Time to let Louis CK be fully reinstated into show business IMO

[blaseblah]

Being comedians is not the same thing as being coworkers. At best theyre independent contractors working at the same establishment which is not being coworkers. Yeah he invited them to his hotel room. Then he made an attempt to have sexual interactions with them. They declined and he stopped. Pervy? Sure. But if you're gonna have drinks in someones hotel room late at night, they might make a sexual pass at you. Ignoring consent is criminal. He didnt ignore it.

One of the other accusations is him jerking it on the phone, right? Jesus, just hang up?

And, again, Im talking about this level of backlash, not defending the incident per se. Note that earlier theres literally a dumbass in this thread saying he was kidnapping women and forcing them to watch him jerk it. People are calling him a sexual predator and in some cases a rapist. Its silly.

A better comparison would be getting fired from a job 15 years after the incident in the first place. Shit, this was Bill Clintons MO and the guy became president.

Wow, you are a perv. So you think this is normal, appropriate behavior? Go try it at work or admit you're full of shit. You know exactly why what he did was wrong and that any of us would get fired for that. That it took 15 years shows you exactly how fucked up the entertainment industry is, having enabled this behavior until now.

 

[Bob Gray]

Wow, you are a perv. So you think this is normal, appropriate behavior? Go try it at work or admit you're full of shit. You know exactly why what he did was wrong and that any of us would get fired for that. That it took 15 years shows you exactly how fucked up the entertainment industry is, having enabled this behavior until now.

Who says its normal and appropriate? Im saying theres a difference between being a perv and being a predator.

Thats about as simple as I can make it. But im interested to see how you spin it and quote me as saying something I never did.

 

[moreorless87]

Being comedians is not the same thing as being coworkers. At best theyre independent contractors working at the same establishment which is not being coworkers. Yeah he invited them to his hotel room. Then he made an attempt to have sexual interactions with them. They declined and he stopped. Pervy? Sure. But if you're gonna have drinks in someones hotel room late at night, they might make a sexual pass at you. Ignoring consent is criminal. He didnt ignore it.

One of the other accusations is him jerking it on the phone, right? Jesus, just hang up?

And, again, Im talking about this level of backlash, not defending the incident per se. Note that earlier theres literally a dumbass in this thread saying he was kidnapping women and forcing them to watch him jerk it. People are calling him a sexual predator and in some cases a rapist. Its silly.

A better comparison would be getting fired from a job 15 years after the incident in the first place. Shit, this was Bill Clintons MO and the guy became president.

I never really followed the details of the story but honestly if that's what happened I do tend to think its probably a bit of a reveal about sexual hangups in the US(the same here in the UK I spose) that someone with a fetish like that gets thrown in with a kidnapping rapist.

 

[blaseblah]

Who says its normal and appropriate? Im saying theres a difference between being a perv and being a predator.

Thats about as simple as I can make it. But im interested to see how you spin it and quote me as saying something I never did.

In your mind, going up to women and telling them you want to masturbate in front of them is not sexual harrassment?

 

[Hollywood Jack]

No I'm not. Weinstein is a rapist (allegedly) and that's on a different tier from anything CK did. AFAIK one of the girls said he whacked it in front of her while blocking the door. If that was later recanted or something I didn't hear about it.


TBH I haven't followed the CK stuff all that closely. Whacking it in front of basically colleagues is..... weird behavior. I think the camp saying he practically raped them and the camp saying it's fine because he asked (lol wtf) are both taking it To The Extreme though.

Yes you are, because you said that Louis blocked the exit while j/o, which is false. Weinstein did that, not Louis. Textbook case of conflating two different cases. Just own up to it. Unfortunately a lot of people conflate the two because Louis' case was about j/o, but Weinstein also jerked off into a potted plant while blocking a woman's exit, so they think that Louis blocked the exit while j/o, which is simply not true. Louis asked women if he could j/o first and a lot of them said yes. Sarah Silverman said that Louis used to j/o in front of her with her permission and she never had a problem with it. Louis was a pervert but not a predator, unlike Weinstein.

 

[Bob Gray]

So thats how you misquote me? Way to go.

Who says its normal and appropriate? Im saying theres a difference between being a perv and being a predator.

Thats about as simple as I can make it. But im interested to see how you spin it and quote me as saying something I never did.

In your mind, going up to women and telling them you want to masturbate in front of them is not sexual harrassment?

Jesus christ man. How do you do that? How do you take something so simple and take it so far down another path that it has no basis in any reality?




"Going up to women" implies its just random. After hanging out and having drinks in your hotel room its a bit of a different situation.

The problem is "sexual harassment" has no objective meaning. Obviously Sara Silverman didnt have much of a problem with it, since she actually said yes. However if the term sexual harassment simply means being made uncomfortable, which is essentially what it means, then anything can fall under the umbrella. Like, someone can do the exact same thing Louie CK did to the exact same women, except it's Tom Cruise or something. All of the sudden lots of women change their minds on whether or not its sexual harassment despite being the exact same thing.

Sexual harassment can literally be asking a woman out on a date or going for a kiss in todays political climate.

 

[Hollywood Jack]

In your mind, going up to women and telling them you want to masturbate in front of them is not sexual harrassment?

Sexual harassment is a civil offense not a criminal offense and it's basically policed within a work environment like an office. Louis asking fellow comedians if he could j/o in front of them isn't directly comparable to a boss asking that of his employee in an office environment. He also didn't just go up to random women and ask them that. He asked women who he knew and who were his peers. It was wrong and inappropriate and perverted, but not predatory or criminal.

 

[Mike]

Yes you are, because you said that Louis blocked the exit while j/o, which is false. Weinstein did that, not Louis. Textbook case of conflating two different cases. Just own up to it. Unfortunately a lot of people conflate the two because Louis' case was about j/o, but Weinstein also jerked off into a potted plant while blocking a woman's exit, so they think that Louis blocked the exit while j/o, which is simply not true. Louis asked women if he could j/o first and a lot of them said yes. Sarah Silverman said that Louis used to j/o in front of her with her permission and she never had a problem with it. Louis was a pervert but not a predator, unlike Weinstein.

I'm not conflating anything. Back when all this first surfaced I read, on here, that at least one of the women claimed he blocked the door and whacked off in front of her.

 

[moreorless87]

"Going up to women" implies its just random. After hanging out and having drinks in your hotel room its a bit of a different situation.

The problem is "sexual harassment" has no objective meaning. Obviously Sara Silverman didnt have much of a problem with it, since she actually said yes. However if the term sexual harassment simply means being made uncomfortable, which is essentially what it means, then anything can fall under the umbrella. Like, someone can do the exact same thing Louie CK did to the exact same women, except it's Tom Cruise or something. All of the sudden lots of women change their minds on whether or not its sexual harassment despite being the exact same thing.

Sexual harassment can literally be asking a woman out on a date or going for a kiss in todays political climate.

To be fair as well your deaing with a difference between sexual harassment as a legal term and as a media term.

Honestly I tend to think you have a divide in the way the establishment looks to this kind of thing. On one hand they do love to make an example out of the odd well known individual like Weinstien dispite many of them knowing his reputation previously but on the other I think they tend to prefer to make issues as diluted and wide ranging as possible. The idea that almost everyone is a victim/offender I think plays nicely into a victim/guilt culture which makes it much easier to overlook actual victims and actual guilty people.

I mean during the whole #metoo era(well the media version of it anyway, originally it seemed to have more substance) how much talk of actual change has there been? its been some wooly "men need to change" message but what about say improved funding for police rape investigation? what about better child protection? what about better funding for womans shelters and counselling? I recall very little of that indeed because it would actually cost a lot of money to achieve, some vague talk about "men needing to change" though doesn't.

Plus when it comes to really investigating widespread sexual misconduct among the elite not much has happened, the investigation into parliament in the UK for example has basically been fudged and forgotten.

 

[blaseblah]

So thats how you misquote me? Way to go.





Jesus christ man. How do you do that? How do you take something so simple and take it so far down another path that it has no basis in any reality?




"Going up to women" implies its just random. After hanging out and having drinks in your hotel room its a bit of a different situation.

The problem is "sexual harassment" has no objective meaning. Obviously Sara Silverman didnt have much of a problem with it, since she actually said yes. However if the term sexual harassment simply means being made uncomfortable, which is essentially what it means, then anything can fall under the umbrella. Like, someone can do the exact same thing Louie CK did to the exact same women, except it's Tom Cruise or something. All of the sudden lots of women change their minds on whether or not its sexual harassment despite being the exact same thing.

Sexual harassment can literally be asking a woman out on a date or going for a kiss in todays political climate.

Christ, you don't even know what sexual harassment. You're a lost cause.

 

[blaseblah]

Sexual harassment is a civil offense not a criminal offense and it's basically policed within a work environment like an office.

His punishment was civil as well. He lost his job. No one's criminally charging him.

Louis asking fellow comedians if he could j/o in front of them isn't directly comparable to a boss asking that of his employee in an office environment.

Why would it not literally being in a office make it any less inappropriate? It was his show and they were opening for him. He also pulled the same shit to a costar on a sitcom, right on set.

He also didn't just go up to random women and ask them that. He asked women who he knew and who were his peers.

Does this somehow make it better?

It was wrong and inappropriate and perverted, but not predatory or criminal.

Depends what you mean by predatory, but no, not criminal.

 

[ThulsaDooom]

His new material sounds weak as fuck. His career can stay dead. It's not like he'll be out living on the street.

 

[Hollywood Jack]

I'm not conflating anything. Back when all this first surfaced I read, on here, that at least one of the women claimed he blocked the door and whacked off in front of her.

Like I said before, that was Weinstein that blocked the exit. Louis never did that. People are conflating the two cases. Even if you're getting it secondhand from other people, it's still conflation.

 

[Hollywood Jack]

Does this somehow make it better?

It does, yes. If I went up to Sarah Silverman and asked if I could j/o in front of her, she'd probably sic her bodyguards on me. However, if I was a fellow comedian who she knew and respected, apparently she'd let me do it.

 

[Bob Gray]

To be fair as well your deaing with a difference between sexual harassment as a legal term and as a media term.

Honestly I tend to think you have a divide in the way the establishment looks to this kind of thing. On one hand they do love to make an example out of the odd well known individual like Weinstien dispite many of them knowing his reputation previously but on the other I think they tend to prefer to make issues as diluted and wide ranging as possible. The idea that almost everyone is a victim/offender I think plays nicely into a victim/guilt culture which makes it much easier to overlook actual victims and actual guilty people.

I mean during the whole #metoo era(well the media version of it anyway, originally it seemed to have more substance) how much talk of actual change has there been? its been some wooly "men need to change" message but what about say improved funding for police rape investigation? what about better child protection? what about better funding for womans shelters and counselling? I recall very little of that indeed because it would actually cost a lot of money to achieve, some vague talk about "men needing to change" though doesn't.

Plus when it comes to really investigating widespread sexual misconduct among the elite not much has happened, the investigation into parliament in the UK for example has basically been fudged and forgotten.

Fair point. Without actually doing any research at the moment, my understanding of a legal application of sexual harassment is somewhat ambiguous and tends to be in some sort of work/school/ etc environment where some sort of "quid pro quo" interaction is either stated or heavily insinuated. As far as I know sexual harassment isnt in and of itself something you get charged with fined and/or given any form of incarceration for. Like, if I go up to some random girl on the street and start accosting her, I could be met with several different crimes, but none of them are "sexual harassment" from a legal perspective. Its mostly something an institution enforces under whatever guidelines they apply as opposed to any sort of criminal act. At least in United States.


Theres been talk of change but how much of it is just grandstanding is up for debate. In practice it seems to have created an environment where people can be more open about these negative experiences, which is good, but at the same time its also been responsible for several incidents of either attention grabbing accusations, gross exaggerations or outright slander. Even at the highest parts of government using the Kavanaugh incident as an example.

 

[Bob Gray]

Christ, you don't even know what sexual harassment. You're a lost cause.

Its really easy to just say things and make no attempt to establish any foundation to support a position, isnt it?

 

[IGotAHugePeckah]

Which guy isn't allowed in show business?

 

[LukeSkyrocker]

Who cares? there 9 million other comic out there

Shitty ones

 

[LukeSkyrocker]

Stand-up comedians are kinda lame. Plus, this dude was never funny.

Lol what?! Who do you like Aziz Ansari?

 

[IGotAHugePeckah]

His new material sounds weak as fuck.

Nobody knows what his new material sounds like because what was leaked was him working on material to a small crowd. Every comedian does this. You throw out ideas, see what gets a response and them work on forming those ideas into a finished product. No comedian starts out with a finished set.

People only think his material is weak because BOO HOO he dared to make a joke about gender pronouns and Parkland kids.