More on Argento, she denies having sex with Bennett, even though there are released text messages where she brags about it. Then she goes into victim smearing
Murder isn’t human nature, that’s behaviour. Behaviour is changeable, nature is not.
The same nature that put us in staunch political groups is no different than the one that makes us a fan of a sports team, or protect our friends.
The same nature that causes one to kill is the one that causes you to want to win, at anything.
How we express our nature, and in what venues, is fluid. But our nature itself is not. To overcome human nature is to live in some messed up Brave New World fiction. It’s pie in the sky stuff, and not something anyone, anywhere, who is a human being, should actually want.
It isn't human nature to want to win? That is the perfect definition of liberalism. Participation trophies for everyone.
To explain, the need to “win” is a dominant characteristic of human nature. That manifests itself in athletic competition, job performance, social circles, gang violence, etc.
“Winning” is not a behaviour, “murder” or “killing” is. Unless you’re Charlie Sheen (who knows, you could be) then “winning” is an outcome bred from a type of ambition and a series of behaviours. That ambition is what causes you to undertake those behaviours, because of a bred desire to reach the outcome. The need to win is not a singular action, like murder.
Lame shot at liberals aside, I see your confusion, but it’s pretty simple. The point was that to overcome “human nature,” isn’t possible or even ideal. We can change behaviours (don’t kill people), but if you try to deny human nature, you would have a bunch of vanilla, mindless, unambitious weirdos. The very thing you were mocking, basically. To overcome human nature is to have a world full of participation trophies.
To explain, the need to “win” is a dominant characteristic of human nature. That manifests itself in athletic competition, job performance, social circles, gang violence, etc.
“Winning” is not a behaviour, “murder” or “killing” is. Unless you’re Charlie Sheen (who knows, you could be) then “winning” is an outcome bred from a type of ambition and a series of behaviours. That ambition is what causes you to undertake those behaviours, because of a bred desire to reach the outcome. The need to win is not a singular action, like murder.
Lame shot at liberals aside, I see your confusion, but it’s pretty simple. The point was that to overcome “human nature,” isn’t possible or even ideal. We can change behaviours (don’t kill people), but if you try to deny human nature, you would have a bunch of vanilla, mindless, unambitious weirdos. The very thing you were mocking, basically. To overcome human nature is to have a world full of participation trophies.
I see what your point is now that you've explained it, however I believe you confused yourself with that previous post and that's ok.
Apparently last night Louis CK made his first performance since the allegations broke. He made a surprise appearance at the Comedy Cellar in NYC around 11pm. They said he did about 15min of material. Sounds like the reception he received was positive, interesting.
I saw a story on that, he's been collecting his emails fans forever so when he decides to show up the email went out to his fans, so I have my doubts that it was a "surprise" appearance and the people that showed up are his fans.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I've seen a few professionals within the business say that Louis' ostracization was only going to last so long, and out of all the recent cases he was the most likely to bounce back without too much, if any, damage.
Is it because he owned it and apologized? Because of the severity? His already self-deprecating personality and act?
__________________ "It's a great day for hockey."
-'Badger' Bob Johnson (1931-1991)
"I see as much misery out of them moving to justify theirselves as them that set out to do harm." -Dr. Amos "Doc" Cochran
I've seen a few professionals within the business say that Louis' ostracization was only going to last so long, and out of all the recent cases he was the most likely to bounce back without too much, if any, damage.
Is it because he owned it and apologized? Because of the severity? His already self-deprecating personality and act?
He responded appropriately to inappropriate actions. They came out and it was basically a quick "Yes, this is exactly what happened, they are 100% telling the truth and I'm going to go away and reflect and try to change effectively immediately".
You can argue that he already knew it was coming and it was calculated, and you'd likely be right, but from a PR standpoint he nailed it. Of all the transgressions he was actually likely in the best shape to try to fight it a little, but chose to just own it, apologize and disappear.
The Following User Says Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
Seinfeld had a good point, though. Comedy is a tough business to come back with that kind of stuff in people's minds.
Other mediums you can act or play music, but comedy relies on staring into everyone's eyes and making that comedic connection, which he figured would be difficult task for Louis. Especially considering when you watch his comedy a lot of his act is making fun of really gross stuff, and that connection with the audience is based on him not being known for it himself.
Interesting to see if he totally pivots his act now and avoids any limit pushing sexual stuff.
My guess is that Louis incorporates it into his act.
Personally, I'm glad he's coming back. What he did was gross, inappropriate and sometimes caused pain to others. But it shouldn't be a life sentence especially considering that he owned up to it and apologized both privately and publicly. I didn't really like seeing him get lumped in with Weinstein and some of the other really predatory monsters that have been outed recently because I don't think his crime was as severe.
With Louis coming back this could be the next phase of the movement where instead of outing and publicly prosecuting people we can start to have a real discussion about what's appropriate behavior and what isn't and how to deal with it. Louis may be the perfect person in the perfect profession to spark this potential next phase.
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
Do we really need a "real discussion" to agree that what Louis did was way over the line?
I don't necessarily have a problem with people getting second chances, but it feels like you are understating the impact of his actions. I agree that a life sentence isn't required, but he is seemingly trying to revive his career, and it hasn't even been one year since the allegations emerged.
If he incorporates it into his act that would feel like he's exploiting it to me. He shouldn't be able to profit from his previous actions in such a manner.
The Following User Says Thank You to Jiri Hrdina For This Useful Post:
Was Michael Richards really a big name at the time, though? Seemed to me like he was just living off Seinfeld fame.
As for Louis CK, Jirihrdina, if your objection is that it's too soon for him to revive his career, how long must he wander the wilderness before doing more stand up? A year? Two? Ten? How do you come up with that?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Was Michael Richards really a big name at the time, though? Seemed to me like he was just living off Seinfeld fame.
As for Louis CK, Jirihrdina, if your objection is that it's too soon for him to revive his career, how long must he wander the wilderness before doing more stand up? A year? Two? Ten? How do you come up with that?
I'm not sure. The original positioning was that a life sentence is not required. But it hasn't even been a year.
Was Michael Richards really a big name at the time, though? Seemed to me like he was just living off Seinfeld fame.
It's not like he was doing stand-up tours around North America, but stand-up comedians of all stripes tend to be very active in the two big markets: LA and New York. But as of 2012, he completely stopped doing stand-up because the incident still haunted him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina
I'm not sure. The original positioning was that a life sentence is not required. But it hasn't even been a year.
Probably because the prevailing sentiment every time you hear someone comment about incidents like this is that they hope this person and their career is completely and forever buried?
