Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamer
Isn't that all really determined solely by the victim?
For instance, some may agree with you, but I find it disturbing and arrogant to say "(as someone not involved in the incident) I don't think the victims were that victimized", therefore he should get a pass. Do you think the victims give a rat's ass about some external socio-cultural scale? Should they? Because that's where focus should be in these situations: the victims. Perhaps even moreso since Louis didn't deny any of it.
Or because he talked about it in his act it's in line with his character: to be a creepy abuser. A lot of comedians and entertainers say some truly outrageous things, often to entertain. But as Jim Jefferies said, "There's what I think is funny, and what I think is funny to say." Louis CK blurred that line, and it's more upsetting to me than it is entertaining. If Jefferies actually treated women the way he talks about in his act I certainly wouldn't find him funnier for it. In fact I would stop consuming his art. And I consider myself a huge Jim Jefferies fan.
I guess we still have a long way to go.
|
Sorry but that just isn't how it works. Victims don't get to determine the level of severity of a crime. For practical reasons we have to "rank" crimes in terms of severity from a more objective standpoint. And while the effects on the victim can't be totally ignored, we can't use it as the sole basis for our determination as to the severity of the crime, it just isn't practical. We don't use the level of victimization as perceived by the victim to be our basis for judging the severity of a crime.
It is rarely simple and can have multiple layers to consider but generally speaking Sliver is correct. What Louis did is by all of our standards of sexual crimes, less severe than rape.
As for one person's opinion on his crimes, that's obviously completely subjective.