Louis CK gets a standing ovation

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Davroth:

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.

It's fine that criminals and sinners deserve a second chance.

I might merely ask where's the same concern for some of the women whose careers may have been dicked with[1] in the process of his misconduct? So if their thing with CK set them back, who's calling for their second chance or restitution? Why are we so concerned with the sinner's rehabilitation, and not the opportunities of the victims?

[1] pun intended

They did themselves, very vocally, when they came forward to tell their story. We are already extremely passionate about the victims of sexual misconduct, rightfully so. Does C.K. playing a small crowd in a comedy club undo that? I don't believe so.

'Comedian offended someone' is not news. They do it all the time. Standup comedy is largely built on that.

Davroth:
He apologized. What do people expect?

Well, not to appear, unannounced, at a comedy thing and make jokes about rape? Maybe?

Thaluikhain:

Davroth:
He apologized. What do people expect?

Well, not to appear, unannounced, at a comedy thing and make jokes about rape? Maybe?

Seems supremely unreasonable to me. He returned to what he did before. Before the allegations he admitted to, nobody would have batted an eye at any of that.

Davroth:
They did themselves, very vocally, when they came forward to tell their story.

Okay, but they're presumably relatively small time comics, particularly compared to Louis CK. Did speaking up about what he did help their career? And if their careers were damaged, bearing in mind the complaints go back as far as 2000 or so, does it make up for as many as 15 years they were held back? Did they miss out on a "once in a lifetime" opportunity to make it big that will never come back?

(I have no idea what the answer is to any of those questions.)

I just think they deserve to be asked, because it seems a lot of people are very concerned about the career of a multimillionaire who could live the rest of his life in luxury even if he never worked again.

Davroth:
Seems supremely unreasonable to me. He returned to what he did before. Before the allegations he admitted to, nobody would have batted an eye at any of that.

Yes, but... comedy about doing horrible things usually works because of the implausibility or gross exaggeration compared to reality. When you find it's close to something the comic has genuinely done, it's often a lot less funny. A bit like realising you're laughing with the school bully in his delight for punching the school nerd in the face (although to be fair, there's still a market for that).

Agema:

Okay, but they're presumably relatively small time comics, particularly compared to Louis CK. Did speaking up about what he did help their career? And if their careers were damaged, bearing in mind the complaints go back as far as 2000 or so, does it make up for as many as 15 years they were held back? Did they miss out on a "once in a lifetime" opportunity to make it big that will never come back?

(I have no idea what the answer is to any of those questions.)

I just think they deserve to be asked, because it seems a lot of people are very concerned about the career of a multimillionaire who could live the rest of his life in luxury even if he never worked again.

First of all, you make a lot of assumptions there, not the least of which that C.K.'s conduct is what made those women's careers fail. Seeing how you admit that you have no answers for those questions, it's save to say you know those are baseless.

What kind of argument is that, anyway? Shouldn't justice treat everyone equally regardless of wealth and status?

Yes, but... comedy about doing horrible things usually works because of the implausibility or gross exaggeration compared to reality. When you find it's close to something the comic has genuinely done, it's often a lot less funny. A bit like realising you're laughing with the school bully in his delight for punching the school nerd in the face (although to be fair, there's still a market for that).

Okay, so to you masturbating in front of a woman who he thought he had consent from at the time is close to penis in vagina rape? Really?

Davroth:
First of all, you make a lot of assumptions there, not the least of which that C.K.'s conduct is what made those women's careers fail. Seeing how you admit that you have no answers for those questions, it's save to say you know those are baseless.

Now, that's kind of dishonest. I'm not making "baseless" "assumptions" about the real world, and I'm being very clear that I'm not. I'm making a hypothetical argument to illustrate a point.

The point, which applies much more generally than Louis CK, is that when famous people commit sins/crimes, we're much more concerned about them than their victims. Famous people tend to have done stuff that has been liked. So there is a desire to protect them because they are admired and because we want to consume whatever it is they provide, such as entertainment. Consequently, there is a drive to excuse, punish lightly, favour rehabilitation, etc.

But who gives a damn about a victim, who we probably can't even name. I can't name any of CK's victims off the top of my head myself, for instance. But this means no-one is looking out for them. They got screwed over, and they can and frequently are just be left to be screwed over. There's no fan club, no audience clamouring for them to get air time and willing to pay tickets to see them. If their life was ruined then it's just ruined, and they can go on the societal scrap heap for all society cares.

So, in a sense, to answer your next question quoted just below, no there isn't equal justice. The rich and popular have a lot of support the rest of us do not and never will. If you're Robert Downey Jr. and get "three strikes and you're out" on drug use, there's a campaign to get you free so you can go on to make mega-multi-million blockbusters. But ordinary schlubs guilty of the same get lots of decades behind bars.

What kind of argument is that, anyway? Shouldn't justice treat everyone equally regardless of wealth and status?

A justice system should. If you mean justice in a societal sense[1], it all starts getting very woolly. If you mean the universe and cosmic fate, then there is no justice. As this isn't a legal situation and the third is irrelevant, we mean a sense of justice at a societal level.

And there's as much justice as we, as a society, make of our own society.

Okay, so to you masturbating in front of a woman who he thought he had consent from at the time is close to penis in vagina rape? Really?

"To you"? Firstly, let's take this out of the personal sphere, because we're both capable of reasonably considering how people other than ourselves might think. We can understand where they are coming from, or think they have a decent point, even if we don't agree overall on a personal level.

Now, considering how close masturbating in front of people who didn't ask for it is to raping them, one might approach it from a relative level. One might note that masturbation in front of unwilling people is a damn sight closer to rape than 99% of things people do in the average day, like eat breakfast, drive cars, data entry or shelf-stacking. They're both forms of sexual misconduct inflicted on others, although obviously the masturbation is a big step down from rape in terms of harm, invasiveness, etc.

So in terms of "close", that's up to the individual. But as per the above, you can readily consider that jokes about rape from Louis CK are going to be considered in extremely poor taste by a significant number of people, and not unreaonably so.

[1] i.e. "social justice"; but let's avoid that term because although it's accurate, it's tends to trigger at least some people

Agema:
Now, that's kind of dishonest. I'm not making "baseless" "assumptions" about the real world, and I'm being very clear that I'm not. I'm making a hypothetical argument to illustrate a point.

The point, which applies much more generally than Louis CK, is that when famous people commit sins/crimes, we're much more concerned about them than their victims. Famous people tend to have done stuff that has been liked. So there is a desire to protect them because they are admired and because we want to consume whatever it is they provide, such as entertainment. Consequently, there is a drive to excuse, punish lightly, favour rehabilitation, etc.

But who gives a damn about a victim, who we probably can't even name. I can't name any of CK's victims off the top of my head myself, for instance. But this means no-one is looking out for them. They got screwed over, and they can and frequently are just be left to be screwed over. There's no fan club, no audience clamouring for them to get air time and willing to pay tickets to see them. If their life was ruined then it's just ruined, and they can go on the societal scrap heap for all society cares.

So, in a sense, to answer your next question quoted just below, no there isn't equal justice. The rich and popular have a lot of support the rest of us do not and never will. If you're Robert Downey Jr. and get "three strikes and you're out" on drug use, there's a campaign to get you free so you can go on to make mega-multi-million blockbusters. But ordinary schlubs guilty of the same get lots of decades behind bars.

Your hypophysis has no basis. What basis to you have to assume that CK jerking off in front of those women ruined their career? Show me, please. Discussing baseless hypophisis, or assumptions, is futile.

I give a damn about the victims. I even know their names still, fancy that. But that's not what this thread is about. It's not about his victims going to a comedy club and being faced by him making a rape whistle joke. It's some women who felt uncomfortable about that situation and somehow that's newsworthy.

Conversely, I hate standup comedy, and I hate CK's brand of 'telling it like it is' 'it's funny because it's true' comedy. My stake in all of this is that I hate these kinds of news stories. If the guy has done something unforgivable, off with his head. Why do people think it's okay to let people live as pariah in our society? He admitted to his crimes, and apologized, he laid low for a year. What more can you even ask for?

If criminal charges were supposed to pressed, then that requires action by the victims.

A justice system should. If you mean justice in a societal sense[1], it all starts getting very woolly. If you mean the universe and cosmic fate, then there is no justice. As this isn't a legal situation and the third is irrelevant, we mean a sense of justice at a societal level.

And there's as much justice as we, as a society, make of our own society.

Yeah, that's the point, though. The court of public opinion obviously condemned him. And as illustrated here, his apology is seemingly meaningless. The court of public opinion is the epitomy of a kangaroo court, calling for lynch justice at the drop of the head. It's dispicable.

Wouldn't you want societal justice to be better than the frankly corrupt and biased justice system? You don't create balance by tipping a different scale in the other direction, the first scale is still just as skewed.

"To you"? Firstly, let's take this out of the personal sphere, because we're both capable of reasonably considering how people other than ourselves might think. We can understand where they are coming from, or think they have a decent point, even if we don't agree overall on a personal level.

Now, considering how close masturbating in front of people who didn't ask for it is to raping them, one might approach it from a relative level. One might note that masturbation in front of unwilling people is a damn sight closer to rape than 99% of things people do in the average day, like eat breakfast, drive cars, data entry or shelf-stacking. They're both forms of sexual misconduct inflicted on others, although obviously the masturbation is a big step down from rape in terms of harm, invasiveness, etc.

So in terms of "close", that's up to the individual. But as per the above, you can readily consider that jokes about rape from Louis CK are going to be considered in extremely poor taste by a significant number of people, and not unreaonably so.

You were making an completely outragous statement, so of course it's within a personal sphere that I ask you. As you can see, a fast majority doesn't care, at all. They probably wouldn't even care if he actually raped the women. Nobody seems to care that Johnny Depp is a known domestic abuser, and he still gets plenty of movie roles.

I don't believe that's up to the individual, no. I think it's a rather small, vocal minority of people who believe rape and masturbating in front of someone you believe you have consent from, but who are actually under your power, are the same thing or close to being the same thing.

I'm sorry, but I will have to repeat myself again. Comedians make jokes in what some people would consider very poor taste literally all the time. That is the nature of standup especially. Someone being offended by a joke is not special, not noteworthy and not important.

[1] i.e. "social justice"; but let's avoid that term because although it's accurate, it's tends to trigger at least some people

Davroth:
Your hypophysis has no basis.

I can quite assure you that my pituitary gland is a perfectly normal, evolutionarily-derived organ similar to those all humans have, vital to our continued lives and health.

What basis to you have to assume that CK jerking off in front of those women ruined their career? Show me, please. Discussing baseless hypophisis, or assumptions, is futile.

Er... did you not read that stuff I said about there being no assumptions?

I give a damn about the victims.

You can say that, but I'm really not getting that impression.

Yeah, that's the point, though. The court of public opinion obviously condemned him. And as illustrated here, his apology is seemingly meaningless. The court of public opinion is the epitomy of a kangaroo court, calling for lynch justice at the drop of the head. It's dispicable.

Louis CK's own apology offered harsh criticism of himself and suggested he needed to go away for a while; one can hardly get angry at "public opinion" for agreeing.

I'm not really sure what media you're reading, but the media I'm reading isn't demanding he's burnt at the stake. It's more a debate about how long is enough, moderately conducted.

Wouldn't you want societal justice to be better than the frankly corrupt and biased justice system? You don't create balance by tipping a different scale in the other direction, the first scale is still just as skewed.

I don't know I'd call the justice system "corrupt and biased" overall. Mind you, I don't think you and I live in the same jurisdiction, so we're potentially looking at very different standards.

You were making an completely outragous statement, so of course it's within a personal sphere that I ask you. As you can see, a fast majority doesn't care, at all. They probably wouldn't even care if he actually raped the women. Nobody seems to care that Johnny Depp is a known domestic abuser, and he still gets plenty of movie roles.

You think it's outrageous - many others wouldn't. As to the rest, just a few moments ago, you were saying public opinion is a kangaroo court; now you're saying they let crimes go unpunished.

I don't believe that's up to the individual, no. I think it's a rather small, vocal minority of people who believe rape and masturbating in front of someone you believe you have consent from, but who are actually under your power, are the same thing or close to being the same thing.

I think if enough people want to watch Louis CK, they'll pony up the money and he'll be back on the circuit. A vocal minority can complain all they like, they're not as important in society as profit motive.

I'm sorry, but I will have to repeat myself again. Comedians make jokes in what some people would consider very poor taste literally all the time. That is the nature of standup especially. Someone being offended by a joke is not special, not noteworthy and not important.

Well, not important to you. But evidently it matters to some people, and if they want to write about it, then free speech and all that's their right.

Davroth:
I'm sorry, but I will have to repeat myself again. Comedians make jokes in what some people would consider very poor taste literally all the time. That is the nature of standup especially. Someone being offended by a joke is not special, not noteworthy and not important.

So what would you call an "innapropriate joke" (if such a thing exists)? Is it an absolute free for all on all and any jokes that people want to make or are there some things that people aren't supposed to joke about?

Because I submit to you that CK was making jokes about being a horrible person. Jokes that it turns out are far closer to reality than I think most of his fans would have wanted. It raises the question: What was CK joking about?

Was this something that CK thought was an amusing bizarre situation that, while it would never happen, was interesting to think about?

Or was this something that CK thought was a universal truth of human existance? That masturbating infront of people (who aren't consenting sexual partners) is as relevent to the modern human experience as sitting on a plane conflicted over giving up your first-class seat? (I would list more CK jokes but honestly I can't remember a single one)

There is a huge gulf of difference between the two. For example, listen to this bit:


Without the context we have now, I would have assumed that it was a joke about the first point. clearly no one wants to masturbate in front of their in laws, right? Its just a situation that's funny think about. But now what is there to say? "Its unfair!" takes on a very different meaning, as does "I should be able to masturbate anywhere". His sympathy for other public masturbaters is really the icing on the cake of sexual misconduct.

I don't think there's an argument that its a coincidence here, clearly his... "habits" played on his mind and expressed themselves in his comedy. In light of all this, if CK thinks that he can come back and do this whole schtick again without seriously reevaluating the sources of his comedy then I for one will not miss him when he is finally relegated to history. Why should anyone assume that CK held a different view on masturbation than the other various topics that CK joked about? Why would these jokes be exceptional? If they aren't exceptional then we have to assume that this is the way CK thinks about a lot of things.

Should someone in CK's situation by default be neccessarily forced out of comedy? No. Are the circumstances around CK and especially the jokes he told recently evidence that CK hasn't changed and thus deserves criticism? Absolutely. And if comedy clubs don't want to book someone like that, then I support their decision.

EDIT: Just thought of an example: Yahtzee frequently jokes about fetishizing dolphins. If you found out that Yahtzee actually did fetishize dolphins and had in fact been banned from the aquarium for his actions, would the jokes take on a different meaning?

Would you be happy to continue supporting Yahtzee after that, even if he moved on to fetishizing manatees instead? Would how close these "jokes" were to reality change the way you viewed both the jokes themselves and the comedian making them?

 Pages PREV 1 2

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