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.
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Cecil Terwilliger For This Useful Post:
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.
What a horrible opinion
To take it to a next step. Cosby's crimes aren't actually THAT bad because it's not like he murdered his victims
All about scale right?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jiri Hrdina For This Useful Post:
I'm disgusted by his fans. There's no doubt he did something wrong with these children. The only debate is how far the assaults and abuse went, but it's pretty clear some abhorrent things took place.
There's also no doubt his handlers and management knew wtf was going on and it disgusts me. These people should also be held accountable. The parents of these kids need a stern talking to as well.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CroFlames For This Useful Post:
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.
I think there's a big difference between saying "not as bad as penetrative," (although I kind of don't see the point of this) and "I thought what he did was funny. That zany, sexual deviant! LOL!"
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
Isn't that all really determined solely by the victim?
For all crimes, or just sexual crimes?
Because I don't know how that would work in a legal system, or even in informal social responses. Someone who has their car broken into might be traumatized by the event and feel unsafe. Someone else might be mugged at knifepoint and get on with life and rarely give it another thought after a couple weeks. Not only do the courts handle those two acts differently, but most people are going to regard the first as a lesser crime than the second, regardless of how the victim feels about it.
Conflating exposure to masturbation with penetrative rape does not necessarily make people more sympathetic to those who are exposed to masturbation. When you refer to them both as 'sexual assault', you can diminish the impact of that term, since it can mean a whole range of offences that vary in severity.
I know these are emotional subjects, but proportionately is a fundamental principle not only of our criminal justice system, but of our moral norms. There are degrees of bad. Saying something isn't as bad as something else is not dismissing it as not bad. It's simply recognising real distinctions.
__________________
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.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 03-06-2019 at 11:32 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
If I had to pick who sexualy abused me, from best to worst, I'd go:
1. Louis CK: I can just walk away.
2. Michael Jackson: probably pick up a lifetimes worth of trauma, but get live the high life for a few years plus hush money.
3. R Kelly: just abuse and misery.
The Following User Says Thank You to Matata For This Useful Post:
What a horrible opinion
To take it to a next step. Cosby's crimes aren't actually THAT bad because it's not like he murdered his victims
All about scale right?
My apologies for continuing this tangent....
But yeah, murder would have been worse.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Scroopy Noopers For This Useful Post:
What a horrible opinion
To take it to a next step. Cosby's crimes aren't actually THAT bad because it's not like he murdered his victims
All about scale right?
Well, yeah, they aren't as bad as murder. Rape is below murder on the scale of severity. That is exactly what I'm saying, so yes.
What a horrible opinion
To take it to a next step. Cosby's crimes aren't actually THAT bad because it's not like he murdered his victims
All about scale right?
You seem like you are getting stuck on an either/or here.
To you, it's coming across like you feel that if someone says that rape isn't as bad as murder, then that person is saying that rape isn't bad.
That is not what is being said at all. What is being said is that rape IS bad, but it is not AS BAD AS murder. So rape is still very bad, but murder is worse.
The Following User Says Thank You to WhiteTiger For This Useful Post:
You seem like you are getting stuck on an either/or here.
To you, it's coming across like you feel that if someone says that rape isn't as bad as murder, then that person is saying that rape isn't bad.
That is not what is being said at all. What is being said is that rape IS bad, but it is not AS BAD AS murder. So rape is still very bad, but murder is worse.
I agree. My point is that Sliver is minimizing how bad actions like Louis CK's are. Sure relative to actual rape they aren't AS bad, but they are still REALLY REALLY bad.
Again this is what he said
"Louis CK's I don't find that bothersome and I don't think the victims were that victimize"
I agree. My point is that Sliver is minimizing how bad actions like Louis CK's are. Sure relative to actual rape they aren't AS bad, but they are still REALLY REALLY bad.
Again this is what he said
"Louis CK's I don't find that bothersome and I don't think the victims were that victimized"
Brutal take.
That's not brutal at all. I remember once my uncle walked into the bathroom at Eau Claire market and some dude was sitting on the counter wacking off. It was a funny story to him and us.
Some old dude jerked off in front of my wife when she was 17 on the C-train. It's still a go-to funny/WTF story for her.
Last year I was driving in Forest Lawn and some crack whore came up beside my truck and flashed her naked crotch at me. Didn't feel victimized.
If my daughter encountered a situation similar to the Louis CK one, I wouldn't want her to feel like a victim. I would want her to feel secure and strong enough to immediately remove herself from the situation. I think it can be unhealthy to opt to view yourself as a victim when you may not be.
But as for my quote above, I didn't say they weren't victims. I said they weren't that victimized. On the scale of bad things one human can do to another, jerking off on the telephone when you can just hang up barely registers and certainly isn't in the same ballpark as MJ ejaculating on the face of seven year old boys.
Yeah, I shouldn't have come across as generalizing "crime" as a concept. Obviously there are degrees of crime, even within a crime itself, that is taken into account according to the criminal justice system. We can't just have a uniform classification of "BAD".
Rather, to clarify, my issue comes two-fold:
1. With someone outside of the situation assessing the degree to which the victim feels, or should feel, victimized (perhaps that's not what you meant, but it came off the page that way at me). Yes, it could have been worse, but as with criminal acts there are subjective levels of victimization in every crime. There isn't an objective standard of how someone should or should not feel and react to someone non-consensually masturbating in front of them vs full-on raping them;
2. That abusing or victimizing someone is somehow acceptable depending on the on-stage presentation of an exaggerated, fictitious character. This isn't meant to be a judgement on anyone that subscribes to that, but to me that's highly disturbing.
__________________ "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
You are ignoring that Louis held power and influence over his victims. This wasn't a random thing. And in some cases he wouldn't let people leave the situation.
^To Sliver not Yamer.
I think there's a big difference between saying "not as bad as penetrative," (although I kind of don't see the point of this) and "I thought what he did was funny. That zany, sexual deviant! LOL!"
Good thing no one said that then? I'm not even sure why you'd bring that up.
That's not brutal at all. I remember once my uncle walked into the bathroom at Eau Claire market and some dude was sitting on the counter wacking off. It was a funny story to him and us.
Some old dude jerked off in front of my wife when she was 17 on the C-train. It's still a go-to funny/WTF story for her.
Last year I was driving in Forest Lawn and some crack whore came up beside my truck and flashed her naked crotch at me. Didn't feel victimized.
If my daughter encountered a situation similar to the Louis CK one, I wouldn't want her to feel like a victim. I would want her to feel secure and strong enough to immediately remove herself from the situation. I think it can be unhealthy to opt to view yourself as a victim when you may not be.
But as for my quote above, I didn't say they weren't victims. I said they weren't that victimized. On the scale of bad things one human can do to another, jerking off on the telephone when you can just hang up barely registers and certainly isn't in the same ballpark as MJ ejaculating on the face of seven year old boys.
I have a lot of problems with some of what you said here (I'm catching odors of victim blaming), but I'll stick to what's at hand for now. There are all kinds of standpoint subjectivity going on here, which is kind of the point I'm making.
And I think it's important to remember that the people subjected to this behavior didn't just stumble into someone masturbating in a washroom. These women were subordinates of someone they either depended on, admired, or reported to. I can't stress how much of an entirely different dynamic this is to what you described in your anecdotes.
I would hope a person would feel enabled and secure enough to walk away as well, but that's just not the reality in some cases...in these cases. Would they lose their job if they said no? What would Louis do extraneously to them and their careers?
To someone that has never been penetratively raped but has had their employer and mentor compel them to watch them masturbate that can be severely traumatizing to them without ever having the comparative of experiencing penetrative rape.
That statement is brutal as it's dismissive of their trauma.
__________________ "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
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Yamer For This Useful Post:
Good thing no one said that then? I'm not even sure why you'd bring that up.
Hyperbole for sure, but Sliver did mention that he believes these incidents make Louis CK more entertaining with respect to his material on the subject.
To each their own, but to me that's...upsetting to read.
__________________ "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
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Yamer For This Useful Post:
By the way, I just finished the 1hr After Neverland where Oprah talks to the 2 men and the director in front of an audience of sexual abuse survivors.
It is utterly heartbreaking to watch, and if there is anyone after watching the 2 part series still thinking Jackson is innocent, then watch this, there is zero doubt these 2 are telling the truth.
James Safechuck is still in a very fragile state, you can tell he has a very long way to go for any real recovery from this all, your heart breaks for him. Wade Robson has clearly come through this better, but again you can see just how much damage was done to them, and I imagine all the boys Jackson molested.
Oprah did a really good job bringing up points like how its so often not "abuse" as we think of it, its seduction of a child, these 2 men never felt it was abuse until adulthood and that is one of the more insidious things about what pedophiles do when they groom their victims and families.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
Last edited by Thor; 03-06-2019 at 12:55 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
By the way, I just finished the 1hr After Neverland where Oprah talks to the 2 men and the director in front of an audience of sexual abuse survivors.
It is utterly heartbreaking to watch, and if there is anyone after watching the 2 part series still thinking Jackson is innocent, then watch this, there is zero doubt these 2 are telling the truth.
James Safechuck is still in a very fragile state, you can tell he has a very long way to go for any real recovery from this all, your heart breaks for him. Wade Robson has clearly come through this better, but again you can see just how much damage was done to them, and I imagine all the boys Jackson molested.
Oprah did a really good job bringing up points like how its so often not "abuse" as we think of it, its seduction of a child, these 2 men never felt it was abuse until adulthood and that is one of the more insidious things about what pedophiles do when they groom their victims and families.
Yeah, watching James just try and answer questions about his life and his relationship with his mom is devastating.
Just heartbreaking to watch.
"Forgiveness is not a line you cross, it's a road you take".
The Following User Says Thank You to AC For This Useful Post:
Thin Skull rule: The rule states that, in a tort case, the unexpected frailty of the injured person is not a valid defense to the seriousness of any injury caused to them. [wikipedia]
That one person might think public masturbation is funny, does not mean it is not damaging to another.
