High-Profile Sexual Abuse Epidemic

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

but I don’t see why he’s owed anything from anyone in the media consuming public.

Has anyone suggested he is?

[81MC]

Originally Posted by V

Wouldn't it be great if the world actually grew a conscience and started getting serious about socially conscious media consumption? Let all of these dirtbags rot.

We don’t hold murderers, invaders, pillagers, dictators, or corporations to any account if it has any sort of impact on the way we live. There is zero hope society is going to change its habits for some sexual assault here and there.

[Matata]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

I think you misunderstand, he didn’t lose his career or lose out on millions of dollars. He cost himself those things and that’s a very important distinction to make. Shamed in the eyes of his daughters? Let me think whose fault that is...oh right the guy who loves cranking his hog in front of unwilling women.

I get feeling bad for his self inflicted fall from grace in a big picture “That’s sad to watch someone fail” view but I don’t see why he’s owed anything from anyone in the media consuming public.

Isn't that true of every punishment? Doesn't the murderer put themselves in jail by committing the crime? Where do you make the distinction?

[icecube]

Originally Posted by you&me

And who is the arbiter of this collective conscience?

I nominate corshihockeyleague. He's the only unbiased, impartial, rational, completely 100 percent center, totally objective arbiter of truth, justice and the american way. He brings NUANCE.

[V]

I definitely don't nominate icecube. What a terrifying world that would be.

[icecube]

Originally Posted by V

I definitely don't nominate icecube. What a terrifying world that would be.

[Matata]

Just as long as it's rich white kids getting offended on someone else's behalf, it should all work out.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

What is this so-called high price he's paid?
Dude is worth $16M according to net worth reports.

Originally Posted by Matata

He lost his career while at the top of his profession, lost out on millions of dollars, is forever shamed in the eyes of his daughters (this is probably the biggest one), permanent target of the internet outrage machine and humiliated in front of the entire world.

Originally Posted by ResAlien

I think you misunderstand, he didn’t lose his career or lose out on millions of dollars. He cost himself those things and that’s a very important distinction to make. Shamed in the eyes of his daughters? Let me think whose fault that is...oh right the guy who loves cranking his hog in front of unwilling women.

I get feeling bad for his self inflicted fall from grace in a big picture “That’s sad to watch someone fail” view but I don’t see why he’s owed anything from anyone in the media consuming public.

Actually I think Res you're the one misunderstanding. Jiri asked what price was paid and Matata answered.

He's not, as far as I can tell, trying to defend Louis and I think the semantics between "lost" and "cost" are irrelevant to the discussion since the original question was about the price he "paid".

No one is claiming he's owed anything. Just that it is disingenuous to claim he's not suffered at all because of this. Which brings us back to the whole "did he suffer enough" question.

[ResAlien]

Au contraire it seems more than one poster is claiming he’s “suffered enough” and is owed a chance to become a respected, famous comedian again. That’s certainly how the apologetic posts read. He is being given a chance and I’m certainly not saying bar him from public. The words we use matter and saying he’s lost his career and lost millions implies it was done to him and somehow deserves pity for being the victim. That’s clearly how it’s being portrayed by the pro CK crowd. I’d say he did it to himself and that he has to deal with the consequences of his actions. He didn’t lose his career, he threw it away.

Has anyone dragged him through the streets? Suffered? He can’t get work because he was outed as a sexual predator. I don’t see the problem. That’s how consequences work. I’m not saying he should never work again but he lost the right to the benefit of the doubt when he decided to fire off rope shots at unwilling women. He can make all the specials he likes but there’s a weird vibe to some posters who seem almost anxious to support him more now because of this as if he’s the victim.

Make all the shows and movies you want Louis. You are forever stained with the legacy of your actions and that’s absolutely fine. If his career tanks because no one wants to support him anymore well that’s a damn shame. Bye Felicia.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

See, arguing in this fashion - characterizing people who don't share your moral intuitions about how much penance is needed as "apologists" for the person who has been universally characterized as a bad actor - is why you and people like you can't really be taken seriously on these topics. You're not engaging honestly and in good faith. I don't know who the "pro CK" crowd is supposed to be, unless you mean the people who think he deserves less severe punitive consequences than you happen to.

I have at best a passing interest in Louis CK, in that I've never seen his show but I watched his specials on Netflix and thought they were pretty good, so I'm not exactly going to feel any big loss if all his future stuff fails and he fades into obscurity. But I'm not about to suggest that people who do want to watch more of his content are somehow less righteous than those who decry his continued existence. If he tries to make more movies and shows and they fail because people don't want to watch him anymore, fine, whatever, you made your bed. If he tries to make more movies and shows and people demand that they be pulled from theatres and networks forever because others should be just as outraged as I am about this evil evil despicable man, well, to those people I say, go #### yourself, you self-important pricks.

People who think that more moral outrage makes you a more morally upstanding person, and that people who don't have the same level of outrage are somehow defending bad behaviour, are possibly the most obnoxious people in society at the moment.

[Oling_Roachinen]

I think you have a group of people who think that what he did was wrong enough that people shouldn't support him. Maybe because they don't believe he spent enough time away from standup, maybe because they don't think he suffered enough, maybe they just believe what he did was unforgivable. I obviously fall within this group and would rather not support him and ideally have others refuse to as well, but I know I can't impose my will on others and it's their choice to make.

You have another group of people who believe he should be given a second chance. A completely reasonable opinion, one I just disagree with in large part because he had multiple chances at his second chance but for 20 years he denied doing it. For 20 years he would give interviews essentially calling all his victims liars. And that in September 2017 he was still completely denying it and only changed when he became part of the MeToo movement in November 2017. Everything seemed like PR when his hand was caught in the cookie jar and to come back shortly afterwards just didn't seem right to me. But to forgive is divine, so I can understand where those people come from.

I think you have another group of people who think he's suffered enough, changed enough, didn't realize just how bad his actions were, what have you. Again, I disagree, but the only person who can really answer this one is Louis himself. Still, a completely reasonable position to have, just one I disagree with.

But then you have people downplaying what he did. Trying to tell the victims how they should feel, acting like it's some weird kink, and excusing his behaviour as industry norm. People completely missing the point of how someone abusing their power over helpless individuals is exactly what MeToo is trying to raise awareness from. I'm in utter disbelief that someone would have these views still today. Especially when they keep referring to it as some sort of witch hunt, when the guy admitted to doing it. I don't want to ruin anyone's Halloween, but the reason it's called with hunt is because witches didn't exist. When a person admits to doing something that's not a witch hunt.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Au contraire it seems more than one poster is claiming he’s “suffered enough” and is owed a chance to become a respected, famous comedian again. That’s certainly how the apologetic posts read. He is being given a chance and I’m certainly not saying bar him from public. The words we use matter and saying he’s lost his career and lost millions implies it was done to him and somehow deserves pity for being the victim. That’s clearly how it’s being portrayed by the pro CK crowd. I’d say he did it to himself and that he has to deal with the consequences of his actions. He didn’t lose his career, he threw it away.

Has anyone dragged him through the streets? Suffered? He can’t get work because he was outed as a sexual predator. I don’t see the problem. That’s how consequences work. I’m not saying he should never work again but he lost the right to the benefit of the doubt when he decided to fire off rope shots at unwilling women. He can make all the specials he likes but there’s a weird vibe to some posters who seem almost anxious to support him more now because of this as if he’s the victim.

Make all the shows and movies you want Louis. You are forever stained with the legacy of your actions and that’s absolutely fine. If his career tanks because no one wants to support him anymore well that’s a damn shame. Bye Felicia.

May want to re-read the string of posts.

Jiri asked what he's actually lost, suggesting that it isn't enough, then other posters explained what he has lost. Then you suggested it was "pro Louis CK" posters not making a distinction between having something taken and doing it to yourself, which it didn't seem they were doing. They were just responding to Jiri's assertion that he hasn't lost much.

[Traditional_Ale]

So...

When I was a little kid I went through some awful stuff. I'm also a life-long Michael Jackson fan. Now there is a four-hour documentary out that has trigger warnings because its about Michael doing awful stuff to little kids. Could some of the experts in this thread please tell me what I'm supposed to do and how I'm supposed to feel about it?

[you&me]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

So...

When I was a little kid I went through some awful stuff. I'm also a life-long Michael Jackson fan. Now there is a four-hour documentary out that has trigger warnings because its about Michael doing awful stuff to little kids. Could some of the experts in this thread please tell me what I'm supposed to do and how I'm supposed to feel about it?

I'd suggest the same to you that I would to someone that's morally opposed to Louis CK -

Don't watch it.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by you&me

I'd suggest the same to you that I would to someone that's morally opposed to Louis CK -

Don't watch it.

I was hoping the experts would decide for me what my morals and actions should be on the subject. Am I a bad person if I don't drop all the MJ songs from my band's show?

[you&me]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

I was hoping the experts would decide for me what my morals and actions should be on the subject. Am I a bad person if I don't drop all the MJ songs from my band's show?

Sorry, misread your post...

My point stands though - if you're going to be offended, upset or "triggered" (they actually have "trigger warnings now?) by something, just don't watch / read / listen to it... Let everyone else make their own choices.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by you&me

Let everyone else make their own choices.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

I was hoping the experts would decide for me what my morals and actions should be on the subject. Am I a bad person if I don't drop all the MJ songs from my band's show?

No, but you’ll probably upset some people or some people just straight up won’t like it.

Would that be terribly different than the usual reaction to your band?

[Traditional_Ale]

Would that be terribly different than the usual reaction to your band?

Burn. Good point.

Anyway, I've read this thread for a while and there has been some good debate, but also some not good debate. I think there are a lot of parallels between the Louis CK story and the MJ story. MJ did some really horrible things, but I don't want to have to not be able to openly regard him as the greatest entertainer in pop music that ever lived, and celebrate his music. There is a reason Gary Glitter isn't played at sports events anymore, and "This Is It" is still up on Netflix.

[Ped]

Unfortunately, the price paid in these cases is generally the price society as a whole determines. And by that, I mean that if everybody thought what he did was repugnant, they wouldn't be supporting him by spending money on his act.


Whether you agree with it or it, as many have pointed out, CK is not the first celebrity or politician with abusive behaviour, and unfortunately he won't be the last. It's no different in the sports world, where if a player we like does something good, we defend him to no end, and if we don't like him or his team, we jump on him. Like the Kane situation, or all the football players who do terrible things off the field.


Having said that, that doesn't necessarily make it right. It comes down to a personal judgement. Do I like this person's artistic merit enough to discount that outside of the studio/sports arena/whatever he's a criminal or a terrible person or has violated and abused people?


Whether one agrees personally with that, the obvious answer is that for many people, the answer is yes. Everyone has their own line, and they vote on that line with their wallets and what they spend their time doing.


People have an uncanny ability to forgive when it suits their purpose. Those purposes are usually biased for one reason or another.


Having said all that, the amount of people willing to accept abusive behaviour is clearly dropping, and I applaud it. But that number will never drop to zero, which I find depressing.