Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
Uh, yeah. It fataing should be more easily dismissed since there was no penetrative rape or molestation. I find it fascinating in the era of #metoo how people can't differentiate between the degrees of abuse/victimization and respond accordingly. It's a scale. Louis CK's I don't find that bothersome and I don't think the victims were that victimized. There are lessons to be learned from it, though, but I do think the abuse is consistent with how he presented himself in his material. A lot of his bits are about him being a bit sexually deviant. Same with his stories in interviews like on Stern. I'm not even a mega fan or anything and I'm not doing any sort of mental gymnastics here. I've read what he did, and I'm like, meh, a bit offside, but not abhorrent.
|
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, 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.