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.
__________________ "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
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
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.
Because that's called a "discussion" where people present their views and opinions on certain topics. It's my belief that he should not be welcomed back with open arms to continue to do his comedy as though nothing happened.
It's also my understanding that people don't care, or believe he has changed or reached penance, and that's their right. I just disagree. It's not a hard concept.
The Following User Says Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
Because that's called a "discussion" where people present their views and opinions on certain topics. It's my belief that he should not be welcomed back with open arms to continue to do his comedy as though nothing happened.
It's also my understanding that people don't care, or believe he has changed or reached penance, and that's their right. I just disagree. It's not a hard concept.
It's just a bit of an odd case, where you want those other people to be governed by your particular views and opinions, even though you appear to acknowledge that your views and opinions aren't based on anything but how you happen to feel about the situation. It's not like you're providing an argument that you're right to think the way you do and you have a good reason why other people should share your intuitions, it's just a reaction you've had that - as you've said - you fully understand may be different from others' reactions. Given that that's the case, I would have thought you'd land in more or less the same place Barnet Flame did in his post a page or two ago, rationally.
__________________ "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
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Not to speak for Jiri, but ideally he would be held accountable by the public and his fans. Social pressure that prevents venues from giving him a place to do his comedy, networks from airing his shows, comedians from working with him.
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.
His shows have been pulled from Netflix. Some venues will host him, some won't. Some of the public doesn't want him to have a career anymore, some do.
What you seem to want is consensus. And that's never going to happen.
Look at Mike Tyson. He did far worse things than CK. The guy is a convicted rapist who allegedly beat his wife. I don't particularly like that he still has a career in entertainment. He was just on the the Joe Rogan Experience, and I won't watch the episode because I think Tyson is a dirtbag. But if other people want to watch Mike Tyson, that's up to them. Beyond the justice system, I don't think some people should be allowed to impose their moral sanctions against the will of others.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
It's just a bit of an odd case, where you want those other people to be governed by your particular views and opinions, even though you appear to acknowledge that your views and opinions aren't based on anything but how you happen to feel about the situation. It's not like you're providing an argument that you're right to think the way you do and you have a good reason why other people should share your intuitions, it's just a reaction you've had that - as you've said - you fully understand may be different from others' reactions. Given that that's the case, I would have thought you'd land in more or less the same place Barnet Flame did in his post a page or two ago, rationally.
I've not said I expect people to be governed by my views.
But my opinion is, including in this very thread, that what he did is being minimized by some. That it was just an uncomfortable situation for those victims. In reality, someone who is victimized by this type of thing can have long-term impacts.
I've not said I expect people to be governed by my views.
Well, you are though, in that you're not just saying "this punishment isn't enough for me, my intuition is he should have had to do more and should have suffered more, and therefore I won't be supporting him or his work". What you're saying is, "this punishment isn't enough for me, my intuition is he should have had to do more and should have suffered more, and therefore no one should be able to support him or his work." You effectively want this to no longer be an option for other people who don't share your views, despite your admission that you understand that they have honest differences of opinion. That doesn't make sense to me.
__________________ "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
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
No, you've got it backwards. I'm not saying I don't want people with different views to have my will imposed on them. If anything I would prefer people share my view - of course I understand that won't always be the case.
I want people to argue for transgender rights. I want people to care about climate change. I want people to vaccinate. Not everyone shares my views on those or any number of topics, I get it. I just hope they would (or maybe provide rational to change my view). In this case, I want people to take this sexual misconduct more serious and stop supporting him. Obviously I know that's about as rational as going to the pope and asking for him to support Catholic gay marriage, but it's my view that this sexual predator should not be supported. Not that people shouldn't be able to support him.
Last edited by Oling_Roachinen; 01-28-2019 at 10:10 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
Okay, but that doesn't line up with what you said before, when I summarized your position as "It sounds like not being able to work anymore plus being ostracized and shunned by your colleagues and many of your friends", which you said "sounds about right to you". But maybe I'm misunderstanding you and you were actually basically saying the same thing as Barnet Flame:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnet Flame
It clearly looks as if he won’t get a second chance with you. He very likely won’t get a second chance with me either. I can’t get past what he did, and it will always cloud any future work he does in my opinion.
For a comedian, this is bad news. Often comedy is based upon social commentary and observation. To be successful at that and for me to enjoy it, the person delivering the material has to be credible in doing that.
Louis CK has lost that credibility and for me that significantly reduces the impact of whatever he can deliver in future.
I don’t think his career should be ruined forever, nor will I be critical of those who attend and enjoy any future shows he does.
But as a comedian I’d watch, in that respect, it’ll never happen again.
I'll leave aside the comparisons you made between this discussion and things like climate change and vaccination, or arguing for a suite of rights generally, which are obviously not at all analogous to a discussion about what one person's consequences should be for his actions (and in at least the first two cases are really objective discussions about scientific evidence that actually exists rather than just intuitions about punishment). I mean, I get that you wish other people felt the same way as you, but in this case that's about as far as it goes because you can't really articulate any reasons why they should have your intuitions instead of theirs.
__________________ "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
I'm not saying I don't want people with different views to have my will imposed on them.
As a disinterested observer (I don't like CK, never have, and don't give two ****'s about his career or life), however, this is exactly how you and Jiri have been coming off as I've been reading your posts about him.
So if this is truly how you feel, then perhaps you need to reconsider your wording or presentation.
but in this case that's about as far as it goes because you can't really articulate any reasons why they should have your intuitions instead of theirs.
Because he's a sexual predator who preyed on vulnerable women who he had power over. And he forced them to remain quiet about what happened for fear of retaliation - namely ####ing over their careers. While denying it for years and years. And the only reason he came clean was because the MeToo movement happened and he knew he was about to be in the spotlight as many notable people were now accusing him(see his response to accusations in September 2017 compared to his apology in November 2017 - keeping in mind the MeToo movement took off in October 2017).
I think he's a despicable human being for what he did, and as such I would like for his friends to shun him and the public to not support him. I'm actually surprised that this is a controversial opinion.
Last edited by Oling_Roachinen; 01-28-2019 at 10:31 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
Because he's a sexual predator who preyed on vulnerable women and forced them to remain quiet about what happened for fear of retaliation - namely ####ing over their careers.
I think he's a despicable human being for what he did, and his friends should shun him. I'm actually surprised that this is controversial opinion.
You’d be surprised. There are a lot of people who won’t actually state their opinion on this and will argue simply for the sake of arguing. Maybe they are #NotAllMen types who worry that consequences for a predator like Louis could impact them, who knows. Maybe it’s part of the deification of celebrities that makes people want to make excuses for Louis and forgive and forget.
In the end his career is mostly finished except for maybe a Dennis Miller style conservative comedian turn. He’ll fade out relatively soon I’d expect. On the plus side there are a multitude of other comedians out there to still enjoy who haven’t held women and their careers captive by forcing them to watch them masturbate in front of them so that’s nice.
I think he's a despicable human being for what he did, and as such I would like for his friends to shun him and the public to not support him. I'm actually surprised that this is a controversial opinion.
I don't think it's a controversial opinion per se, nor am I saying that there's anything wrong with you for reacting the way that you did. However, I think some people would probably think that you're being a bit hyperbolic and that while what he did was clearly wrong and he deserves some level of moral opprobrium, that he's not a "despicable human being". Again, all of this is just intuitive reaction on your part to behaviour that disgusts you to a higher degree than it disgusts others, and in that sense, it's basically a disagreement over preference of ice cream flavour, but with that added element of morality that gets peoples' hackles up.
By the way, the reason I'm not throwing my own hat in the ring about my personal reaction to Louis CK's comeback is that my reaction isn't strong enough for me to assert it confidently. In other words, I clearly care quite a bit less about this than you, and the only reason I'm interested in this topic enough to be posting about it is because I'm finding certain peoples' reactions interesting in themselves.
__________________ "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
And this was the day Oling discovered how the world works.
The word 'funny' doesn't even need to be in there, and it doesn't only apply to sexual transgressions. Drugs, violence, theft, tax evasion, murder... if you have money, you're generally gonna come out further ahead than any ol' schmuck.
__________________
-James
GO FLAMES GO.
The Following User Says Thank You to TorqueDog For This Useful Post:
The word 'funny' doesn't even need to be in there, and it doesn't only apply to sexual transgressions. Drugs, violence, theft, tax evasion, murder... if you have money, you're generally gonna come out further ahead than any ol' schmuck.
It really pays to have damn good lawyers, and stakeholders in your livelihood.
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
I would just like to say this is incorrect. People seem to forget that if an average Joe does what Luis CK did then nobody hears about it without charges and if charged it's probably a footnote in the newspaper the people move on from quickly. Nobody is going to put on their resume that a couple of girls accused you of masterbating in front of them. If this is committed by a regular person the chances are high they are living their lives normally. Luis has been publicly humiliated. Luis can't go anywhere in public without people looking at him and judging him. The average person that commits the same infraction never has to worry about this.
Not accused. He did. That’s a fact. And oh no the celebrity has been publicly humiliated. You are making a weird amount of excuses for this. Are you a Louis superfan maybe?
And no if someone in the public eye was found out to have masturbated in front of multiple women against their will they would be shunned. Do you remember some different past where being a flasher was ok? Was the term Peeping Tom created as a fun nickname for a fella who wants to crank one off spying on women?
I would just like to say this is incorrect. People seem to forget that if an average Joe does what Luis CK did then nobody hears about it without charges and if charged it's probably a footnote in the newspaper the people move on from quickly.
It would matter the profession, but for the most part it would be severely limiting. Maybe not for some random kitchen staff employee but a lot of other industries are relatively small.
Forcing your subordinates to watch you masturbate against their wishes, yeah, most people are going to be fired (at minimum) and be severely handicapped in getting an equivalent job in their profession. For a lot of professions, conduct like that would cause them to lose their designation all together.
Of course the caveat being that it's reported. Also don't downplay that footnote. After the person is fired from his job and goes to apply elsewhere, when they google his/her name and the article pops up of their sexual misconduct allegation, that's the end of the application process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada
If this is committed by a regular person the chances are high they are living their lives normally.
What he did is not something a regular person does...
Last edited by Oling_Roachinen; 01-28-2019 at 01:16 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
