Louis CK gets a standing ovation

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

So over the weekend, guess who back.... Aziz Ansari..... And Lpuis CK.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/comedy/news/louis-ck-standup-new-york-comedy-cellar-sexual-misconduct-return-a8510586.html

It wasn't advertised anywhere and had a small group of around a hundred. The standing ovation happened at the start of the show, not the end.

I bring this up becuase the general talk is some people don't think he was punished. Others not enough. Another group thinks he's paid his time.

Me personally, I don't remember any apology. He just explained what happened. So I'd think he should start with that.

He clearly has had punishment through loss of money but... Is that the right type of punishment?

Assuming monetary loss is enough, is ten months long enough?

Assuming all this is true and he's clear, I'd still be watching to see any relapse and hopefully a change in behaviour during any further shows. The standing ovation sounds really weird.

Also, thoughts on Aziz as well

trunkage:
Me personally, I don't remember any apology. He just explained what happened. So I'd think he should start with that.

He did apologise, didn't he? Yeah, here it is.

It struck me as more frank, more specific, and more human than most sexual harassment apologies. He acknowledges that the accusations are true straight-up, he shows that he correctly understands the power dynamic, and he takes responsibility for his misconduct. He doesn't faff about with "I'm sorry for offending people" or "give me a second chance" or blah-de-blah.

The standing ovation, that's fucking weird. But I imagine all the people in attendance would have been die-hard Louis C.K. fans - the fraction of his viewership least likely to be affected or swayed by his admissions of misconduct, or the ones who took his apology as an reason to wholly forgive him. As a fan of Louis C.K. myself, it was super fucking hard to digest the news that he'd admitted to basically whipping his dong out in front of ladies in a hotel room. On the one hand, it sounds like a very Louis C.K. thing to do; on the other hand, it's totally unacceptable to bring ladies back to your room, corner them, and start jacking it in front of them. If you want to do that, just hire a goddamn hooker.

I was just thankful that his misconduct didn't reach Kevin Spacey levels; I'm also a fan of Kevin Spacey, and now I'll never be able to stop thinking "molester face!" whenever I see him on-screen.

bastardofmelbourne:
on the other hand, it's totally unacceptable to bring ladies back to your room, corner them, and start jacking it in front of them. If you want to do that, just hire a goddamn hooker.

This assumes that this is about sex, and not, say, about something like power.

But yes, if all one wants is to carry out unorthodox sexual fantasies, they can fly out to Nevada and go to one of the many legal brothels there, many of which cater to sexual fetishism of all sorts. You want two adult women to watch you choke your weasel? Pretty sure you can have that. And it's not like C.K. couldn't afford this. Which is again why I don't think this was mostly about sex.

I still don't understand why people were surprised by his actions. He totally seems like the type to do something like that. Half of his jokes revolved around similar things.

CM156:

bastardofmelbourne:
on the other hand, it's totally unacceptable to bring ladies back to your room, corner them, and start jacking it in front of them. If you want to do that, just hire a goddamn hooker.

This assumes that this is about sex, and not, say, about something like power.

But yes, if all one wants is to carry out unorthodox sexual fantasies, they can fly out to Nevada and go to one of the many legal brothels there, many of which cater to sexual fetishism of all sorts. You want two adult women to watch you choke your weasel? Pretty sure you can have that. And it's not like C.K. couldn't afford this. Which is again why I don't think this was mostly about sex.

That chic is disturbing. LOL
In my culture, masturbation or sex in general was never something shunned and most considered it no big deal if someone was "seen masturbating", but they had "places" where it was acceptable due to sanitary issues, as there is a time and place for everything, as well as a great respect for others so you would not just go masturbate on people without their permission, however, Masturbation was encouraged rather than discouraged and not seen as something " repulsive" at all.

Lil devils x:

CM156:

bastardofmelbourne:
on the other hand, it's totally unacceptable to bring ladies back to your room, corner them, and start jacking it in front of them. If you want to do that, just hire a goddamn hooker.

This assumes that this is about sex, and not, say, about something like power.

But yes, if all one wants is to carry out unorthodox sexual fantasies, they can fly out to Nevada and go to one of the many legal brothels there, many of which cater to sexual fetishism of all sorts. You want two adult women to watch you choke your weasel? Pretty sure you can have that. And it's not like C.K. couldn't afford this. Which is again why I don't think this was mostly about sex.

That chic is disturbing. LOL
In my culture, masturbation or sex in general was never something shunned and most considered it no big deal if someone was "seen masturbating", but they had "places" where it was acceptable due to sanitary issues, as there is a time and place for everything, however, Masturbation was encouraged rather than discouraged and not seen as something " repulsive" at all.

I think we can agree though, that in modern contexts, it's generally not a good idea to expose yourself and start strangling your snake unless you have explicit consent from the person watching. Such people can often be found online. The same for most any unorthodox sexual desire.

trunkage:
So over the weekend, guess who back.... Aziz Ansari..... And Lpuis CK.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/comedy/news/louis-ck-standup-new-york-comedy-cellar-sexual-misconduct-return-a8510586.html

It wasn't advertised anywhere and had a small group of around a hundred. The standing ovation happened at the start of the show, not the end.

I bring this up becuase the general talk is some people don't think he was punished. Others not enough. Another group thinks he's paid his time.

Me personally, I don't remember any apology. He just explained what happened. So I'd think he should start with that.

He clearly has had punishment through loss of money but... Is that the right type of punishment?

Assuming monetary loss is enough, is ten months long enough?

Assuming all this is true and he's clear, I'd still be watching to see any relapse and hopefully a change in behaviour during any further shows. The standing ovation sounds really weird.

Also, thoughts on Aziz as well

The truth is CK lost several license deals with Netflix and other major comedy specials which were supposed to be in production this year and 2019. CK in essence right now has to rebuild his name; he is not young by this point and really has destroyed his career. Which will be a challenge as when his name is typed for tickets everything he did pops up.

CK's tainted image will never be picked up by any studio again for new project.This mainly stems from the PR nightmare it would be for any studio that did so.Also don't mistake a standing ovation as a clean bill of health for his career; because in this world a screw up like this will stigmatize his past and future work.

Aziz right now are just allegations, which means nothing unless somehow proven. Unless more people come forward or there exist actual hard evidence. Placing Aziz as guilty or innocent is right now up in the air, unlike Weinstein which had several eyewitness accounts. With just one woman and no physical proof or eyewitness accounts it would be hard to convince a jury. Let alone the general public whom enjoys his comedy.

Personally i have never really found either of them funny.CK is dirt, while Aziz if he is guilty will clearly screw up again. Sadly until then, anything is just hear-say and would have a hard time standing if it went to court.

I mean, I was a fan of his comedy. It was rough because his stuff, while edgy, was at least a bit progressive. I think that part was what stung the most.

Anyway, he has millions of dollars even after jerking off in front of unwilling participants, I don't have much sympathy and I'd be fine if he disappeared forever. And his apology was better than most but actions speak louder than words. If he wants to really repent, he's gonna need to help the people he hurt and who's careers he damaged and eventually face it head on and talk about it in subsequent stand up routines, IMHO.

RobertEHouse:
Aziz right now are just allegations,

Aziz was more "guilty" of being insensitive douche; his actions were an order of magnitude less severe than many others accused around the same time. He's got some reputation to rebuild, but the lower severity is relflected in the fact that networks have not canned him; Netflix for instance has stated would back a third season of "Master of None".

RobertEHouse:
CK in essence right now has to rebuild his name; he is not young by this point and really has destroyed his career.

The simple fact that Louis CK can walk into a famous comedy club to deliver material at all means that his career is not "destroyed". If he's still as funny as he ever was, there will end up being at least some demand for it.

Fair enough it would need a long, hard slog to get as high as TV or film roles again, but bear in mind that people have done worse than Louis CK and eventually recovered. The biggest problem is possibly not "being forgiven" per se (the public rarely have memories or hold grudges that long), it's that other people fill the gap whilst he's away and he's got to squeeze past them again.

As a former fan of his, I feel really conflicted on this.

One one hand, there are plenty of currently successful entertainers who have done waaaaay worse things than this, many are actual felons. And the entertainment industry is still squeaky-clean compared to the NFL.

On the other, I can never really watch his stuff again, laugh at his material or respect him as a human being. It's all just too weird and creepy. He is now a multimillionaire version of that dude on the streetcorner with his hand constantly down his pants.

I don't begrudge him rebuilding his career, It just won't be one with me as an audience member anymore.

jademunky:
As a former fan of his, I feel really conflicted on this.

One one hand, there are plenty of currently successful entertainers who have done waaaaay worse things than this, many are actual felons. And the entertainment industry is still squeaky-clean compared to the NFL.

On the other, I can never really watch his stuff again, laugh at his material or respect him as a human being. He is just too weird and creepy. He is now just a multimillionaire version of that dude on the streetcorner with his hand constantly down his pants.

I don't begrudge him rebuilding his career, It just won't be one with me as an audience member anymore.

Personally, I found that a lot of CK's material was funny in a "the voice over your shoulder telling you that wanting to do bad things is only human" sort of way. Since that was apparently the way that CK actually treated people rather than just an indulgent inner-voice; it turns from a disconnected acknowledgement/recognition of humanity's inherent selfishness to a real example of someone being selfish. And not in a fun way either.

Where the mask ends and begins has become blurred, which throws a lot into question. I would hope that there are a lot of people who are re-examining CK's previous work with the benefit of context.

I dont have strong feelings on either comedian, but overall I feel the same way on this as I felt about James Gunn:

If owning mistakes, apologising and improving behaviour dont allow people to continue living their lives, why should anyone reform?

If you're caught making a mistake which doesnt net you a lifetime in jail, and you work on being a better person, but are still forever denied work/career prospects because of that mistake, where's the incentive to be a better person? Discounting, 'for the sake of being a better person', because they probably never would have done those things in the first place if it violated their own internal sense of being a better person.

Elijin:
If you're caught making a mistake which doesnt net you a lifetime in jail, and you work on being a better person, but are still forever denied work/career prospects because of that mistake, where's the incentive to be a better person?

Big difference between losing a career forever (though, he's still wealthy enough not to actually need it, IIRC), and turning up unannounced within a year and making rape jokes. Where's the incentive to be a better person if the punishment is a few months off?

Someone may or may not decide to better themselves, but people look at this guy and see someone that hasn't. Maybe they are wrong, but I'm not going to disagree with them until I see reason to.

EDIT: Unless you mean in general, then...yes. But, given the drama to get people to acknowledge any wrongdoing to begin with (people have been talking about Weinstein for years, for example), I'm wary of being quick to say "he's ok now".

CM156:
But yes, if all one wants is to carry out unorthodox sexual fantasies, they can fly out to Nevada and go to one of the many legal brothels there, many of which cater to sexual fetishism of all sorts. You want two adult women to watch you choke your weasel? Pretty sure you can have that. And it's not like C.K. couldn't afford this. Which is again why I don't think this was mostly about sex.

Man, I keep forgetting that prostitution is illegal in the US.

The US is super weird. Prostitutes are illegal, but guns are a free-for-all? Seriously, guys. Priorities.

RobertEHouse:
Aziz right now are just allegations, which means nothing unless somehow proven. Unless more people come forward or there exist actual hard evidence. Placing Aziz as guilty or innocent is right now up in the air, unlike Weinstein which had several eyewitness accounts. With just one woman and no physical proof or eyewitness accounts it would be hard to convince a jury. Let alone the general public whom enjoys his comedy.

Aziz is a super weird scenario to me. Mainly because it somehow manages to be kind of unique amongst #MeToo stories while also describing something very common.

Like, Aziz's behaviour was clearly bad - not as bad as Weinstein's casting couch or Bill Cosby's cocktails, but bad enough that it should be completely unacceptable. But most problematically, what happened with Aziz Ansari and "Grace" was ordinary. It is ordinary for a sexually active person to fail to read another person's signals during sex and do something that the other person doesn't want. It's a situation I imagine most men have found themselves in at some point; mangling a consensual sexual encounter so badly that you transform it into a nonconsensual one. And that's a problem, because from Grace's point of view, the whole experience was terrible - so awful that it verged on being traumatic. The effect it had on her should show that this is clearly something that needs to be avoided, so why does the whole situation seem so ordinary to myself and any other dudes reading about it?

Are dudes kind of conditioned to accept that particular scenario as an ordinary hazard of sexual intercourse? Aziz wasn't even aware that he'd done anything wrong until he was actually told so. I think most men, on hearing Grace's story, sort of stopped and went "So...it was a bad date?" What that tells me is that there's been a failure to properly educate men and women in basic sexual communication; we teach young people so little about sex and dating that they end up learning about it from romantic comedies and pornography, both of which are frankly fucking terrible sources of information.

It ties into the whole problem with video game romances, where the virtual relationship is essentially mechanistic and therefore fundamentally unreal; we're kind of subconsciously teaching guys to think that once a certain set of hurdles have been passed, sex is achieved. In reality, anyone can pull out of sex anytime they want to. Anyone who's been in an actual relationship knows that there's any number of reasons why sex might suddenly stop being fun for one participant. Sometimes it's something as banal as one person realising that they really need to pee. Sometimes it's just a lady like Grace realising "Wait, I don't like how this guy's fingers feel inside of me."

I mean, the bottom line is that you have to be really direct and vocal about your displeasure when you find yourself in that kind of situation. And everyone needs to keep in mind that everyone else has the inherent right to pull out (heh) of sex at any time, for whatever reason, blue balls be damned. (And whatever the female equivalent of blue balls is, too.)

Thaluikhain:

Elijin:
If you're caught making a mistake which doesnt net you a lifetime in jail, and you work on being a better person, but are still forever denied work/career prospects because of that mistake, where's the incentive to be a better person?

Big difference between losing a career forever (though, he's still wealthy enough not to actually need it, IIRC), and turning up unannounced within a year and making rape jokes. Where's the incentive to be a better person if the punishment is a few months off?

Someone may or may not decide to better themselves, but people look at this guy and see someone that hasn't. Maybe they are wrong, but I'm not going to disagree with them until I see reason to.

EDIT: Unless you mean in general, then...yes. But, given the drama to get people to acknowledge any wrongdoing to begin with (people have been talking about Weinstein for years, for example), I'm wary of being quick to say "he's ok now".

I meant in general.

But to expand on what you said, I dont think there should be a 'he's okay now' point. I think people who take steps towards rehabilitation should be encouraged, but I dont think they get a pass. They should be considered more critically, with any future claims of incidents treated seriously (but also not just assumed guilty because tigers dont change their stripes or whatever).

I guess I see it like AA. Someone who is sober shouldnt be being restricted from moving forward because they used to be a drunk (obvious exception for if the obstacle is a result of punishment incurred over criminal acts, and mumble of annoyance that I feel like I even need the disclaimer). But, they're now always an alcoholic, and they have to make sure they stay sober, and have less benefit of the doubt leaned their way.

That specific type of fetish behavior cropped up a lot with conversations amongst female friends during school and college years, mentioning guys who at parties or whatever would talk about and then begin masturbating in front of them if they happened to be alone at the time, usually at first their reaction would be assuming it as some sort of joke, until realising it wasn't, then a mixture of bemusement and shock at the whole thing, but not really wanting to make a big deal out of it, with society the way it likes to be. It seems like it's a next logical step up from guys dic-pics obsession with the exhibitionist ego that assumes no consent is required, and was almost as prevailent. To the point where I'd begun to ask myself "wait, is something wrong with me for not behaving or thinking like any of these people?" Like, could they just not? Is it so difficult to restrain oneself, and instead consider others first? Still hear about it from new people to this day. Suffice to say I'm very cautious and not too fond about making male friends.

Elijin:
I meant in general.

But to expand on what you said, I dont think there should be a 'he's okay now' point. I think people who take steps towards rehabilitation should be encouraged, but I dont think they get a pass. They should be considered more critically, with any future claims of incidents treated seriously (but also not just assumed guilty because tigers dont change their stripes or whatever).

I guess I see it like AA. Someone who is sober shouldnt be being restricted from moving forward because they used to be a drunk (obvious exception for if the obstacle is a result of punishment incurred over criminal acts, and mumble of annoyance that I feel like I even need the disclaimer). But, they're now always an alcoholic, and they have to make sure they stay sober, and have less benefit of the doubt leaned their way.

Ah, right, I see what you mean, and I'd tend to agree with that.

So... my trouble with the 'punishment' is not the length of time or money he lost. He didn't do anything restorative as far as Ive seen

Elijin:

If you're caught making a mistake which doesnt net you a lifetime in jail, and you work on being a better person, but are still forever denied work/career prospects because of that mistake, where's the incentive to be a better person?

I thought something similar about James Gunn

Mr Ink 5000:

Elijin:

If you're caught making a mistake which doesnt net you a lifetime in jail, and you work on being a better person, but are still forever denied work/career prospects because of that mistake, where's the incentive to be a better person?

I thought something similar about James Gunn

Except that Gunn just made really bad edge lord jokes on twitter, this is much creepier.

bastardofmelbourne:
Man, I keep forgetting that prostitution is illegal in the US.

The US is super weird. Prostitutes are illegal, but guns are a free-for-all? Seriously, guys. Priorities.

Well, illegal in 49 states. Nevada allows counties to set their own policies.

Also guns are a free-for-all in Nevada. Last time I was there, I got to shoot all sorts of fun things at the range.

trunkage:
So... my trouble with the 'punishment' is not the length of time or money he lost. He didn't do anything restorative as far as Ive seen

Indeed. He should do what he can to make amends with the young comedians whose careers he derailed.

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2018/08/louis-ck-locks-door-of-comedy-cellar-tells-audience-this-will-only-take-7-10-minutes/

Seanchaidh:

trunkage:
So... my trouble with the 'punishment' is not the length of time or money he lost. He didn't do anything restorative as far as Ive seen

Indeed. He should do what he can to make amends with the young comedians whose careers he derailed.

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2018/08/louis-ck-locks-door-of-comedy-cellar-tells-audience-this-will-only-take-7-10-minutes/

Wait... what?

I mean the whole "no cell phones" thing sounds a bit fishy. Is there only one person reporting to have witnessed this?

Abomination:

Seanchaidh:

trunkage:
So... my trouble with the 'punishment' is not the length of time or money he lost. He didn't do anything restorative as far as Ive seen

Indeed. He should do what he can to make amends with the young comedians whose careers he derailed.

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2018/08/louis-ck-locks-door-of-comedy-cellar-tells-audience-this-will-only-take-7-10-minutes/

Wait... what?

I mean the whole "no cell phones" thing sounds a bit fishy. Is there only one person reporting to have witnessed this?

The Beaverton is basically the Canadian Onion.

I see both instances among the shittiest examples of #MeToo. Louis CK's harmless wank-surprise dug up from a time before outrage media so it would do as much damage as possible.

Ansari's actions supposedly being "misogynist, lacking affirmative consent, and speaking to a larger culture of harmful male expectations" contributes into the mindset that women are fragile as heck, men should be psychic, and that sexual encounters are just allegations waiting to happen even though it should be fun. Of course, I know that's not how things actually are especially when one looks at individuals, but it does feed the uneasy feeling that things can end up going wrong regardless of what you do.

Elijin:

If you're caught making a mistake which doesnt net you a lifetime in jail, and you work on being a better person, but are still forever denied work/career prospects because of that mistake, where's the incentive to be a better person?

Yes, exactly.

This is a major problem - represented by excessive punitiveness - across the whole justice system, as well as elements of society. People ultimately must be given room for remorse, rehabilitation, and re-acceptance.

On the other hand, hardcore recidivists may as well just be left to languish in a cell for a l-o-n-g time.

McElroy:
I see both instances among the shittiest examples of #MeToo. Louis CK's harmless wank-surprise dug up from a time before outrage media so it would do as much damage as possible.

Ansari's actions supposedly being "misogynist, lacking affirmative consent, and speaking to a larger culture of harmful male expectations" contributes into the mindset that women are fragile as heck, men should be psychic, and that sexual encounters are just allegations waiting to happen even though it should be fun. Of course, I know that's not how things actually are especially when one looks at individuals, but it does feed the uneasy feeling that things can end up going wrong regardless of what you do.

Harmless? In my country, indecent exposure alone can be worth a year in jail. Let alone the masterbation and blocking escape routes. He gets away with no charges because its a private company.

Aziz is a different situation. And if it one woman complaining about some bad dates, I wouldn't care as much. Since it's multiple women, it probably the way Aziz treats woman that's the problem. So, all this stuff is a PSA for future partners of Aziz.

trunkage:
Harmless? In my country, indecent exposure alone can be worth a year in jail. Let alone the masterbation and blocking escape routes. He gets away with no charges because its a private company.

Aziz is a different situation. And if it one woman complaining about some bad dates, I wouldn't care as much. Since it's multiple women, it probably the way Aziz treats woman that's the problem. So, all this stuff is a PSA for future partners of Aziz.

I'd say it's harmless. Of course it can still be indecent exposure so maybe about 2000$ in fines and damages would've been in order.

I only knew about that one case with Ansari.

McElroy:

trunkage:
Harmless? In my country, indecent exposure alone can be worth a year in jail. Let alone the masterbation and blocking escape routes. He gets away with no charges because its a private company.

Aziz is a different situation. And if it one woman complaining about some bad dates, I wouldn't care as much. Since it's multiple women, it probably the way Aziz treats woman that's the problem. So, all this stuff is a PSA for future partners of Aziz.

I'd say it's harmless. Of course it can still be indecent exposure so maybe about 2000$ in fines and damages would've been in order.

I only knew about that one case with Ansari.

I can't speak for whatever state this happened in, but if he did what he did in my state, it would qualify as a class C misdemeanor. Which would likely only qualify him for jail time if he were a repeat offender.

Either way, it think we can agree: This guy is a jerk.

McElroy:

trunkage:
Harmless? In my country, indecent exposure alone can be worth a year in jail. Let alone the masterbation and blocking escape routes. He gets away with no charges because its a private company.

Aziz is a different situation. And if it one woman complaining about some bad dates, I wouldn't care as much. Since it's multiple women, it probably the way Aziz treats woman that's the problem. So, all this stuff is a PSA for future partners of Aziz.

I'd say it's harmless. Of course it can still be indecent exposure so maybe about 2000$ in fines and damages would've been in order.

I only knew about that one case with Ansari.

Then it's not harmless if you think $2000 fines would be in order

People shouldn't bring their dicks out in front of unwilling people. End of fucking sentence. Fuck Louis C.K. I don't give 2 shits about his career. Dude fucked up, live with the consequences. Maybe don't jerk off in front of people who don't want to see your dick

DrownedAmmet:
Then it's not harmless if you think $2000 fines would be in order

People shouldn't bring their dicks out in front of unwilling people. End of fucking sentence. Fuck Louis C.K. I don't give 2 shits about his career. Dude fucked up, live with the consequences. Maybe don't jerk off in front of people who don't want to see your dick

A lot of petty crimes are harmless even though they are against the law.

My problem with it is that the incident is from over a decade ago, but the witnesses saw #MeToo trending last year and came forward with their story that back in the early 2000s -- while being decent tabloid material -- wouldn't have hurt his career.

Like, what the hell was Louis C.K. doing in family animation to begin with? Did it not matter that 90% of his clips on YouTube were already family unfriendly? Well, we can rest easy now. He's not going back.

Thaluikhain:
and turning up unannounced within a year and making rape jokes.

Is this what literally happened?

Kwak:

Thaluikhain:
and turning up unannounced within a year and making rape jokes.

Is this what literally happened?

Apparently, yes. Or, rather, technically "rape whistle joke", but I'm not seeing any real difference.

http://www.vulture.com/2018/08/louis-ck-comedy-cellar-women-describe-rape-whistle-joke.html

Thaluikhain:

Kwak:

Thaluikhain:
and turning up unannounced within a year and making rape jokes.

Is this what literally happened?

Apparently, yes. Or, rather, technically "rape whistle joke", but I'm not seeing any real difference.

http://www.vulture.com/2018/08/louis-ck-comedy-cellar-women-describe-rape-whistle-joke.html

I think this is a good microcosm of the interplay between all of those in power and those who are not, and I'm glad you pointed it out, Thaluikhain (one day, I'm going to ask you how to pronounce that).

S.B. said the audience was mostly white, with lots of couples. Both women say the set was awkward, but the first woman was particularly upset by it. "It was an all-male set to begin with. Then, it's sort of exacerbated by [C.K.'s] presence," she said. "If someone had heckled him, I think they would've been heckled out. It felt like there were a lot of aggressive men in the audience and very quiet women. It's the kind of vibe that doesn't allow for a dissenting voice. You're just expected to be a good audience member. You're considered a bad sport if you speak out."

This is how it feels for people who don't have the power. From physically to being a minority, you have to read the room to see if people even will allow you to speak up.

We have aggressive people here. Who yell and try to insult/intimidate you to silence because your discomfort is making them ill-at-ease. They don't want to be burdened by your burdens. It's the mindset of "Keep it to yourself so I can have peace. Who the hell cares how you feel, all that matters is that I'M fine or [b]I[/i] don't consider what is bothering you worry of attention or concern."

A lot of people say "It's just jokes, why can't we joke any more?". That's a valid question, and something we should answer so we can have common ground to move on.

Let's put this scenario. If any of you dealt with a gang or a group of individuals who will use their numbers to intimidate others, you can be aware of their 'jokes'.

"Hey, punk bitch. You come over here and I'll see if I can wash that dirt off your skin"

"Mami, show me and the guys if the carpet matches the drapes."

"Sissy, why don't you tell us what your old man did to you to make you like other men"

Fun fact, the first was actually said to me. The second was to a friend of mine who grabbed our mutual friend and me by the arms, put her head down, and quick stepped us out of there. It struck me at the time that she didn't even waste a second on thinking what to do. That it was so automatic that it must have happened to her before.

The last was a friend of mine who done himself up and was ready for a night at the Village after he came out and he saw that none of his friends abandoned him. He told us that when we all met up, and his heart was crushed. I still could kill those guys.

Now, they all were probably just joking with the 'others'. But the possibly of action or threat, or to single out people as the other who need to keep themselves in check is was takes a 'joke' and makes it into a worrying scenario.

Let's take a statement. "I'm going to fuck you up."

Said to my best friend when we're playing street fighter, hell yes! Bring on more of that. Shit talking is one of the things that makes the FGC great. Come get this Shinshoryuken, I can slap it on a thousand different ways!!

Said to a girl I met earlier in the night who I got along with... possibly a giant red flag. That isn't the language someone should use with someone they just met, and definitely not with someone who has the ability to someone who does not.

Said by a boss to an employee during work hours. Context needed. Are the boss and employee known to be very buddy-buddy and joke like that all the time? Proceed. Did the Boss say this to an employee that he or she is not known for having that type of repertoire with? Worrying.

"Jokes" are not a sacred thing because they always need set up. Not just in the actual joking fashion, but you need to understand if people are even in the right frame of mind to receive the joke. If I'm in a bad mood, even a joke that would make me normally laugh hysterically will fall in deaf ears. If I'm sad and I need a pick me up, a weak joke that was just funny enough to get a chuckle out of me will make me breathless because of the release of my mood that it brought.

An admitted sexual offender like him touching rape jokes, and women who are outnumbered there? No one can say 'they are just jokes', because no one can ever ask for everyone to have the same set up to the same scenario. From just ONE possible woman's standpoint, here's an admitted sexual offender who would normally be shunned by society welcomed back into the fold like nothing's happened, and getting laughs over the subject that they are afraid of daily, and no one seems to be bothered by it.

That... Well, that's just intimidating.

He apologized. What do people expect? That he commits suicide out of shame for what he did? That kind of humor is his damn bread and butter, of course he goes back to that well when he makes a comeback. If the author of that piece and the 3-4 women in her sight were stone faced when C.K. entered, it's obvious that they hadn't accepted his very real, tangible apology, it's no surprise that they didn't enjoy his set.

Is admitting and apologizing not enough? Dude's been laying low for a year. If you don't believe that criminals deserve a second chance, why not euthanize them all? It's better than getting hounded your whole life.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here