The new accusation is of a drunken proposition. A great number of men and women are guilty of being embarrassingly drunk, and making a fool of themselves while the proposition goes nowhere.
This person remembered the event with such disgust that she requested that her employer not to do a collaboration with one of the most famous people in the field 4 years after the fact. That should be a pretty big ####ing red flag that this was more than some harmless unreciprocated flirting.
It's not okay if a 'great number of men and women' are making others uncomfortable while drunk. It should not be used as any type of excuse.
All good questions. I think that the big take away is that public figures need to be careful about how they try to get laid. The positives of this is fewer people get abused. The Draw back is they get laid a little less often. Seems like a fair trade off to me.
especially if they have been married for 30 years.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
especially if they have been married for 30 years.
I don't think that should really factor into this at all. Poly and non-monogamous relationships are starting to become more popular. If he and his wife are both atheists, you could deduce that they're not constrained by the whatever the religious definitions are of marriage.
Man I can't believe the Les Moonves scandal isn't bigger news here. He had a CBS employee on call to perform oral sex at his beck and call. Total sleaze bag.
Good for Dukshu to get her salary for four seasons. It sounds like CBS needs a total house cleaning. I assume Moonves will sue as that's a massive severance package.
Almost from the moment his star began to rise, Singer, who is now 53, has been trailed by allegations of sexual misconduct. These allegations were so well known that 4,000 students, faculty members, and alumni at the University of Southern California had signed a petition asking the school to take Singer’s name off one of its programs, the Bryan Singer Division of Cinema and Media Studies—which the school did immediately after Sanchez-Guzman filed his suit. As one prominent actor told us, “After the Harvey Weinstein news came out, everyone thought Bryan Singer would be next.”
We spent 12 months investigating various lawsuits and allegations against Singer. In total, we spoke with more than 50 sources, including four men who have never before told their stories to reporters. A man we’ll call Eric told us that he was 17 in 1997 when he and Singer had sex at a party at the director’s house; another we’ll call Andy says he was only 15 that same year, when he and Singer had sex in a Beverly Hills mansion. Both men say Singer, who was then in his early 30s, knew they were under 18, the age of consent in California. (They asked The Atlantic to conceal their identity for fear of retaliation, and because they didn’t want certain details about their past made public.)
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Yeah I’m surprised it’s taken this long for Singer. I remember reading about his stuff before the Cosby stuff dropped. I’m not really sure what’s kept him under the radar the past couple years. Less and more powerful people have been biting the dust.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Coach For This Useful Post:
Yeah I’m surprised it’s taken this long for Singer. I remember reading about his stuff before the Cosby stuff dropped. I’m not really sure what’s kept him under the radar the past couple years. Less and more powerful people have been biting the dust.
while singer isn't that powerful, he does have pretty rich and powerful friends.
and I also think it's the gay thing. not as much interest in giving men their #metoo moment as there is women.
man on man sex is still an unattractive subject to most people.
while singer isn't that powerful, he does have pretty rich and powerful friends.
and I also think it's the gay thing. not as much interest in giving men their #metoo moment as there is women.
man on man sex is still an unattractive subject to most people.
Spacey went under pretty fast after his incident was exposed.
Singer may have some powerful friends, but moreso that Weinstein or Cosby or Spacey?
while singer isn't that powerful, he does have pretty rich and powerful friends.
and I also think it's the gay thing. not as much interest in giving men their #metoo moment as there is women.
man on man sex is still an unattractive subject to most people.
It didn’t make a difference for Kevin Spacey.
Singer is just a strange eel, somehow slips out of every bad publicity into another opportunity. He’s a creep and, quite possible, a sex criminal
So, Louis CK apparently decided to forget penance and self-growth and instead just took the easy route of now catering to the crowd that propably thinks what he did was okay to begin with
So, Louis CK apparently decided to forget penance and self-growth and instead just took the easy route of now catering to the crowd that propably thinks what he did was okay to begin with
I disagree.
What Louis did was mostly gross, inappropriate and sometimes a betrayal of his perceived authority. It was in no way okay but he apologized, in some cases directly to those involved, before the accusations even surfaced. I've never heard anyone argue that what he did was okay. That said, I think we can all agree that there is a spectrum of sexually inappropriate behavior, anywhere from telling a dirty joke to rape. I think Louis is much closer to the dirty joke end of the spectrum than even in the middle but I understand how others would see this differently.
Even so, how much penance and self-exile is enough? When is the appropriate time to come back. Is it a life sentence? 20 years? 10 years?The accusations against him surfaced in November 2017. It's been over a year since his penance started. At what point is he allowed to resume his career considering the crime? And who gets to decide?
The jokes that are being talked about and that this video alludes to are from a leaked set. These jokes are not a finished product and are meant for a small, live audience that specifically chose to see Louis or similar comedians and likely knew what to expect, more or less. The fact that there are so many pearl-clutchers like the guy in the video deciding what's an appropriate or inappropriate joke based on a leaked set screams of people jumping on the bandwagon and getting their easy precious clicks. If it was based on a Netflix special I could perhaps see their argument but even then it's largely subjective.
It's funny that this video references Roman Polanski. Where's his video for that guy considering he never really stopped working? To me this reeks of clickbait and taking advantage of the MeToo movement and the sub-culture of outrage.
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Red Slinger For This Useful Post:
Why are people in a rush to forgive Louis and see him get a second chance? Is it because he's funny?
What he did was serious. He allegedly performed sexual acts in front of people and in some cases allegedly blocked them from leaving that situation.
He didn't physically assault them but that doesn't mean what he did shouldn't be taken seriously.
What specifically has he done in the less-than-year being out of the public eye to improve himself or reform? Anything?
Or did he just take a break long enough to hope things cooled off
Frankly I'm perfectly fine if his career is ruined forever. I don't know why he should deserve anything more than that.
Or did he just take a break long enough to hope things cooled off
Frankly I'm perfectly fine if his career is ruined forever. I don't know why he should deserve anything more than that.
You answered your own question. People just move on.
It's funny that this video references Roman Polanski. Where's his video for that guy considering he never really stopped working?.
Wow, that is a pretty remarkable stretch of whataboutism.
What does ones opinion on the merits of certain type of comedy have to do with Polanski?
Plus it's eight years (?) since Polanski released a film, so I would count that as "has stopped working."
But. Here. Although I'm sure you've read it already, given that it's trivially available with Google, and obviously you think it is super relevant.
I don't see this as relevant. (Especially since it's a decade old, and people's opinions might change in that time.)
(Personally I find the noise people make about Polanski to be really hypocritical. Polanski was just one guy doing exactly the same thing as guys like Bowie, Iggy Pop and others in the seventies. The LA baby groupie scene quite famously groomed underaged girls to be the sex toys of stars, and there were a lot of people in on that.
To me, focusing on Polanski is a sort of outsourced evil, that helps people pretend they're making a stand while actually mostly ignoring the issue. Because outside of few radical feminists, I've seen no one demand that we treat David Bowie, Jimmy Page, Mick Jagger, Jeff Beck, Marc Bolan, Alice Cooper, Robert Plant and Iggy Pop the way people want Polanski treated.
Now, I think there are valid arguments to not judge people for what they did decades ago, and valid reasons to judge them. Boycott them for all I care.
But I would like people to stop picking and choosing when it comes to making those judgments. If you think we need to keep talking about Polanskis crime, then you should also want to make noise about David Bowie, Jimmy Page, Mick Jagger, Jeff Beck, Marc Bolan, Alice Cooper, Robert Plant and Iggy Pop.
Just because Polanski happened to be the one put on trial shouldn't really make a difference when it comes to moral judgment.
Mostly on your side here Red Slinger, I agree he shouldn't be lumped in with the Weinsteins and the Cosbys of the world. But I think a longer, multi-year hiatus would have done him better. The longer he stayed away, the more endearing he would have been in a comeback.
The tough thing is, for comedians, this is their therapy. Or was. How they express themselves is through jokes. And the vast majority can do random sets in crap towns or small open mics and not really get noticed. Even a very famous one going in to do a random set at a new york comedy club is not uncommon or going to be a very talked about thing. But he can't do that. He has no method of venting that he likely feels comfortable with so he goes back to stand up, probably trying to remain as anonymous as possible, but thats pretty much impossible for him now.
Why are people in a rush to forgive Louis and see him get a second chance? Is it because he's funny?
What he did was serious. He allegedly performed sexual acts in front of people and in some cases allegedly blocked them from leaving that situation.
He didn't physically assault them but that doesn't mean what he did shouldn't be taken seriously.
What specifically has he done in the less-than-year being out of the public eye to improve himself or reform? Anything?
Or did he just take a break long enough to hope things cooled off
Frankly I'm perfectly fine if his career is ruined forever. I don't know why he should deserve anything more than that.
Serious is a word probably thrown around too leisurely. It's not like he's a menace to society or anything. Sure he has some weird fetish of masterbating in the presence of women but it's not like he's some sexual predator hiding in the shadows looking to rape women. He would even ask the women if he could masterbate in front of them. Not saying his behaviour was appropriate but hardly the stuff that should destroy someone's life and career over. People like this should get a 2nd chance.
Last edited by Erick Estrada; 01-27-2019 at 10:58 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Erick Estrada For This Useful Post: