Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina
This is what it comes down for me too.
If most of us committed similar acts we would have a hard time finding employment in our profession. But because Louis is really funny (to some) he gets to return after less than a year.
What I would like is to see more venues and bookers hold a line not to book him.
I'd like him to outline specifically what he did during his less than year away. Did he get help? What did he do to sit back and listen as he promised? Did he engage with victims to understand the severity of what he did?
It seems reasonable for him to have to at minimum share this if he expects to be welcomed back
|
Well, first of all I've known people in my profession who have done some pretty heinous crap and bounced back elsewhere. But leaving that aside, I think by now we all understand the standard that you think should be applied before Louis CK should be welcomed back. The thing that still doesn't make sense is why you think your standard should be applied universally. That is, why should he have to meet your standard before
other people will accept him back? Presumably you get that there are a range of views here on what the appropriate punishment is. If people share your intuitions they'll apply your standard, but it really is all about subjective moral intuitions. I don't get why you're so adamant that yours are the right ones and that they should apply to other people.