• Search
  • Member List
  • Help
  • Random Thread

  • Louis CK Is Trying To Make A Comeback
    #1
    [Image: coverpic-6054.png]

    A lot of people want to see Louis CK perform again on the same level as before, but there are detractors as well. In this day and time, anyone who uses a certain buzzword when they complain gets immediate attention.

    I was just reading the article linked below. It was extremely refreshing to read this author's take on the situation.

    THEFEDERALIST.COM
    Even Though Others Want Him Gone For
    Good, Fans Still Want Louis C.k.


    What do you think? Is enough, enough? At what point does following a comedian around and trying to ruin his career become defamation?
    Reply
    #2
    You can disagree with what he did... But I still like him as a comedian. He was not a hardcore predator like Cosby was... I think everyone deserves a second chance...

    Except for Kramer on Seinfeld, but that's only because I never thought he was funny so he never got a first chance...

    HIs is a perfect case of enough is enough, and the people trying to drum him out are people really without lives of their own so they ride the backs of others... Obviously, these people are perfect since they can judge...

    If the punishment fits the crime then for what I'm aware of what he did, I think he should have a second chance... Again, he's not Cosby or Weinstein... \

    True comedy, in general, is in crisis since people nowadays are too butthurt for jokes... They take themselves too seriously for jokes... These fabricated victims would like to cry attacked then to say , well, so and so made a joke that I don't care for...
    Wildcard liked this post
    Reply
    #3
    My thing is, I don't feel like Brooklyn Bazaar should have made an apology for the performance. If people at the venue had complained, that would be one thing, but the only people complaining were people that weren't even at the show.

    I say, let the man work.
    Reply
    #4
    I have to take the opposing view here. Saying someone “isn’t Cosby or Weinstein” is a bit like saying “yeah, he molested the kid, but he didn’t RAPE her.” The fact is, this guy took advantage of his power in the industry to make women with less power feel worthless. There’s a story of him unexpectedly grabbing a woman by the neck and whispering a sexual threat in her ear. Why? Because he knew he could do it, and got off on her powerlessness in the situation.

    Forgiveness would be one thing if he was genuinely contrite. But he’s not. In the act he performed he makes light of the accusations of him jerking off in front of unwilling partners, shifting the blame to the victims, joking about how he asked for consent and they still accused him. Well, no, they didn’t consent, and that’s the problem.

    I think it’s helpful to look at this case from the perspective of the victims. If you’re a young female comedian, and you see the older male comedian - whom you probably idolised and were thrilled to be spending time with, who then took advantage of your naivety to treat you like nothing more than a sex object whose consent is irrelevant - getting his celebrity back, how would that make you feel? I think at this point in history it might reinforce in your mind your abuser’s idea that you are just an object.
    Wildcard liked this post
    Reply
    #5
    (07-02-2019, 01:57 AM)Plenty O’Toole Wrote:  Forgiveness would be one thing if he was genuinely contrite. But he’s not. In the act he performed he makes light of the accusations of him jerking off in front of unwilling partners, shifting the blame to the victims, joking about how he asked for consent and they still accused him. Well, no, they didn’t consent, and that’s the problem.

    That's misinformation. In every instance the accuser admits that they did give consent. The issue here isn't consent, but rather the inappropriate nature of "asking" for consent from someone who is under your authority. When a person that you respect and admire "asks" you to do something, and that person can make or break your career, it isn't really the same as me walking up to a random stranger and asking them if they want to watch me jerk off.

    So, there was consent, but it was tainted by the abuse of power.

    (07-02-2019, 01:57 AM)Plenty O’Toole Wrote:  I think it’s helpful to look at this case from the perspective of the victims. If you’re a young female comedian, and you see the older male comedian - whom you probably idolised and were thrilled to be spending time with, who then took advantage of your naivety to treat you like nothing more than a sex object whose consent is irrelevant - getting his celebrity back, how would that make you feel? I think at this point in history it might reinforce in your mind your abuser’s idea that you are just an object.

    That's fair. There will likely be people who were traumatized by this situation that will have strong emotions from seeing Louis CK perform again.

    But what is so wrong about that? If a person commits an act of rape, goes to prison for x amount of years, does their bid, gets out. Shouldn't that person be allowed to live their life at that point?

    Hell, even a fucking nasty ass pedophile can serve time, get the scarlet letter, and then go live their life, after release.

    But, you are saying that this man has done something so much worse that there is absolutely no time frame long enough that he could stay out of sight that would be acceptable? That he must never practice his art ever again? @Plenty O’Toole, I think that is absurd, and in this context, I think it would be hard to deny the hypocrisy.

    Louis CK is very likely a sick man. His comedy stylings would back that up, I think. But, he manned up when things blew up in his face. He didn't pull a Kevin Spacey and try to distract us from his errors. He didn't pull a Cosby and blame the victims.

    He owned up to his mistake and even spelled out the hard truth as to why he was wrong.

    I'll say it again, let the man work. Let the man resume his fucking life.
    Reply
    #6
    Firstly, “living your life” is not the same thing as “being a rich and famous comedian”. Paedophiles and other criminals have a chance at living some semblance of a normal life after their release, yes, but they don’t get wads of cash to perform comedy routines to millions of people, and all the attendant perks that come with being a celebrity. Louis CK is welcome to live a normal life, but people are entitled to oppose his re-entrance to the world of celebrity.


    He did EXACTLY what Spacey and Cosby did. He minimised what happened by claiming consent was involved. It wasn’t. The story I heard was that at least two victims thought he was joking when he offered, then when he actually started jerking off in front of them they tried to leave and he blocked their way. Where’s the consent in that situation? Another person was on the phone to him and didn’t know for sure that he was jerking off as he didn’t mention it. The woman who was grabbed by the neck and threatened made no consent at all.

    He also very much blamed the victims with his jokes pretending that they consented and therefore he’s being unfairly victimised. When it’s a celebrity we always worry about what’s fair to them. We rarely worry about what’s fair to the victims. If he wants a normal life he can fuck off and live on the millions he’s already made.
    Reply
    #7
    (07-02-2019, 08:57 AM)Plenty O’Toole Wrote:  He did EXACTLY what Spacey and Cosby did. He minimised what happened by claiming consent was involved. It wasn’t.
    [...]
    He also very much blamed the victims with his jokes pretending that they consented and therefore he’s being unfairly victimised. When it’s a celebrity we always worry about what’s fair to them. We rarely worry about what’s fair to the victims. If he wants a normal life he can fuck off and live on the millions he’s already made.

    Facts, please.

    You keep making the same accusation over and over: no consent was given. All you have offered is "as I remember it" or "I read somewhere"

    The facts are that consent was given in every instance. There is no record of, nor have their been any accusations made, that he blocked someone from exiting the situation. In fact, in one instance, the intended victim refused and shamed Louis CK (rightfully) into being embarrassed and admitting the had "has issues."

    Read this article from the NY Times, that is obviously not pandering to Louis CK's side of the argument. It describes the cases of all five victims. In none of these instances, nor any other that I can find online does anyone accuse him of anything non-consensual.

    WWW.NYTIMES.COM
    Louis C.k. Is Accused By 5 Women Of...
    As the powerful comedian found success by talking about his...


    To recap: Louis is sick; Louis did a bad, bad thing; Louis was outed and lost a great deal of money/fame (as is fair); and now he should be allowed to attempt to start over. And starting over is exactly what he will have to do. He will have to work the bars and small venues for a while and wait for the world to forgive him. That will never happen if he is blackballed every time he tries to do the thing that he loves.

    Do you really think that the man is just going to give up on his art? Would you?
    Reply
    #8
    This article covers both the neck-grabbing incident and the one in which two comedians report that he blocked the door to stop them leaving while he masturbated:

    (The site isn’t letting me share links, so search “Five women accuse Louis C.K. of sexual misconduct AOL” on Google.)

    For the record, I’m not saying there should be a law banning from pursuing a career in comedy. I’m just saying that I and many other people are allowed to not support him in any way as he tries to do this. He’s made his art. I have no pity for the millionaire who’s already enjoyed a lucrative career.
    Reply
    #9
    Here is the link (sorry, you have to have ten posts now to share links, thanks to the fucking spammers)

    WWW.AOL.COM
    Five Women Accuse Louis C.k. Of...
    Louis C.K. has allegedly masturbated in front of multiple women in...


    Quote:Allegations of sexual misconduct against the stand up comedian and TV star have been swirling for some time. In March 2012, Gawker published a blind item that detailed an alleged incident at the Aspen Comedy Festival a few years prior. C.K. was not named explicitly in the piece, but it claimed that “our nation’s most hilarious stand-up comic and critically cherished sitcom auteur” invited two female comedians to his hotel room and proceeded to block the door with his body while he forced them to watch him masturbate. Speculation surfaced on Reddit and social media that the item referred to C.K. Comedian Doug Stanhope, a friend of C.K.’s, later claimed the story was about him.

    Firstly, I've never read this account or the article before, so I hadn't heard this at all. Still, I don't think this changes anything for me. Even if it was about CK and not Stanhope, it is still an unverified rumor. There is no real accuser here.

    For the sake of argument, lets say that this is 100% true and about Louis. Still, I say either charge the man with a crime or let him work. You can't have it both ways. He can't be innocent, but treated as if guilty. For fuck's sake, we have a legal system for a reason.

    People have done horrible things and then recovered from the stigma and found a meaningful life. Not just entertainers either.

    Halle Berry was involved in a drunken, hit-and-run incident years ago, Mark Wahlberg committed hate crimes before they were even called that, and Steve Jobs pretended to be infertile to avoid child support. Just google "famous people that did terrible things" and you will find a ton of cheesy lists about it.

    The point is the same. I am not saying he did nothing wrong. I'm not even saying it wasn't that bad. I'm just saying that he has been outed; that people will keep their eye on him now; and that he shouldn't be barred from the pursuit of happiness anymore than the rest of us sinners.
    Reply
    #10
    Why does “the pursuit of happiness” involve him getting to be a celebrity again? I’m pretty sure he’d never be too miserable sitting on his piles of money already made. I’m not saying that art shouldn’t be consumed just because it was made by terrible people. People are flawed and therefore we have art; if we were all unimpeachable we probably wouldn’t need art.

    However, people have the right to reject his work and not give him another dime based on his actions/lack of contrition. If enough people want him to be a celebrity again then fair enough, the majority will speak. But I feel like a lot of people don’t want to give him another chance, and I feel that they’re justified in that. You can still enjoy his past work (or not, if that’s your bag) without feeling like he deserves to make more.
    Reply





    Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
    Rant Central
    Speak Your Mind