People Are Not Happy That Louis C.K. Did Stand-Up Again

[Threegoofs]

Why would you say he is a pretty awful guy in real life.

Nobody that actually knows him has ever said anything like that.

There were some women who certainly implied he was pretty awful.

 

[Chaddelamancha]

Who the f*** is Louis C.K., and why should we care? Don't like switch the channel, as easy as that

Weird that you would come to a Louis C.K. thread just to say you don't care about him. This was started for those of us who do care.

 

[Hatuey]

I can't help it if 99.99999% of you can't understand English.



The original statements:




In second sentence "this" refers back to "did" in the previous sentence: "I'm not trying to defend what CK did."

"kiddie" has a meaning of child when used as a noun; child-like like when used as an adjective. Child-like carries the connotation of clumsy, amateurish or innocent.

Even without knowing that from context he clearly means to say what Louis CK did is mild compared to some things he's seen. I will admit it's in-artful but you have to willfully misread it to get any other interpretation.


Whether he has a predilection for child porn is something I don't know. Nor do I really care about Louis CK. I do care when people misread something as a way to bolster their point.

If you think you're right, go to a bar, film yourself saying 'yeah, I watch kiddie-porn' and write down how many folks completely understand your colloquial use of the term.

Get back to us if they don't lynch you f

 

[Chaddelamancha]

You think CK was such a big name in comedy back in 2005 that these women thought they didn't have a choice but to agree?

That was not the case.

Sarah Silverman has gone on record saying this was a thing he did, several times in front of her in fact. She also stated that sometimes she would say no and he didn't do anything. :shrug: It didn't hurt her career by saying no.

 

[Gaius46]

If you think you're right, go to a bar, film yourself saying 'yeah, I watch kiddie-porn' and write down how many folks completely understand your colloquial use of the term.

Get back to us if they don't lynch you f

Why do continue to use the term in a context other than the one the original writer used it. You’re a journalist if I recall. Surely you understand that context actually matters.

 

[Hatuey]

Why do continue to use the term in a context other than the one the original writer used it. You’re a journalist if I recall. Surely you understand that context actually matters.

I'm not a journalist; I work in media - content production, marketing, special commissions from longtime clients etc. I wouldn't use the word kiddie-porn in any context other than child pornography and have never heard it used in any other manner. However, I am reasonsable I welcome you to show us the plethora of examples you have of anyone with any credibility in media referring to 'soft porn' (which is what Buzz swears he meant) as 'kiddie-porn'.

It just isn't as colloquial an usage as you wish it was.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

 

[Gaius46]

I'm not a journalist; I work in media - content production, marketing, special commissions from longtime clients etc. I wouldn't use the word kiddie-porn in any context other than child pornography and have never heard it used in any other manner. However, I am reasonsable I welcome you to show us the plethora of examples you have of anyone with any credibility in media referring to 'soft porn' (which is what Buzz swears he meant) as 'kiddie-porn'.

It just isn't as colloquial an usage as you wish it was.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

Usage of “kiddie” in the way I defined is colloquial. I never said usage of “kiddie porn” in that way was. And I responding to another poster on this topic I noted that the phrasing wasn’t the best.

If I was less than clear about that my apologies.

However that doesn’t change the fact that Buzz did mean it to mean “soft porn”. The context made that very clear.

 

[Lursa]

Good for him. He didnt commit a crime, he admitted to what he did. A lot of men are pigs, it's not like that's a surprise. (yes, sure alot of women are 'fill in the blank.' whatever)

If people want to go see him, fine. THe market can decide if he 'can come back' or not.

I think he's pretty funny but know little about him personally. And I dont want to...I am not particularly concerned about the lives of entertainers, even those I really like. I'm not 15.

 

[ecofarm]

Good for him. He didnt commit a crime, he admitted to what he did. A lot of men are pigs, it's not like that's a surprise. (yes, sure alot of women are 'fill in the blank.' whatever)

If people want to go see him, fine. THe market can decide if he 'can come back' or not.

I think he's pretty funny but know little about him personally. And I dont want to...I am not particularly concerned about the lives of entertainers, even those I really like. I'm not 15.

No crime? I think that's debatable.

Spoiler

He repeatedly harassed women by masturbating in front of them, sometimes completely naked, without their consent, over a period of at least 10 years. The women were typically younger female comics, and over time he gained more influence, making it increasingly difficult for the women to complain about it.

Stories about his behavior circulated for years, and for years he denied it, right up to the bitter end (he said "They’re rumors, that’s all that is" about 1 month before finally admitting it). Industry insiders had heard about some of the incidents as well, and did nothing about it. CK's manager -- who also represents top talent like Amy Poehler and Kevin Hart, allegedly discouraged two women from discussing the incidents...

Imagine that the CEO of your company calls you into his office. He shuts the door, takes off all of his clothes, and masturbates in front of you. You're pretty sure that you will be fired if you try to leave the room. He ejaculates on his naked stomach, and then says you can leave.

First of all, that's not an "adult game." Pictionary is an adult game, and if you get naked and masturbate during Pictionary? Game over.

Second: Yes, it's sexual harassment. He was in a position of power, and anyone who complained was risking their career. Even if you are 100% justified, complaining or discussing it publicly could backfire on you -- you could get passed up for promotions, demoted, salary cut, driven out or fired, and the CEO could trash your reputation. That's how this stuff works...

 

[Lursa]

No crime? I think that's debatable.

Those women could have walked away. What was the crime?

He wasnt some official agent or booking agent, etc. I'm not defending what he did but all women need to have enough sense to walk away from that ****. If they dont, dont complain about it. If they were offended, they could have left. If they stayed...it's because they also wanted something from him.

 

[Visbek]

You think CK was such a big name in comedy back in 2005 that these women thought they didn't have a choice but to agree?

sigh

As a reminder: You don't actually have to be someone's superior in order to sexually harass someone. Anyway....

At least one woman refused his request (Rebecca Corry) during a pilot. When she complained about it to the producers, they basically did nothing.

Two others (Goodman and Wolov) didn't think he was serious. (Would you?)

In another case, it was during a phone call with a woman. One minute, they're talking work; the next, he's describing his sexual fantasies, and masturbating. He didn't ask permission.

One of the allegations was when he was a writer for the Chris Rock Show; she felt like she couldn't refuse because of the power dynamics.

In the time frame discussed, he wrote for Cedric the Entertainer, Conan O'Brien, Letterman, the Dana Carvey Show, and the Chris Rock Show (which got him 3 Emmy nominations); did an HBO special; directed two feature films, and numerous shorts for Showtime; hosted a PBS show; wrote at least one screenplay. His manager already had significant sway in the industry, and allegedly warned Goodman and Wolov not to talk about what happened.

He definitely got bigger after 2006. That doesn't change the fact that during that time, he had enough pull to make women feel uncomfortable saying no and/or publicly discussing the events.

 

[Gaius46]

No crime? I think that's debatable.

What is the crime? They weren’t employees.
They weren’t in public from what I read. The women weren’t being held against their will.

Or is utter boorishness now a crime?

 

[Visbek]

Good for him. He didnt commit a crime, he admitted to what he did....

He sexually harassed multiple women. It's not a criminal offense, but it is a violation of the law.
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm

He denied it for years, and only admitted it after the New York Times ran a 2500-word article detailing five separate allegations. He didn't apologize, he didn't say he was sorry, he didn't do anything to make amends. He lost work, but he wasn't blackballed from the industry, he was never banned from clubs. He basically went to France for a few months, then came back to the US and whined about his situation.

I agree he has the right to do his act and get back to work. I also believe that we have the right to call him to account, point out his lack of contrition, and criticize him for acting like he is the victim.

 

[Visbek]

What is the crime? They weren’t employees.
They weren’t in public from what I read. The women weren’t being held against their will.

None of those conditions are required.

What he did was not a criminal offense, but when it happened in a workplace (at least two cases), it was a violation of the law. When it didn't involve work, it's just unethical.

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm

 

[Lursa]

He sexually harassed multiple women. It's not a criminal offense, but it is a violation of the law.
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm

He denied it for years, and only admitted it after the New York Times ran a 2500-word article detailing five separate allegations. He didn't apologize, he didn't say he was sorry, he didn't do anything to make amends. He lost work, but he wasn't blackballed from the industry, he was never banned from clubs. He basically went to France for a few months, then came back to the US and whined about his situation.

I agree he has the right to do his act and get back to work. I also believe that we have the right to call him to account, point out his lack of contrition, and criticize him for acting like he is the victim.

The law you linked to specifically said 'applicant or employee.' Random women coming up to him at engagements doesnt make them that, even if they were angling for work.

He did admit it but it seems it was not a crime. THose women were free citizens who stayed not out of intimidation but because they wanted something from him. Of course he was wrong and disgusting and trying to take advantage, but the women could have left at any time.

 

[ecofarm]

The law you linked to specifically said 'applicant or employee.' Random women coming up to him at engagements doesnt make them that, even if they were angling for work.

He did admit it but it seems it was not a crime. THose women were free citizens who stayed not out of intimidation but because they wanted something from him. Of course he was wrong and disgusting and trying to take advantage, but the women could have left at any time.

He did that to people working under him, that's my understanding. Some of it appears possibly criminal no matter who's the target.

 

[Gaius46]

None of those conditions are required.

What he did was not a criminal offense, but when it happened in a workplace (at least two cases), it was a violation of the law. When it didn't involve work, it's just unethical.

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm

Thanks. I didn’t realize that any of those cases were workplace related.

 

[Lursa]

He did that to people working under him, that's my understanding. Some of it appears possibly criminal no matter who's the target.

Didnt know he had employees. If he did that to an employee then yes, that is a criminal act.

 

[ecofarm]

Didnt know he had employees. If he did that to an employee then yes, that is a criminal act.

Some appears to have been at least quasi employee, people whose career trajectory he had great influence on.

 

[Lursa]

Some appears to have been at least quasi employee, people whose career trajectory he had great influence on.

Then those people were taking (attempting to) take advantage of him too. It was a choice. They wanted something too. He was a pig, but they didnt have to stay there and accept it, they made a choice.

 

[ecofarm]

Then those people were taking (attempting to) take advantage of him too. It was a choice. They wanted something too. He was a pig, but they didnt have to stay there and accept it, they made a choice.

When those with power abuse it, we don't blame temptation.

 

[Lursa]

When those with power abuse it, we don't blame temptation.

So you are excusing people from being responsible for themselves? I'm not. The entertainment industry is rife with such garbage and anyone of adult age knows it, certainly someone looking to get into that industry. Those people, women in this case, made a choice. All they wanted were recommendations from him, to get them interviews, auditions, spots in clubs. There are other ways to do that...they made their choices.

If they didnt allow it, it wouldnt work.

I'm not talking about workplace sexual harassment...I'm talking about 'using him for his influence.' Because that's mostly what it sounds like.

 

[ecofarm]

So you are excusing people from being responsible for themselves? I'm not.

Putting responsibility on those with power is right. Those seeking favor in corruption are not good, but they're not creating corruption. We don't equally blame the bribed and the briber when the bribed is in power.

 

[Visbek]

The law you linked to specifically said 'applicant or employee.' Random women coming up to him at engagements doesnt make them that, even if they were angling for work.

At least two of the cases did happen at work.

He did admit it but it seems it was not a crime.

Repetition is not an argument.

THose women were free citizens who stayed not out of intimidation but because they wanted something from him. Of course he was wrong and disgusting and trying to take advantage, but the women could have left at any time.

Spare us your attempts to blame the victims. What he did was unethical, and in some cases violated the law. I see no sign that he showed any genuine contrition, and as a result I have no consequences calling him out on it.

 

[Lursa]

Putting responsibility on those with power is right. Those seeking favor in corruption are not good, but they're not creating corruption.

What does that mean? THat those women (in this case) shouldnt be held responsible for choosing to use him to gain his influence? They went to him for that purpose.