High-Profile Sexual Abuse Epidemic

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

What specific actions has Loui taken to correct his actions? Apart from taking a time out - what did he do? Do we know? Should we know? What is the willingness to forgive and offer second chances based from?
It seems like there is an assumption that he went away and "worked on his issues". Did he? Or did he just try to give it enough time to "blow over"?

I thought in his public apology speeches he said he was getting help. If that was all PR then yeah WTF. But if he actually did then why not let him work.

If all it was was letting thing blow over then getting back at making money again, then his comeback will be short lived.

Like I said time will tell.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

This is the part of a lot of the mob justice/demands to know what's happened I have a lot of problems with. More often than not, the public has no right (despite what it thinks it does) to know what's gone on. Who knows what he's done privately to address the issue. It's none of our business. The amount of stuff that people want to know that they have no right to know but feel that they do is always interesting.

Fair enough, but we're dealing in the world of public figures here, so whether or not someone like this has done anything or not, a apology without seen actions is going to be viewed cynically and can be judged as an act of a horrified PR staff and not a horrified person that's genuinely sorry.


Plus don't you think its kind of an obligation for a celebrity if they're going to issue an apology to kind of follow it up with an action?


Apologies mean very little to me, its equivalent to a convicted murderer tearfully apologizing to a family just before sentencing.



I always ask the question and it goes to a lot of these celebrities, are they sorry about their actions, or are the sorry that they got caught and their careers in jeopardy?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by dammage79

I thought in his public apology speeches he said he was getting help. If that was all PR then yeah WTF. But if he actually did then why not let him work.

If all it was was letting thing blow over then getting back at making money again, then his comeback will be short lived.

Like I said time will tell.

Louis CK is a strange case. He did have that position of power, but all he really did was make people very uncomfortable and we dont really know why.

The fact of the matter is, he owned it, apologized and now lets let The Market decide.

He was never charged or convicted of a crime as far as I know, so if people are still of the opinion that his penance for his deplorable actions were insufficient then let them back that belief with their money, or lack thereof.

Either throw him in jail or let him rebuild his life. If people are still against him then his attempts to rebuild his life will fail.

Ironically, especially in light of the Asia Argento fiasco, if we're going to do this with mob justice then unfortunately that mob works both ways.

Whats the saying? The same group of people who applauded your Coronation are the ones cheering at your beheading?

If you want to operate under Mob Rule then you just have to accept the fact that the Mob is fickle.

[Matata]

I think people only turn off entertainers when they've done something truly monstrous, anything less than that is acceptable, because if you lower your criteria to anything less than monstrous, then you have to abandon about half the entertainment that you enjoy, as there is no shortage of very popular entertainers who have done things that are revolting.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Fair enough, but we're dealing in the world of public figures here, so whether or not someone like this has done anything or not, a apology without seen actions is going to be viewed cynically and can be judged as an act of a horrified PR staff and not a horrified person that's genuinely sorry.


Plus don't you think its kind of an obligation for a celebrity if they're going to issue an apology to kind of follow it up with an action?


Apologies mean very little to me, its equivalent to a convicted murderer tearfully apologizing to a family just before sentencing.



I always ask the question and it goes to a lot of these celebrities, are they sorry about their actions, or are the sorry that they got caught and their careers in jeopardy?

Well, I think for sure they're sorry their effed up crap jeopardized their careers and that they got caught. Thats pretty obvious.

Where I kind of separate CK from most of these people though is he seemed to legitimately care more about how this would affect his daughters. I mean if he cared that much after all perhaps it would've curbed his weird behavior in the first place.

It's either great PR or he's legit about it. we will see.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Locke

Louis CK is a strange case. He did have that position of power, but all he really did was make people very uncomfortable and we dont really know why.

The fact of the matter is, he owned it, apologized and now lets let The Market decide.

He was never charged or convicted of a crime as far as I know, so if people are still of the opinion that his penance for his deplorable actions were insufficient then let them back that belief with their money, or lack thereof.

Either throw him in jail or let him rebuild his life. If people are still against him then his attempts to rebuild his life will fail.

Ironically, especially in light of the Asia Argento fiasco, if we're going to do this with mob justice then unfortunately that mob works both ways.

Whats the saying? The same group of people who applauded your Coronation are the ones cheering at your beheading?

If you want to operate under Mob Rule then you just have to accept the fact that the Mob is fickle.

You and Yamer summed it up better than I could apparently.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Locke

Louis CK is a strange case. He did have that position of power, but all he really did was make people very uncomfortable and we dont really know why.

The fact of the matter is, he owned it, apologized and now lets let The Market decide.

I don't agree with this.
For one, I think saying that "all he did was make people very uncomfortable" is underselling the impact of his actions on the victims. I don't want to try and even try to speak to what it must have been like, but I think this is minimizing it.
And no I don't think we should let the market decide. Not for stuff like this. Because he is a really funny guy he should be forgiven more or faster than less talented people? Because that's how the market will work.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I don't agree with this.
For one, I think saying that "all he did was make people very uncomfortable" is underselling the impact of his actions on the victims. I don't want to try and even try to speak to what it must have been like, but I think this is minimizing it.
And no I don't think we should let the market decide. Not for stuff like this. Because he is a really funny guy he should be forgiven more or faster than less talented people? Because that's how the market will work.

then who decides? you?

for someone who wasn't charged with any crime, shouldn't it be the court of public opinion that now decides his future going forward?

If enough people feel like you do, his career will falter and he'll go away. if people forgive him and give him money, then so be it.

he lost his reputation and untold millions of dollars. if nothing else that was a pretty big price to pay. if I did the same thing, I may have only lost a few friends and been shamed by my family, and I likely would have had another job by now.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

What specific actions has Loui taken to correct his actions? Apart from taking a time out - what did he do? Do we know? Should we know? What is the willingness to forgive and offer second chances based from?
It seems like there is an assumption that he went away and "worked on his issues". Did he? Or did he just try to give it enough time to "blow over"?

Well, I guess the question is, what actions are necessary for him? What actions would satisfy the public? And is there any reason to think what’s necessary for him has anything to do with what’s necessary to satisfy the public?

Maybe being told his actions are wrong, taking some time to self reflect and escaping the shield of celebrity worship was enough to straighten him out. Maybe he needed counselling. Maybe he needed rehab for sex addiction. Or maybe he has deep seeded psychological issues that can only be managed and never cured. Who really knows?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

then who decides? you?

Umm no. Where have I even suggested that. What an absurd suggestion.

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

for someone who wasn't charged with any crime, shouldn't it be the court of public opinion that now decides his future going forward?

I'm not sure how his future will be decided, but in pockets he seems to be getting a relatively warm welcome back and personally I don't get that.

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

If enough people feel like you do, his career will falter and he'll go away. if people forgive him and give him money, then so be it.

he lost his reputation and untold millions of dollars. if nothing else that was a pretty big price to pay. if I did the same thing, I may have only lost a few friends and been shamed by my family, and I likely would have had another job by now.

Yes poor him. He's the victim here.
He's lost untold million on top of the millions he already has.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Well, I guess the question is, what actions are necessary for him? What actions would satisfy the public? And is there any reason to think what’s necessary for him has anything to do with what’s necessary to satisfy the public?

Maybe being told his actions are wrong, taking some time to self reflect and escaping the shield of celebrity worship was enough to straighten him out. Maybe he needed counselling. Maybe he needed rehab for sex addiction. Or maybe he has deep seeded psychological issues that can only be managed and never cured. Who really knows?

Right. And I realize that those are complicated questions.
But IF (stressing IF) all he did was go away for a while, and after he felt enough time had passed, he returned, is that really good enough?
i don't think it is. People are more than welcome to disagree. But frankly I would be fine if his career was ruined by what he did. If that's the price he had to pay for what he did - personally - I'm more than fine with that.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I don't agree with this.
For one, I think saying that "all he did was make people very uncomfortable" is underselling the impact of his actions on the victims. I don't want to try and even try to speak to what it must have been like, but I think this is minimizing it.
And no I don't think we should let the market decide. Not for stuff like this. Because he is a really funny guy he should be forgiven more or faster than less talented people? Because that's how the market will work.

I dont necessarily disagree, but look at it within the context of 'MeToo' and rank his transgressions versus others. Is it lower on the scale? Because everything is a matter of degree.

And further, it really doesnt matter if you disagree or not, the fact of the matter remains that while what he did was reprehensible its been found that he has committed no crime and is not subject to further punishment.

So....bearing all of that in mind, whats the solution?

The law has done what its going to do.

Hes going to do what hes going to do.

The only wildcard left is how society (the Mob) is going to react and what they're going to do.

And what they do may not be copacetic with your ethos, but the mob is tough to regulate.

What else is there to do? The law is done, mob justice is all thats left and if they forgive then its done. Whether we like it or not.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Locke

I dont necessarily disagree, but look at it within the context of 'MeToo' and rank his transgressions versus others. Is it lower on the scale? Because everything is a matter of degree.

And further, it really doesnt matter if you disagree or not, the fact of the matter remains that while what he did was reprehensible its been found that he has committed no crime and is not subject to further punishment.

So....bearing all of that in mind, whats the solution?

The law has done what its going to do.

Hes going to do what hes going to do.

The only wildcard left is how society (the Mob) is going to react and what they're going to do.

And what they do may not be copacetic with your ethos, but the mob is tough to regulate.

What else is there to do? The law is done, mob justice is all thats left and if they forgive then its done. Whether we like it or not.

Measuring it against other crimes is the wrong way to look at it in my opinion.
We should evaluate the action on its own. it was a severe form of sexual harassment that likely impacted the victims in ways we don't understand. At least I don't as I've never been a victim of that type of thing.
But boiling it down to "well he didn't rape anyone" doesn't really matter to me.

As for the rest, we don't have to simply allow the mob to decide, we can continue to discuss, debate and question that reality.

Accepting it because it is what the mob decides? Naw. That's not good enough.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Right. And I realize that those are complicated questions.
But IF (stressing IF) all he did was go away for a while, and after he felt enough time had passed, he returned, is that really good enough?
i don't think it is. People are more than welcome to disagree. But frankly I would be fine if his career was ruined by what he did. If that's the price he had to pay for what he did - personally - I'm more than fine with that.

Yeah, his case is certainly a lot tougher than people who are obviously pieces of crap who deserve to have their lives ruined, like Crosby, Weinstein, Polanski etc.

Not sure how I feel about his return to public life. Problem is his public life was never the problem, it was his private life. And him doing stand up gives me no indication that he can act like a regular member of society again. I also don’t know what an acceptable level of public punishment should be. Other than a symbolic gesture to make us feel better.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Yeah, his case is certainly a lot tougher than people who are obviously pieces of crap who deserve to have their lives ruined, like Crosby, Weinstein, Polanski etc.

Not sure how I feel about his return to public life. Problem is his public life was never the problem, it was his private life. And him doing stand up gives me no indication that he can act like a regular member of society again. I also don’t know what an acceptable level of public punishment should be. Other than a symbolic gesture to make us feel better.

Agree with all that and....we don't know what he did while he was away.
Do we have the right to know? Perhaps not. But it feels like if he could articulate how he spent that time away and took specific actions to address his issues - it would help to accept his return.
Does have the obligation to do that? Maybe, or maybe not. But it feels like the right thing.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Agree with all that and....we don't know what he did while he was away.
Do we have the right to know? Perhaps not. But it feels like if he could articulate how he spent that time away and took specific actions to address his issues - it would help to accept his return.
Does have the obligation to do that? Maybe, or maybe not. But it feels like the right thing.

He certainly doesn’t have an obligation, but he’s playing in the court of public opinion, so it would be beneficial.

The thing is, CK doesn’t owe anybody (outside of the people he directly impacted) anything, just the same as nobody owes him the privilege of “forgive and forget.”

I think your stance, as well as everybody else’s, on whether his “comeback” is too soon or whatever, is equally valid, because we all have to make our own decisions about right and wrong and how strongly we feel about it.

Outside of the law, the court of public opinion is the only thing that someone’s trajectory after doing something wrong is decided upon, and that court rarely (if ever) reaches a consensus, and is often fluid from one day to the next.

Is it too soon for CK’s comeback? Only an individual can decide, and you have to be satisfied with your own choice, not the choices of others. Personally, I didn’t like him that much before, and I certainly don’t see a reason from this point forward to enjoy his existence as an entertainer, but that’s my choice and mine alone. If his fame rises to pre-MeToo levels again without him redeeming himself in my eyes, I’m not going to make judgements about it.

I’m happy you posed the question though. I think it’s interesting, and certainly highlights how complex and fickle the light under which someone is seen can be.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I always ask the question and it goes to a lot of these celebrities, are they sorry about their actions, or are the sorry that they got caught and their careers in jeopardy?

I'm somewhat of a cynic, and it's not just celeb's that this applies to.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Yeah, no one is saying otherwise. I know it, CK damned well knows it, the man has owned up to this the entire time. Whether you choose to believe he has a solid PR firm repping him or he is a legitimate human being who's recognized his behavior and owns it and went to correct it is up to you. Dude got called out for his wack arsed weird AF crap and at least is trying to fix it..

Louis CK had been known to do this #### for years though. He only "owned" it once half a dozen women came forward and made a claim in front of the MeToo movement.

In 2015 Gawker did a piece on him - only after someone confronted Louis in 2014 to stop sexually harassing female comedians and he refused. These allegations started in the mid 90's and went on for decades. In 2016, when Vulture asked him about it, he dismissed it as not real. But pretty much everyone in the comedy circle recognized it as an open-secret. And secret might be a bit of stretch considering he did a lot of his comedy on inappropriate masturbation jokes.

I don't know whether he changed or not, if these past 10 months he had some sort of epiphany, only he knows. But what you characterize as "owning it" was just him getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar, and the other one firmly on his penis.

So yeah, good publicity firm.

[Oling_Roachinen]

http://gawker.com/5894527/which-belo...h-him-jerk-off

Thinking he was joking (that's exactly the kind of thing this guy would say), the women gave a facetious thumbs up. He wasn't joking. When he actually started jerking off in front of them, the ladies decided that wasn't their bag and made for the exit. But the comedian stood in front of the door, blocking their way with his body, until he was done.

One of the ladies was so shaken by the episode that she complained to the festival's organizers about the comedian's behavior. She promptly received a call from his extremely powerful manager explaining that, if she valued her career, she would drop it. She valued her career.

Maybe this should be the next level of topic, about how many complete ####heads exist that would enable a sexual predator like Louis CK. Managers, publicists, festival organizes, all turned a blind-eye at best. Some threatening a woman because she was sexually abused.

Anyways, that report was in 2012. Not that it's a surprise, like I said, open secret about him for decades. It's just that I do have a hard time thinking that for at least 6 years there were stories about people actively trying to get him to stop this type of behaviour and he didn't do anything (except say it wasn't true) and then a month after the MeToo movement accusations hit he has somehow become a changed man. He didn't change, he didn't own it, the times changed - women weren't going to let this slide.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

I'm somewhat of a cynic, and it's not just celeb's that this applies to.

Sure, absolutely, but because this thread seems to be somewhat specific to the celebrity crowd, I went that way.