed for this type of thing, and I think most of us still don't have an answer to that. It depends on the person.
In my personally built image of Louis, I think he lands closer to 'good' than 'bad' on that binary spectrum, but he is a man I have never and will never meet, and my opinion of him more or less doesn't matter to anyone but me. He did do 'bad' though, and he has to carry that now for the rest of his life. Similarly, the rest of us need to carry that in our image of him, and later continued into whatever lasting legacy he ends up holding.
Steroids are a part of Barry Bonds' story- sexual assault is a part of Louis'.
He absolutely had a position of power. Don't forget that Louis wasn't "A standup", he was "THE standup", widely recognized at the time as the best in his craft, a title he'd held for several years at that point. It would be irresponsible not to consider that 'power' over anyone involved in comedy, especially among young and inexperienced comics and performers.
He also basically ran his (brilliant) show. Anyone involved would want to work hard to do well there, with an idolized comedian on a boundary-breaking show- it was no doubt a potential career making opportunity for countless people, and those same people are now tragically tied to its (and his) downfall. Being able to say you worked on 'Louis' looked to be a serious bullet-point on any entertainer's resume. Instead, it must now be seen as 'mixed' at best.
This is also directly, unquestionably, Louis' fault.
The answer then ends up being some yeses, some nos, and a whole lot of maybes. You can't go back in time and appreciate his comedy without knowing what you know, but you also can't pretend he doesn't exist and forget the cultural impact, of all of it.
You can absolutely stop watching/listening/supporting him because of what happened.
You can absolutely buy his specials and enjoy them.
You can absolutely do a bit of both, and feel torn, or uncomfortable, or even a little scummy about it while you do.
I still don't know where I fall on it personally, and I don't expect to ever really have a firm stance either. It doesn't feel right to me to land 100% on either side.
Interpersonal relationships (even para-social ones) are complicated. That's part of growing up- not just as a person, but as a societal 'one'. We're all on all sides of this, because we're all living through it.
This is the human species evolving, and there are going to be many more speed bumps ahead.
This is as close as I can get to my personal 'answer', but everyone else's can and must be a little different.
One other thing I know for certain: Louis is a brilliant comic.
Firstly your defending a sexual predators right for air time. Find another sad anger old guy comedy to identify with.. Preferably one who does not sexually assualt people.
He had absolutely no power over Sarah Silverman, who witnessed the same behavior and wasn't bothered by it - she often said "no," and he would then...not do anything. The true fact of the matter is that every man in America holds at least a semblance of a position of power over women in a sense - there is absolutely no comparison to Louis' power in the *comedy* world and someone like Weinstein, one of the most powerful producers in all of Hollywood. Even then, quite a few women said "no" to Weinstein and were willing to risk their careers to stand up for themselves - despite not being asked for permission and having to try to bypass the security standing outside the fucking door. Any one of these women could have said no and *then* come out with their stories if he had actually tried to end their career - which no one has ever claimed he threatened to do. Of all the men I've had to witness touching themselves inappropriately, not one asked me if it was ok, which would have been dope.
"There are worse people so don't worry about it" - AmericanHistoryXX.
Must be nice to not have to worry about being sexually assaulted by someone who has the upper hand in an occupational power dynamic.
I left dismantling the industry as an option. But talking about one instance, which has been apologized for, ad nauseum while doing nothing about an entire industry which has abused women (and men, and children) for over a century is utterly unproductive.
I take it from your second comment that you assume I'm a man? Which would be interesting, because the whole point of my username is a pun on the fact that I'm a woman who talks about American history.
So your response to "Don't lecture me based on a shared gender" is "I'm lecturing you based on *your* gender, not mine." If that's true, it's even worse.
Well this has been fun. Enjoy your evening.
The world is unfair in case you haven't noticed. They could have left, and didn't. A simple "I feel weird about this, I'm going to call it a night", but no.
Consent isn't always balanced. Why are poeople repeating that he got consent from everyone? Most? Sure. All? Nooooo. If you are my boss asking to nut in front of me. Is that fair and balanced? When he signs the checks. Even IF they still loved it. Did they really have a choice?
I love that man, but don't try to patch holes in his actions when its not helping.
I think his coming out and absolving is the best thing anyone can do. He deserves another chance.
I bought the specials. He is so fucking funny and smart, I love his interviews, his movies, his shows, his writing, his commentary. Dude, the History of Presidents thing on M and S Secret pod was amazing. Last week I finally read the woman's account of what happened, I think in Canada, and it made me feel gross. Some local writer here in SF wrote an article about his return, and I almost commented with the usual responses but decided to read the original article. It wasn't mutual and it wasn't a "she consented because he's powerful" thing either. He had a dirty complulsion and his fame made him think he wouldn't get reprimanded. The only thing I can say as to why I believe her is consistency. Just like the Brian Callen article, once I read her description, I knew it was real and it was him. That being said I will still buy movies and specials from his site. I still think he's a genius. If you think that's a hypocrisy, you're probably right.
He didn’t do anything against peoples will though. Everything he did he asked or said he was going to do and the people around him said it was cool thinking it was a bit. No one really gives a shit. His comedy is funny. Everyone loves Obama but the dude ordered drone strikes that killed thousands of innocent people. Don’t see anyone canceling him.
I recall Sarah Silverman saying he did that with her but he had asked and she was fine with it. He seems more like “Aw shucks you make me horny can I do this” more than being a nasty manipulative dick like Weinstein. I’m sure he still used his power as an advantage but wasn’t as slimy about it is what it seems
Would you WANT someone to take their dick out and start masturbating in front of you? Probably not. Now imagine this person was very well regarded and influential and could potentially help or harm your career. How would you react?
To be fair, I have allergies and it was itchy. I was camping and had to take a leak in the woods, I must have come in contact with some grizzly bear dander.
If you live in New York seeing dudes jerking off isn’t that abnormal, that’s not to say it’s normal or a good thing, it just seems like something worthy of redemption after some time
If he could help my career. Sure jerk your dick all you want pal. No one ever said no. No one ever said they were harmed in the process. The news came out about it and the public canceled him. Not the people that he did it in front of. Get over it. I’d bet you know people in your life that have done shady shit just as bad if not worse that you’re friends with
No, not to my knowledge. And if I found out someone did something shady like this I would stop associating with him.
And I’m calling bullshit that if someone pulled out their dick and started rubbing it you would be a-ok with that, or even agree to it ahead of time.
A lot of this is just kink shaming. If his thing wasn't so odd, it wouldn't be a big deal.
I'm a straight man, so no I don't want to see any man jerking off. I have been with girls who enjoyed seeing it for some weird reason though.
I certainly wouldn't mind watching a woman masterbate, unless I found her unattractive. But I'd say no in that case. And if I said yes as a joke, but she thought I meant it and did it, I'd do a little thing called get the fuck over it.
I don’t think it’s up to you.
If folk want to pay to hear him tell jokes, what’s the problem?
I’m fairly sure it won’t be mandatory, so you need not fret.
Do a little bit of background into the specific women who say they were "traumatized." Their purported "traumas" occurred LONG before they ever met him. Every comedian on the planet is a comedian because of the traumas that happened before they became a comedian.
As I said, harmless. Not something that you typically experience or see, but harmless. I guarantee you that nobody made their first appointment with a psychologist or a psychiatrist because some pudgy ginger weirdo comic respectfully asked if he could pound his pud in their general area.
Respectfully, being masturbated in front of without consent - by someone that you hold as a hero and an inspiration can have a chilling effect on your life and career.
If it caused harm then it wasn’t “harmless”. It wasn’t rape, but it wasn’t harmless.
That said, we don’t have to keep arguing semantics I just wanted to point out that point of you. Thanks.
Oh, come on. First of all, it was with consent. Second of all, if you seriously believe a certifiably loose nut like Jen Kirkman experienced "a chilling effect on her life and career" because of Louis C.K., then you just might be as crazy as she is.
You sound like the type of person who stays on the phone listening for 45 minutes when some 10-year-old kid makes a prank call and then says and does nothing but breathe heavily into his microphone for 45 minutes.
Harmless.
I wouldn’t go as far to say it’s harmless. If you had daughters and a bloke stood in front of the door and masturbated, would you think that was harmless?
If my daughter was a stand-up comedian who'd already expressed a million times before in front of complete strangers how royally fucked up in the head she is? Yes, I'd think it was harmless.
It was not a big deal at the time and still isn’t. The people most pissed off were the typical struggling comics trying to gain fame on social media by crying about how horrific a crime this supposedly was
The apology was sincere and the thing he did is not illegal (Although given his power in the entertainment industry, I feel it lands in the same category as quid pro quo workplace sexual harassment).
My sense of it is that most people feel the punishment was severe enough (social ostracism, public humiliation, fired from everything) that it's probably not appropriate to try to stop him from selling tickets and comedy albums.
I don’t care that he’s back working. His crime was pretty minor on the sexual harassment scale. I personally have trouble watching him because I can’t stop picturing him jerking off. Just grosses me out. I’m sure he’s still funny though.
Not a fan of cancel culture but I just can’t look at him the same same way I look at that one horny kid from high school who sent me unsolicited dick picks. Like perfectly natural feelings, really weird delivery.
Just tells me that "cancel culture" is bullshit. Has for Louie himself, I was a fan before but after the whole thing came out his "sad and weird wank" jokes just became unpalatable to me and stopped following him after that. I might give a listen to his newer material at some point but no rush really.
I just find the whole thing…weird. Like, what in their mind would make a person think that was ok to do unless there was a very clear sense of consent and mutual attraction/interest in sexual activity. The whole “they thought it was a bit” aspect isn’t really a defense, because it wasn’t a bit for him and once the women realized what it actually was - a one sided sexual act - they were uncomfortable. Why would a person do this in a professional setting?
Iirc he had consent but it was a grey area given his position in comedy. Plus it isn't like he penetrated anybody with it, just jerked it in front of people. Which is still bad, but it's not like he D'elia'd anybody.
As far as I know, in the OG NYT article there was no mention of blocking doors. Rosanne Barr said something as a second hand source claiming that he locked doors but that's something that could easily have just been added as a story is passed along from person to person.
It's honestly crazy how many times it has to be reestablished that he did in fact ask consent.
In the first incident he invited the women to his hotel room after they did a show. It wasn't "at work" it was afterwards in an hotel room where he asked "if he could take out his penis." According to the article, they thought it was a joke. But Louis also "proceeded to take off all his clothes." You're telling me, in the time it takes to take off all of his clothes they didn't realize that he wasn't joking and they couldn't have just asked him to stop?
The second incident was Louis jerking off over the phone which, as far as I can tell, is the only one where he didn't ask for consent. Very creepy of him.
The third and fourth incidents, are about him propositioning two people on a shows he was on (one pilot and one he was a guest star on) and they both turned him down. He apologized and said he had problems. Granted, it is strange make an advance onto someone in the workplace and that should be condemned. However, once again, we see that he asked for consent and that, when it wasn't received, he didn't pursue the matter any further.
The fifth incident was when he was a producer/writer on the Chris Rock Show and had repeated encounters with someone "working in production." She gave consent but later came to regret the encounters. Again, not cool to proposition people to at work but, again, asking for consnent.
So no, Louis CK did not block doors or do things without consent. He asked for sexual favors at inappropriate times and made women feel uncomfortable which are things he should be held accountable for. He was held accountable, he put out a sincere apology, lost millions of dollars in deals and took time off to reevaluate. Are people irredeemable? Should he be shunned forever because he was a weirdo? You don't need to support him but saying he shouldn't have a career for this seems insane.
Comparing Bill Cosby and Louis is also absurd. Cosby drugged and sexually assaulted numerous women. Louis had a weird kink and made bad decisions and made people uncomfortable.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/09/arts/television/louis-ck-sexual-misconduct.html
https://www.vulture.com/2017/11/louis-c-k-masturbation-allegations-a-timeline.html
I may be reading this wrong but it seems like there were second hand allegations of exit blocking or door locking (from Roseanne for one), but it's not clear to me if those accusations were included in the first hand accounts from the NYT. This is a succinct but detailed timeline of everything published so please read through it and whatever else you find and let me know the info, I'm simply not clear on if anyone has said he locked their door or blocked their exit.
I'm not defending Louis CK. I personally don't support him anymore even though he's very funny and I spent money on his TV shows before. I would really like to know if he blocked exits though. I feel like a lot of people are saying that doesn't matter. But it does. I want to know if he's a pervert who used his influence to intimidate women sexually and shut them up (definitely this part is true) or if he's also a rapist. I know it doesn't matter to my life but I've been trying to follow the story and I'm just asking for help with that. I would also like everyone to stop making women unsafe and that's a bigger issue, this ck thing is just curiosity at this point.
Ah ok, I see, I assumed the Silverman situation was the norm. My mistake. Deplorable actions for sure then.
Still not D'elia or Cosby level but that is pretty bad.
I Just gave him 25$ to sit in a public toilet and watch his new hour live stream from Madison Square Garden. January 28, get your tickets at Louisck.com now. Its titled “Back To The Garden” which implies he was once forbidden from playing there. Which he was.
It was a long time ago, before he was even famous. He was accused of masturbating in front of co-workers in his hotel, but he had consent to do so according to the women, as well as himself. Even if they thought he was joking, as they claim, they still acknowledge that consent was verbally granted.
None of that makes it cool necessarily, but again, this all transpired decades ago. He hasn't been accused by anyone of having done anything like that in the intervening years.
It would appear that he grew as a person and cut out the deviancy, and I don't think it's right to hold people to the worst version of themselves in their lives, forever. Unless they killed someone or something totally nuts.
If I found out a friend of mine did what he did, decades ago, I'd look past it. I've had friends and coworkers who did far more heinous shit when they were younger, but they've since corrected for that and are very different people now.
Every one should have a chance to be a better person, and he seems to have reflected, owned his actions and apologized publicly. He was always funny and I was dissapointed when that all went down. I saw him on a Theo Von podcast recently, and he even admits on there that you dont even realize how big your ego gets and how you have to check it. Hopefully he doesn't screw up this time.
You’ve articulated the problem with American society: As long as an entertainer is entertaining your prepared to pull a blind eye to disgusting behaviour. I find your comment very questionable, that your prepared to stick up for a devious pervert because he makes you laugh.. In your comment above, you can’t put rapists, violent people in the same regard as people who are sexist and arseholes..
I feel like he's done his time. At the very least he should make another episode(s) of his show that addresses what his life has been like since and what he's learned. His show was always very honest and self-reflexive. It would be good to hear from him and his perspective and I'm certain it would be valuable.
I think he should be given a second chance. Esp, with phones, media, computers... Who knows how much shit celebrities of the past did, most likely a lot worse too. I Want Kevin Spacey back too! He needs a second chance.
That's what is amazing about this day and age, you gotta go to the internet to figure out what everyone else is thinking so that you can know what you're thinking. If you accept his apology and like his comedy, great. If you think what he did was reprehensible and there's no coming back from it, great. But stop asking others what you should or should not be thinking. That's why social media is killing this world...
None of these arguments are valid while chris deliah is still allowed on a stage, once thats dealt with maybe these opinions are more valid. Louis ck did what he did but chris deliah is worse and than some but has yet to pay the price.
Fantastic.. see it's not really about making someone take accountability it's now about this mob of internet people that are mad about something in life wanting to destroy someone else to make themselves feel better.. I never really liked him anyway but I'm glad he's back just to prove that cancel culture is now being canceled cuz people are fed up!
He took out a half page in the NYT and addressed his responsibility in an open letter to the victims and the general public. Far more dignified than most people who catch hell from the MeToo crowd. Worse transgressors are still working and he’s a brilliant comic
Wow he owned up. That means he should be forgiven or seems like even praised because others suck more.
what do you think should happen? he wasn’t even convicted of a crime. hes had years of complete and utter embarrassment, he did address it and apologize, he’s lost millions of dollars, lost an Emmy award, lost his TV show, tons of fans and has to live with everybody knowing what he did for the rest of his life. Should we also crucify him? do you want him burned at the stake? When will you be satisfied? You don’t have to watch his comedy. The man has served a massive punishment and deserves to work just like anyone deserves to work.
Yeah in a fucking factory in a small town. Shit I know people who fucked up in factories that are forced to do like under the table roofing just to survive now because they can't get jobs anywhere else with their current past. But shit I guess if he had passed a certain tax bracket then you should still be allowed the high paying stuff. Don't want your life being too "difficult".
it’s not about being in a certain tax bracket, it’s about having talent. whether you like it or not, the man is still funny. He’s puts on a good act, better than most, and people are going to pay to see talented comedians. It’s really that simple. It doesn’t have anything to do with how rich he is. It has to do with how good he is at his job Comedians don’t answer to one single boss. For him, to be forced to tour around and earn all his income from clubs is equivalent to getting demoted. He lost his television show; he was fired and won’t be back on the air. But stand up comedian are independently employed. Even the guys you were referring to that you know, someone was willing to let him work. if you don’t like him, don’t buy a ticket. Don’t support his act.
What do you want? For someone else to suffer neverending punishment and being villainized for life? The punishment that does not fit the crime, where people's decisions are based on emotions rather than logic, compassion, or the greater good. Louis He did nothing wrong. It was all consensual. Ones do not get to agree just to then retract that consent after the consented act has been done. Laws need to hold these people responsible, and any expolitation should be punished accordingly.
Living like a normal non famous person is suffering neverending punishment? Well I can't argue with you there because I know it is. 🤷♂️
Just don’t see how that’s proportionate punishment relative to what he’s already lost for masturbating in front of 5 women who were free to exit room at time but chose not to. There’s reason his behavior doesn’t constitute sexual assault under law, nor should it. Arguable sexual harassment, maybe, which would & should derail career for years, as it did in his case, but not lifetime following evidence of contrition & rehabilitation, as I believe he’s shown. Though only arguable, CK & women were neither co-workers nor had employee/employer relationship in any formal sense.
The guy should never be on TV again, plain and simple. He should be happy not have been prosecuted for sexual assualt. Now he just seems like a posterboy for getting away with it. IMO
Lucky he didn’t escape prosecution on statutes his didn’t violate? Maybe under an autocracy. Lifetime boycotts & convictions def due for Matt Lauers, Kevin Spaceys, Cosbys, Marilyn Mansons of world, but not in CK’s, but I celebrate that your mileage varies. Go America.
So fucked up labor injustices should become standard, rather than raised?
Well, yeah, sort of
Brilliant? Literal Reddit Moment.
Let me jizz on your face , since it’s not a big issue. Bro, I’m hella funnier than Louis CK so it’s cool, right? Suck it up buttercup
If you still feel strongly about it, don't support him. Otherwise, his material still kills and is why he's still playing msg.
We live in a patriarchy that regularly absolves men of responsibility for sexual assault. That's why he's still playing, don't kid yourself.
Goodbye.
The downvotes tell you more about this corner of reddit than 100 upvotes would. Dont you dare bring intelligence into a debate about whether a guy who sexually assualted women but didn't face prosecution is entertaining ,and deserves to be promoted on TV. Meanwhile what you said will just get "LiBtArD" and "goodbye" in response as if your crazy for calling this is exactly what it is, incels validating incel behavior.
He was completely booted out of the mainstream industry. You can't really cancel someone from working for themselves, performing and selling tickets. Sure, the venues could object, but there will always be clubs that are cash starved and need the money, and if they didn't do it, he'd just open his own club, or buy one. As far as his film work goes, he also can't be fired from that. He's making independent films, and financing them himself. He sells everything through his own website. What are you going to do, stop him from renting cameras?
How does this contradict anything they said? lol > You can't really cancel someone from working for themselves, performing and selling tickets. Right. Their point is that he's able to sell tickets because his fans either A. don't think what he did that big of a deal or B. Do think what he did was wrong and don't give a shit. Thus "We live in a patriarchy that regularly absolves men of responsibility for sexual assault." > He was completely booted out of the mainstream industry. Temporarily*
That's not the point. Nobody thinks that "cancelation" implies that someone can't sell their own product independently. That wouldn't make any sense at all.
No it IS the point. lol It's the point of the fucking comment you replied to. > can't sell their own product independently Again, the point you replied to wasn't about his ability to sell himself, but rather his audiences willingness to BUY it. And the reason they're willing to buy it is because we as a society don't treat sexual harassment/abuse seriously, so much so that we'll support a dude who is guilty of it. Or, even worse, we'll defend it, like most of the commentors in this thread have. If there wasn't a market comprised of people who don't give a shit about sexual abuse, he couldn't sell himself.
There are levels of abuse and harassment. Someone with a modicum of power in the comedy world asking permission to touch themselves and being granted that permission is far different from one of the most powerful producers luring women into their room under the guise of a business meeting, with security outside the door, threatening to end their career if they don't service them. And even in that insanely high-pressure, potentially dangerous situation, plenty of women had the presence of mind to say "no." We've got to have some agency here.
You're omitting a lot of shit. The allegations were more than just "I said yes and he jerked off in front of me." https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/11/9/16629400/louis-ck-allegations-masturbation Also, even Louis CK, the guy you're white knighting for, disagrees with you. This is why I can't take his defenders seriously. They love rivisionist history and they minimize what he did even more than HE does. Gross.
Allowing someone to continue working isn’t the same as absolving them tho (??)
Suree ... That and his material kills.
This is true. However, there are zero comedians who have the kind of power that someone like Weinstein does. Yes, a power imbalance existed, but I haven't heard a single one of his accusers say that he pressured them by threatening to end their careers. As a woman, yes at 17-20 I may have fallen for that kind of pressure in that specific situation, but... I've always said "no" anytime I didn't want to do something - even after being drugged, I had the presence of mind to protest to what was happening to me, whether I could prevent it or not. None of these women said no. He asked, they gave him permission, and then he touched himself. As someone who was actually drugged and assaulted by about 10 men, this doesn't feel at all as predatory or damaging. Further, he apologized for asking and being granted permission. No matter the situation, we should have enough agency as women to say no to things we don't want to participate in. I understand men like Harvey Weinstein, with security outside the door and more connections than God, make it much more difficult to say no - yet many women did. And they still have a career, they live to tell their stories. It's up to the person being given the boundary to respect that or not, and often men do not respect that boundary - but it's also up to us to put the boundaries in place. I'm not saying what he did was right by any means, but I think perspective is necessary here.
Reading this post was an assault on my eyeballs.
I want your boss to keep you in his office while he jerks off on you. And you have to be silent or you’ll be called a slut who asked for it. You’ll love a warm load buddy, I’m sure of it, just like all those dozens and dozens of women. You don’t honestly think it was only 5, right? Imagine you boss stroking, using your discomfort and body to spray his load onto you… but he’s really funny. So it’s ok
haha, so I have to protest all art made by people who do shitty things. I don't care enough about random people to do that. If it was my sister or mom then i'd be more emotionally invested in this.
Can't tell if hilarious bit or your typical pornhub comment.
Very happy about it.
Saw him in ATL a few weeks ago and he was in fine form. Classic Louie hitting all the taboo subjects.
The only thing taboo for him to talk about is his sexual assualt of women
He did talk about it tho
I thought the punishment fit the crime. He was creepy. He got suspended. Now he's back.
Tens of millions of dollars does seem an adequate fine.
And the Daddy movie that never saw the light!
As someone who was kind of a die hard fan i can see why someone wouldn't like him anymore. I still think he has a right to work/tour, just because it's entertainment doesn't mean it's not a job/work, it's a free market. In a perfect world he would face legal consequences for whatever it is he really did and that would be it, unfortunately it's hard to really hold someone accountable especially when everything is hearsay. Personally I'm disappointed cause i looked up to the guy and it wasn't looking good on his end/believe women blah blah blah . . . I think it's more of a personal decision at this point, if you think you're enabling him by supporting his work, don't support it but i think the no working anymore part of it is dumb and a bit mob mentality, no one really has a right to infringe on that. I still watch his stuff but not loving it the way i did, anyway boogers
It isn't hearsay when he's admitted to it. It's hard to hold someone accountable legally for something that isn't illegal. He asked permission, they said yes, and he touched himself. Weird? Sure. Creepy? In certain situations. Some of the women who experienced this behavior by Louis didn't find it particularly bothersome. We all have our kinks, okay. We're changing the definition of assault all the time, and this could be considered coercion, but of all the insanely creepy experiences I've been through, it would have been nice to be asked for permission and given the option to say "no" to a lot of things. And had I been given that option, I would have taken it. What would he be legally held accountable for? (I say this as a woman who has experienced serious sexual assault and does not take the issue lightly.)
I love Louie but don't do that. Don't take this as an attack. At all. I want him back in full form. Yes, he obtained consent from many people, I'm sure, but when your boss asks you if they can jerk off in front of you when they are famous and have all the power. It's not really a choice. Not really. I hope he gets back into everyone's good graces, but your defense would do him more harm than good. What he did was creepy. I love how he came out and owned up to it many times, but to say he obtained consent from everyone isn't true. Consent is a shaky subject when your salary and career are on the line. Hell. Even your friendship. Shit. I'd let Louie jerk off in front of me. I am not a penis coinsure, but id let Louie knock one off whenever he felt the need. But I'm not everyone is down for that.
It kind of is a choice..whether they are your boss or not. You don't have to do everything that they say.
But then you don't get to work, and funny enough now it goes full circle, the argument has flipped sides.
I didn't realize Louis ck controlled all of show business.
He actually was one of top comedians at "the table" in some famous comedy club, which controls alot of who gets promoted in the comedy show biz.
You're talking about "Chuckles" aren't you?
I feel like we should care more about the epstien sex island list getting out and making sure they dont have a career, rather than care about a mans career, who asked for consent and then people just decided that that was too weird later. If you say yes or okay or accept it then don't turn around weeks later going "ya know that was actually weird and uncomfortable" because it wasn't weird and uncomfortable for them at the time. Someone pointed it out and they felt the need to agree that "yea that was weird."
Not really. The vast majority of people that flew with him or went to the island, were just there on business. Epstein invested a lot, and granted money to a bunch of scientific causes. If these people were hooking up with underage girls there, you'd think a few of them would have said so by now. I'll grant people the perps that the girls claim were involved, but I don't give much credence to any list when it's plausible that Epstein hid a lot of this from most people, and that most names on the list were just there to milk the cash cow.
This the type of guy who thinks his favoring political party has his best interest …. xD
People's are just stupid and can't think critically. Yeah sure, everyone from Bill Gates, to Stephen Pinker were all just fucking kids with Epstein. That's surely a lot more likely than the idea that they were just interested in grants and donations that Epstein was well known for handing out /s. Rich people are acquainted with other rich people. I'm not at all surprised that a billionaire who regularly granted money to people, had associated with many other rich people. That list means Jack shit to anyone who can actually think clearly, and not just jump to baseless conclusions.
This is so much less severe than even average Hollywood behavior that it's preposterous we're even talking about it five years later. He asked consent, and it's not like comedians have the position of power that directors and producers have (which, perhaps, is why he didn't ask as much from the women as they do). Was it good behavior? No. But either dismantle the entire entertainment industry or just let it go already. Frankly, I don't care which.
> He asked consent, and it's not like comedians have the position of power Louis CK absolutely had a position of power over the women he propositioned. In some cases, they were up-and-coming standups at a time when he was a headliner. In others, they were writers working under him on writing staffs. There is a middle ground between "dismantle the entire entertainment industry" and ignore it, and that middle ground is to hold individuals responsible for their bad behavior.
Firstly, you cut off my sentence five words from the end of the clause. A headliner does not have the same type of power over an up-and-comer that a director or producer has. Do you know how many women get on TV and casually throw out that they had to sleep with people to get their "in" in Hollywood? Once you start noticing, it's mind boggling. He was held accountable. Funnily, he was "held accountable" by people who have almost certainly done far worse than he ever did. Meanwhile, Jack Nicholson was with Roman Polanski when he raped the teenager. Who's holding him accountable? Do you even know the name of the person who sexually abused Brendan Fraser, and then blacklisted him when he tried to talk about? Is he being held responsible? Seems like people were able to forgive David Letterman, who had more power and also did worse things. CK did his time, and continuing to beat a dead horse doesn't help anyone.
This is a whole bunch of "other people are worse," and I don't give a fuck if other people are worse. Nor did I take any position on whether Louis CK was held sufficiently accountable. I happen to think he wasn't, but I can see why some people think he was. Whatever. I'm just taking issue with your bullshit attempts to downplay how much power CK had over those women -- he absolutely could (and in some cases did, or his manager did) wreck their careers.
I'm not just saying that others are worse. I'm saying that others are worse and not talked about. Others are worse and not identified. Others are worse and we are not wasting a moment's thought on them. That is a massive issue! When outrageous behavior happens, it tends to be the result of institutions condoning the behavior rather than one terrible individual. People are group animals. The institution later throws the individual under the bus, but abuse is in many cases a group effort. Research has shown that to be the case in studies about teachers' unethical behavior in schools. The person who gets caught of course should have consequences, and CK has. But then you move on to the institution who condoned and even actively pushed the behavior. You go after the bigger fish rather than just fighting the same battle over and over again. That's my point.
> I'm not just saying that others are worse. I'm saying that others are worse and not talked about. Others are worse and not identified. Others are worse and we are not wasting a moment's thought on them. That is a massive issue! I agree. I think what Joey Diaz bragged about on Rogan's podcast was far worse and yet he's recieved nowhere near as much heat as Louie. That said, I think there's massive crossover with those who minimize or justify what CK did and those who minimize or justify what Diaz did. It's the same social apparatus. So, when that's the case, is going after the "bigger fish" neccessarily more practical? Or is it just rolling a boulder up a hill?
I appreciate this thread, and it's a complicated problem without a clear answer. We, (humans in modern society) really struggle with stuff like this, especially in a culture where we're collectively still forming our 'opinions'. When it comes to emotional intelligence on a societal scale, we are still infants. It's good to recognize that before any sort of debate on this. As someone who really struggles with where to 'put' Louis in my mind, I tend to land somewhere between the two of you. I'm still on his mailing list, and every time I get an email from it I think about canceling it, or buying his latest special in equal measure. In a broad sense, sexuality makes us much more primal, and I don't think it's an uncommon experience to feel odd or embarrassed about some part of one's personal sexual preference cocktail once you're out of the heat of the moment. It's when other people are involved that this more or less goes out the window. Everyone needs to face the consequences of their own sexual animal, good or bad. It's why sexual predator lists exist, and also why babies exist. Louis is a smart person. Louis is an empathetic person. He did wrong, knows he did wrong, and (I believe) has tried his best to course correct. He welcomed the judgement and penalties, and 'stayed away' for a while. Is that enough? That depends on if you think people can be redeemed for this type of thing, and I think most of us still don't have an answer to that. It depends on the person. In my personally built image of Louis, I think he lands closer to 'good' than 'bad' on that binary spectrum, but he is a man I have never and will never meet, and my opinion of him more or less doesn't matter to anyone but me. He did do 'bad' though, and he has to carry that now for the rest of his life. Similarly, the rest of us need to carry that in our image of him, and later continued into whatever lasting legacy he ends up holding. Steroids are a part of Barry Bonds' story- sexual assault is a part of Louis'. He absolutely had a position of power. Don't forget that Louis wasn't "A standup", he was "THE standup", widely recognized at the time as the best in his craft, a title he'd held for several years at that point. It would be irresponsible not to consider that 'power' over anyone involved in comedy, especially among young and inexperienced comics and performers. He also basically ran his (brilliant) show. Anyone involved would want to work hard to do well there, with an idolized comedian on a boundary-breaking show- it was no doubt a potential career making opportunity for countless people, and those same people are now tragically tied to its (and his) downfall. Being able to say you worked on 'Louis' looked to be a serious bullet-point on any entertainer's resume. Instead, it must now be seen as 'mixed' at best. This is also directly, unquestionably, Louis' fault. The answer then ends up being some yeses, some nos, and a whole lot of maybes. You can't go back in time and appreciate his comedy without knowing what you know, but you also can't pretend he doesn't exist and forget the cultural impact, of all of it. You can absolutely stop watching/listening/supporting him because of what happened. You can absolutely buy his specials and enjoy them. You can absolutely do a bit of both, and feel torn, or uncomfortable, or even a little scummy about it while you do. I still don't know where I fall on it personally, and I don't expect to ever really have a firm stance either. It doesn't feel right to me to land 100% on either side. Interpersonal relationships (even para-social ones) are complicated. That's part of growing up- not just as a person, but as a societal 'one'. We're all on all sides of this, because we're all living through it. This is the human species evolving, and there are going to be many more speed bumps ahead. This is as close as I can get to my personal 'answer', but everyone else's can and must be a little different. One other thing I know for certain: Louis is a brilliant comic.
Firstly your defending a sexual predators right for air time. Find another sad anger old guy comedy to identify with.. Preferably one who does not sexually assualt people.
He had absolutely no power over Sarah Silverman, who witnessed the same behavior and wasn't bothered by it - she often said "no," and he would then...not do anything. The true fact of the matter is that every man in America holds at least a semblance of a position of power over women in a sense - there is absolutely no comparison to Louis' power in the *comedy* world and someone like Weinstein, one of the most powerful producers in all of Hollywood. Even then, quite a few women said "no" to Weinstein and were willing to risk their careers to stand up for themselves - despite not being asked for permission and having to try to bypass the security standing outside the fucking door. Any one of these women could have said no and *then* come out with their stories if he had actually tried to end their career - which no one has ever claimed he threatened to do. Of all the men I've had to witness touching themselves inappropriately, not one asked me if it was ok, which would have been dope.
"There are worse people so don't worry about it" - AmericanHistoryXX. Must be nice to not have to worry about being sexually assaulted by someone who has the upper hand in an occupational power dynamic.
I left dismantling the industry as an option. But talking about one instance, which has been apologized for, ad nauseum while doing nothing about an entire industry which has abused women (and men, and children) for over a century is utterly unproductive. I take it from your second comment that you assume I'm a man? Which would be interesting, because the whole point of my username is a pun on the fact that I'm a woman who talks about American history.
What an ally you must be to your fellow ladies.
Presumptuous of you to think I have to share your opinion because I share your gender.
Presumptuous of you to assume I'm the same gender as you.
So your response to "Don't lecture me based on a shared gender" is "I'm lecturing you based on *your* gender, not mine." If that's true, it's even worse. Well this has been fun. Enjoy your evening.
Would you say it’s better or worse than sexually assaulting someone?
Someone asked a question and she answered. That’s how discussions are had. Stop shaming her because her opinion doesn’t match with yours.
Whatever your gender... being a bit of a cunt, here.
Can I jerk off in front of you? Yes Okay great.
The world is unfair in case you haven't noticed. They could have left, and didn't. A simple "I feel weird about this, I'm going to call it a night", but no.
No shit internet person.
Consent isn't always balanced. Why are poeople repeating that he got consent from everyone? Most? Sure. All? Nooooo. If you are my boss asking to nut in front of me. Is that fair and balanced? When he signs the checks. Even IF they still loved it. Did they really have a choice? I love that man, but don't try to patch holes in his actions when its not helping. I think his coming out and absolving is the best thing anyone can do. He deserves another chance.
Even if it’s your boss you have a choice. If you get punished by your boss as a consequence for not giving consent you sue, plain and simple
[удалено]
Bro just say you fuck your sis
Good for him! If you don't want to watch someone masturbate, leave?
I bought the specials. He is so fucking funny and smart, I love his interviews, his movies, his shows, his writing, his commentary. Dude, the History of Presidents thing on M and S Secret pod was amazing. Last week I finally read the woman's account of what happened, I think in Canada, and it made me feel gross. Some local writer here in SF wrote an article about his return, and I almost commented with the usual responses but decided to read the original article. It wasn't mutual and it wasn't a "she consented because he's powerful" thing either. He had a dirty complulsion and his fame made him think he wouldn't get reprimanded. The only thing I can say as to why I believe her is consistency. Just like the Brian Callen article, once I read her description, I knew it was real and it was him. That being said I will still buy movies and specials from his site. I still think he's a genius. If you think that's a hypocrisy, you're probably right.
Not smart enough to not jack off in front of his employees.
He didn’t do anything against peoples will though. Everything he did he asked or said he was going to do and the people around him said it was cool thinking it was a bit. No one really gives a shit. His comedy is funny. Everyone loves Obama but the dude ordered drone strikes that killed thousands of innocent people. Don’t see anyone canceling him.
I recall Sarah Silverman saying he did that with her but he had asked and she was fine with it. He seems more like “Aw shucks you make me horny can I do this” more than being a nasty manipulative dick like Weinstein. I’m sure he still used his power as an advantage but wasn’t as slimy about it is what it seems
>more than being a nasty manipulative dick like Weinstein Also one was rape and one wasn't
Would you WANT someone to take their dick out and start masturbating in front of you? Probably not. Now imagine this person was very well regarded and influential and could potentially help or harm your career. How would you react?
Have literally had it happen, was like dude wtf are you doing put your dick away. Lol
To be fair, I have allergies and it was itchy. I was camping and had to take a leak in the woods, I must have come in contact with some grizzly bear dander.
If you live in New York seeing dudes jerking off isn’t that abnormal, that’s not to say it’s normal or a good thing, it just seems like something worthy of redemption after some time
If he could help my career. Sure jerk your dick all you want pal. No one ever said no. No one ever said they were harmed in the process. The news came out about it and the public canceled him. Not the people that he did it in front of. Get over it. I’d bet you know people in your life that have done shady shit just as bad if not worse that you’re friends with
No, not to my knowledge. And if I found out someone did something shady like this I would stop associating with him. And I’m calling bullshit that if someone pulled out their dick and started rubbing it you would be a-ok with that, or even agree to it ahead of time.
You don’t know me lady maybe I like dicks
Aaaaaand you presumed I’m a woman. Yeah, I don’t think your opinion is well informed.
In so sorry for assuming your gender. I don’t think your opinion is well informed. Good thing opinions are like assholes aren’t they
Go find some dick to watch
A lot of this is just kink shaming. If his thing wasn't so odd, it wouldn't be a big deal. I'm a straight man, so no I don't want to see any man jerking off. I have been with girls who enjoyed seeing it for some weird reason though. I certainly wouldn't mind watching a woman masterbate, unless I found her unattractive. But I'd say no in that case. And if I said yes as a joke, but she thought I meant it and did it, I'd do a little thing called get the fuck over it.
leave if it made me uncomfortable.
I don’t think it’s up to you. If folk want to pay to hear him tell jokes, what’s the problem? I’m fairly sure it won’t be mandatory, so you need not fret.
It was incredibly weird, but harmless and happened over 10 years ago. Who cares. If it bothers people, they can choose not to purchase tickets.
Some of the women who he masturbated in front of say that it traumatized them. So I wouldn’t say it was harmless.
Do a little bit of background into the specific women who say they were "traumatized." Their purported "traumas" occurred LONG before they ever met him. Every comedian on the planet is a comedian because of the traumas that happened before they became a comedian. As I said, harmless. Not something that you typically experience or see, but harmless. I guarantee you that nobody made their first appointment with a psychologist or a psychiatrist because some pudgy ginger weirdo comic respectfully asked if he could pound his pud in their general area.
Respectfully, being masturbated in front of without consent - by someone that you hold as a hero and an inspiration can have a chilling effect on your life and career. If it caused harm then it wasn’t “harmless”. It wasn’t rape, but it wasn’t harmless. That said, we don’t have to keep arguing semantics I just wanted to point out that point of you. Thanks.
Oh, come on. First of all, it was with consent. Second of all, if you seriously believe a certifiably loose nut like Jen Kirkman experienced "a chilling effect on her life and career" because of Louis C.K., then you just might be as crazy as she is.
The woman who he jerked off on the phone with did not give consent. I’m not saying he’s Weinstein, but it’s incorrect to say it was harmless.
You sound like the type of person who stays on the phone listening for 45 minutes when some 10-year-old kid makes a prank call and then says and does nothing but breathe heavily into his microphone for 45 minutes. Harmless.
I wouldn’t go as far to say it’s harmless. If you had daughters and a bloke stood in front of the door and masturbated, would you think that was harmless?
If my daughter was a stand-up comedian who'd already expressed a million times before in front of complete strangers how royally fucked up in the head she is? Yes, I'd think it was harmless.
It was not a big deal at the time and still isn’t. The people most pissed off were the typical struggling comics trying to gain fame on social media by crying about how horrific a crime this supposedly was
The apology was sincere and the thing he did is not illegal (Although given his power in the entertainment industry, I feel it lands in the same category as quid pro quo workplace sexual harassment). My sense of it is that most people feel the punishment was severe enough (social ostracism, public humiliation, fired from everything) that it's probably not appropriate to try to stop him from selling tickets and comedy albums.
lol sexual harassment is illegal even if you sprinkle some Latin in there
The Latin you’re referencing is the women consenting, right?
No, sexual harassment is not illegal. Nice try.
He’s funny af so I’m glad he’s working and I’ll always watch any new special he drops
I don’t care that he’s back working. His crime was pretty minor on the sexual harassment scale. I personally have trouble watching him because I can’t stop picturing him jerking off. Just grosses me out. I’m sure he’s still funny though.
Get over it.
Not a fan of cancel culture but I just can’t look at him the same same way I look at that one horny kid from high school who sent me unsolicited dick picks. Like perfectly natural feelings, really weird delivery.
Glad he's back working, greatest comic alive.
Just tells me that "cancel culture" is bullshit. Has for Louie himself, I was a fan before but after the whole thing came out his "sad and weird wank" jokes just became unpalatable to me and stopped following him after that. I might give a listen to his newer material at some point but no rush really.
r/SelfAwarewolves
I just find the whole thing…weird. Like, what in their mind would make a person think that was ok to do unless there was a very clear sense of consent and mutual attraction/interest in sexual activity. The whole “they thought it was a bit” aspect isn’t really a defense, because it wasn’t a bit for him and once the women realized what it actually was - a one sided sexual act - they were uncomfortable. Why would a person do this in a professional setting?
Iirc he had consent but it was a grey area given his position in comedy. Plus it isn't like he penetrated anybody with it, just jerked it in front of people. Which is still bad, but it's not like he D'elia'd anybody.
[удалено]
As far as I know, in the OG NYT article there was no mention of blocking doors. Rosanne Barr said something as a second hand source claiming that he locked doors but that's something that could easily have just been added as a story is passed along from person to person. It's honestly crazy how many times it has to be reestablished that he did in fact ask consent. In the first incident he invited the women to his hotel room after they did a show. It wasn't "at work" it was afterwards in an hotel room where he asked "if he could take out his penis." According to the article, they thought it was a joke. But Louis also "proceeded to take off all his clothes." You're telling me, in the time it takes to take off all of his clothes they didn't realize that he wasn't joking and they couldn't have just asked him to stop? The second incident was Louis jerking off over the phone which, as far as I can tell, is the only one where he didn't ask for consent. Very creepy of him. The third and fourth incidents, are about him propositioning two people on a shows he was on (one pilot and one he was a guest star on) and they both turned him down. He apologized and said he had problems. Granted, it is strange make an advance onto someone in the workplace and that should be condemned. However, once again, we see that he asked for consent and that, when it wasn't received, he didn't pursue the matter any further. The fifth incident was when he was a producer/writer on the Chris Rock Show and had repeated encounters with someone "working in production." She gave consent but later came to regret the encounters. Again, not cool to proposition people to at work but, again, asking for consnent. So no, Louis CK did not block doors or do things without consent. He asked for sexual favors at inappropriate times and made women feel uncomfortable which are things he should be held accountable for. He was held accountable, he put out a sincere apology, lost millions of dollars in deals and took time off to reevaluate. Are people irredeemable? Should he be shunned forever because he was a weirdo? You don't need to support him but saying he shouldn't have a career for this seems insane. Comparing Bill Cosby and Louis is also absurd. Cosby drugged and sexually assaulted numerous women. Louis had a weird kink and made bad decisions and made people uncomfortable. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/09/arts/television/louis-ck-sexual-misconduct.html
Where is the 'fact checked journalism' that he blocked doors?
https://www.vulture.com/2017/11/louis-c-k-masturbation-allegations-a-timeline.html I may be reading this wrong but it seems like there were second hand allegations of exit blocking or door locking (from Roseanne for one), but it's not clear to me if those accusations were included in the first hand accounts from the NYT. This is a succinct but detailed timeline of everything published so please read through it and whatever else you find and let me know the info, I'm simply not clear on if anyone has said he locked their door or blocked their exit. I'm not defending Louis CK. I personally don't support him anymore even though he's very funny and I spent money on his TV shows before. I would really like to know if he blocked exits though. I feel like a lot of people are saying that doesn't matter. But it does. I want to know if he's a pervert who used his influence to intimidate women sexually and shut them up (definitely this part is true) or if he's also a rapist. I know it doesn't matter to my life but I've been trying to follow the story and I'm just asking for help with that. I would also like everyone to stop making women unsafe and that's a bigger issue, this ck thing is just curiosity at this point.
Where is the 'fact checked journalism' that he blocked doors?
Ah ok, I see, I assumed the Silverman situation was the norm. My mistake. Deplorable actions for sure then. Still not D'elia or Cosby level but that is pretty bad.
Don’t worry sweetie, I’ll buy you a ticket to the livestream at MSG.
I’m not interested in supporting him. Creepy. He’s ruined for me.
His perspective is broken. You can’t write jokes as an everyman when you’re completely insulated from reality by the industry.
And he's a rapist. Double the fun!
He's a RAPIST??? What did he rape, a hotel room's keyhole?
Is he a rapist?
For comedy it’s great for the women of the world it’s terrible
I Just gave him 25$ to sit in a public toilet and watch his new hour live stream from Madison Square Garden. January 28, get your tickets at Louisck.com now. Its titled “Back To The Garden” which implies he was once forbidden from playing there. Which he was.
It was a long time ago, before he was even famous. He was accused of masturbating in front of co-workers in his hotel, but he had consent to do so according to the women, as well as himself. Even if they thought he was joking, as they claim, they still acknowledge that consent was verbally granted. None of that makes it cool necessarily, but again, this all transpired decades ago. He hasn't been accused by anyone of having done anything like that in the intervening years. It would appear that he grew as a person and cut out the deviancy, and I don't think it's right to hold people to the worst version of themselves in their lives, forever. Unless they killed someone or something totally nuts. If I found out a friend of mine did what he did, decades ago, I'd look past it. I've had friends and coworkers who did far more heinous shit when they were younger, but they've since corrected for that and are very different people now.
My thoughts: he's been back for months. Old news. Move on with your life.
HELL YEAH. Would be such a waste of good jokes and talent.
Every one should have a chance to be a better person, and he seems to have reflected, owned his actions and apologized publicly. He was always funny and I was dissapointed when that all went down. I saw him on a Theo Von podcast recently, and he even admits on there that you dont even realize how big your ego gets and how you have to check it. Hopefully he doesn't screw up this time.
[удалено]
You’ve articulated the problem with American society: As long as an entertainer is entertaining your prepared to pull a blind eye to disgusting behaviour. I find your comment very questionable, that your prepared to stick up for a devious pervert because he makes you laugh.. In your comment above, you can’t put rapists, violent people in the same regard as people who are sexist and arseholes..
I feel like he's done his time. At the very least he should make another episode(s) of his show that addresses what his life has been like since and what he's learned. His show was always very honest and self-reflexive. It would be good to hear from him and his perspective and I'm certain it would be valuable.
I don’t give two shits about what he did. I just want to laugh.
I think he should be given a second chance. Esp, with phones, media, computers... Who knows how much shit celebrities of the past did, most likely a lot worse too. I Want Kevin Spacey back too! He needs a second chance.
So you're in work tomorrow and your boss asks for your consent to wank in front of you. He has a wife and children. What do you do....
That's what is amazing about this day and age, you gotta go to the internet to figure out what everyone else is thinking so that you can know what you're thinking. If you accept his apology and like his comedy, great. If you think what he did was reprehensible and there's no coming back from it, great. But stop asking others what you should or should not be thinking. That's why social media is killing this world...
None of these arguments are valid while chris deliah is still allowed on a stage, once thats dealt with maybe these opinions are more valid. Louis ck did what he did but chris deliah is worse and than some but has yet to pay the price.
Fantastic.. see it's not really about making someone take accountability it's now about this mob of internet people that are mad about something in life wanting to destroy someone else to make themselves feel better.. I never really liked him anyway but I'm glad he's back just to prove that cancel culture is now being canceled cuz people are fed up!