Sexual Abuse/Assault in the News

[loopcloses]

I am all for CK coming back and doing stand-up again, but this is way, way, way too soon.

More than anything I want him to write again, but I agree here, this is way sooner than I'd expect, and not how I'd like to see it done. If he's gonna come back to the public eye, he needs to talk about what happened and address it more thoroughly than that statement did.

[telee.kom]

How long was the sentence set by the ETS jury here for Louis CK, I must have missed that.

[playwithfire]

Yeah, bud, it's totally chill that a guy who admitted to jerking off in front of colleagues but has done little to publicly account for his actions and express remorse and change wants to go ahead and make a comeback. The silly old eTS jURy is just being too uptight about it.

God, expecting people who've engaged in abusive behavior to own their shit and not just, y'know, issue a wishy washy apology after years of lying and attempting to suppress people coming forward, and then take "time away" before returning to the public eye in hopes of support. hASn'T hE SuFFeReD EnOUGH.

We're really out for blood with how we want people to fully account for the harm they've caused before they seek public redemption instead of fucking around. The jUrY.

[loopcloses]

For what it's worth, and I'm absolutely biased as somebody who's been pretty profoundly impacted by his work, I wouldn't even mind him being back this soon at all, it's just that he needs to do more, he's got to address it. There's such a duality between the Louis CK who was a huge ally to women in the industry the past 9 years and the Louis CK that was revealed in the allegations, and the onus is on him to prove to everyone that the latter no longer exists, and that he wishes to atone for it. Just sweeping the whole thing under the rug is incredibly sketchy.

But I don't want to jump to conclusions either way. For all we know, he was just depressed that day and impulsively decided to go do a set, and it's not part of some premeditated Louis CK comeback campaign.

[telee.kom]

Yeah, bud, it's totally chill that a guy who admitted to jerking off in front of colleagues but has done little to publicly account for his actions and express remorse and change wants to go ahead and make a comeback. The silly old eTS jURy is just being too uptight about it.

God, expecting people who've engaged in abusive behavior to own their shit and not just, y'know, issue a wishy washy apology after years of lying and attempting to suppress people coming forward, and then take "time away" before returning to the public eye in hopes of support. hASn'T hE SuFFeReD EnOUGH.

We're really out for blood with how we want people to fully account for the harm they've caused before they seek public redemption instead of fucking around. The jUrY.

Oh the harm here, right... I'm genuinely curious, how long do you think he should be out of the spotlight or whatever you want to call it? How much is for public exposure in US? Here's absolutely crazy idea, maybe if you don't think he hasn't apologized profoundly enough, or it wasn't long enough since this all gone public, nobody is forcing you to watch his work or contributing to him in any way, so just don't do that.

[playwithfire]

Yes. "The harm."

how long do you think he should be out of the spotlight or whatever you want to call it?

I'm pretty apathetic about how long he's "out of the spotlight" and my issue with the timing of his return is much more related to how he has also done next to nothing to publicly acknowledge the harm he has caused, an understanding of his actions, and the changes he's made. Instead, people in his position seem to think it is sufficient to issue and apology and disappear. That is certainly the demonstrated pattern of behavior.

It's funny, because I think a lot of people in here (definitely me) are super for restorative justice. We don't have any desire for people to necessarily go away for ever. And for what it's worth, not that it matters, I think CK is a brilliant comedian and I really like a lot of his work. But restorative justice requires people owning their shit and working to improve it, and accounting for that publicly.

Here's absolutely crazy idea, maybe if you don't think he hasn't apologized profoundly enough, or it wasn't long enough since this all gone public, nobody is forcing you to watch his work or contributing to him in any way, so just don't do that.

That's a crappy idea. All that does is enforce people not having to account for harming other people and contributes to a culture that sweeps this shit under the rug and supports abusive behavior.

Do you have some sort of problem with the concept of people who have admitted to abuse actually accounting for that in a way that shows understanding and change? Like, is that idea somehow unreasonable to you?

[playwithfire]

Topical: https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/...-to-our-office

[telee.kom]

Do you have some sort of problem with the concept of people who have admitted to abuse actually accounting for that in a way that shows understanding and change? Like, is that idea somehow unreasonable to you?

No I don't, I just find what he did to be stupid rather than abusive, but let's not get into that argument, because our opinions obviously differ.

I don't get how else would you hold him accountable for what he did? He's in a court of a public opinion, if public decides what he did to be too much for little atonement, then it should obviously hurt his view ratings, his sales, his popularity. If most people find a year out of work, one scrapped movie and tarnished name to be reasonable punishment for jerking off in public then I guess it's time to move on to people who actually abused someone.

[playwithfire]

No I don't, I just find what he did to be stupid rather than abusive, but let's not get into that argument, because our opinions obviously differ.

Yep, they do. I agree with sexual harassment laws and the literal definition of abuse. Both can be googled.

I don't get how else would you hold him accountable for what he did?

Here are some good resources.

http://restorativejustice.org/

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertai...y-mean/568768/

[telee.kom]

I took your advice, tried this Google thingy and it says right here that "[the women he shoved his dick to] had received apologies in some form after several years", that could be read in a few ways, I think there was probably some monetary settlement involved neither party want to disclose. There is some restorative justice for ya. Anyway, I'm not exactly sure what you expect or want to happen. Is he supposed to whip himself ten times in front of you to make amends?

[playwithfire]

I didn't give you advice, but I did tell you that sexual harassment laws and the definition of abuse can be googled.

and it says right here that "[the women he shoved his dick to] had received apologies in some form after several years

Source?

Here's the original NYT article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/09/a...isconduct.html if that's what you're referencing. And those apologies don't really contain much of an understanding of why what he did was wrong. In fact, the apologies described minimize the situation and his behavior.

His "apology" he released last year was a start. It also already managed to account for his actions in a way that is far more accurate than what you express. At least CK seems to realize he was more than just "stupid" but no, there is more to be done than a flawed apology and waiting for it to blow over.

Like, what I'm saying, and what others are saying, really isn't changing. You're "not sure what we expect or want" even though it's been detailed in this thread, in links, elsewhere. You can get all hyperbolic about self-flagellation but maybe the concept is just beyond your understanding despite the myriad of available resources.

There is some restorative justice for ya

Nope.

[playwithfire]

More good takes.



and

http://reductress.com/post/hasnt-he-...eer-in-months/

[ltrandazzo]

Two Women Describe Louis C.K.’s ‘Uncomfortable’ Comedy Cellar Set

The women say C.K.’s set was similar to his usual material, and included a joke about the phrase “clean as a whistle,” which built up to a joke about how rape whistles are not clean. “When he said ‘rape whistle’ people were laughing, and I was just sitting there like oh my fuck. This is so uncomfortable and so disgusting. Everyone around me was laughing. That was just depressing.”

[perceptionnexus]

Two Women Describe Louis C.K.’s ‘Uncomfortable’ Comedy Cellar Set

Lol I bet those two are a blast to chat up at parties.

[playwithfire]

That ^^ reminds me of how people will pull the "It's a JOKE" shit like they somehow think the person who is unamused doesn't realize it's a joke.

Here's another joke:

If Louis CK had jerked off in front of most of the dudes currently defending Louis CK, they would have murdered him and then gotten off with a gay panic defense.

https://twitter.com/vornietom

[perceptionnexus]

That ^^ reminds me of how people will pull the "It's a JOKE" shit like they somehow think the person who is unamused doesn't realize it's a joke.

Here's another joke:



https://twitter.com/vornietom

Oh, I'm sure they knew it was a joke. My assertion, based on reading that article, was that they just likely have a very rigid sense of humor if they were that offended, and the fact that a louis c.k. gig even spawned this kind of media attention based on a fucking rape-whistle joke is laughable. They write this article like these women who went to the show are victims, somehow, based on hearing a joke.

[playwithfire]

So I actually think the rape whistle thing is kinda clever. But like, surely you get how like... you go to a comedy show and SURPRISE THAT DUDE THAT JERKED OFF IN FRONT OF A LOT OF COLLEAGUES AND BLOCKED THE DOOR FROM THEM LEAVING AND SURPRISED THEM WITH HIS DICK IS NOW SURPRISING YOU WITH HIS COMEDY and then OOH HE'S MANAGED TO FIT IN A JOKE THAT USES "RAPE" AS A COMPONENT couldn't be an intensely uncomfortable experience?

[perceptionnexus]

So I actually think the rape whistle thing is kinda clever. But like, surely you get how like... you go to a comedy show and SURPRISE THAT DUDE THAT JERKED OFF IN FRONT OF A LOT OF COLLEAGUES AND BLOCKED THE DOOR FROM THEM LEAVING AND SURPRISED THEM WITH HIS DICK IS NOW SURPRISING YOU WITH HIS COMEDY and then OOH HE'S MANAGED TO FIT IN A JOKE THAT USES "RAPE" AS A COMPONENT couldn't be an intensely uncomfortable experience?

If it was, it's their own fault for putting themselves into that position. If they had any knowledge of C.K.'s stand-up material before buying a ticket, they would have to reasonably assume what kind of show he was going to put on.

And even if they didn't know his material and went into the situation blind, who gives a shit? That kind of stand-up is meant to create tension. When did it become such a horrible thing for people in this society to experience minimal discomfort? I just shared this article with my wife (who was molested as a child on a school bus), and even she rolled her eyes at it. People can think what they want about the matter, but I have no empathy for them. Imo, if it's that big of a deal to them to hear a rape joke, they should seek therapy and deal with it in private, not make it a media event.

[botley]

If it was, it's their own fault for putting themselves into that position. If they had any knowledge of C.K.'s stand-up material before buying a ticket, they would have to reasonably assume what kind of show he was going to put on.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about, as this was an unannounced surprise appearance. Sit down and shut up, maybe?

[ltrandazzo]

If it was, it's their own fault for putting themselves into that position. If they had any knowledge of C.K.'s stand-up material before buying a ticket, they would have to reasonably assume what kind of show he was going to put on.

I'm gonna echo @botley - this was an unannounced appearance and the look is bad. CK forced his comedy on people after forcing and trapping women to watch him masturbate. It's a horrible look, and not the way he should be going about returning to the limelight.

Read the situation first before posting without conviction. It helps in the long run.

[perceptionnexus]

You obviously don't know what you're talking about, as this was an unannounced surprise appearance. Sit down and shut up, maybe?

K, the fact that it was an unannounced appearance still does not negate the fact that they were free to leave at any point during the show, nor my opinion on the overall effect of their reported discomfort from reading the article. I stand by my post. As far as saying that I don't know what I'm talking about, and telling me to "sit down and shut up" because you have a different opinion, grow the fuck up.

[ltrandazzo]

As far as saying that I don't know what I'm talking about, and telling me to "sit down and shut up" because you have a different opinion, grow the fuck up.

You weren't told that because of your opinion - you were told that because you jumped head first into an argument without knowing the context of the situation. It undermined your point because you didn't know what you were talking about.

[perceptionnexus]

Thank you for being largely respectful with your response. Though I disagree, I respect your opinion as your own.

This is part of the larger issue, and doesn't necessarily directly apply to this discussion, but was it ever actually verified and proven that he physically blocked them from leaving during these incidents? I can't seem to find a credible source about it on the web.

[ltrandazzo]

Thank you for being largely respectful with your response. Though I disagree, I respect your opinion as your own.

This is part of the larger issue, and doesn't necessarily directly apply to this discussion, but was it ever actually verified and proven that he physically blocked them from leaving during these incidents? I can't seem to find a credible source about it on the web.

You should start with Louis CK's apology where he said "These stories are true."

[perceptionnexus]

You weren't told that because of your opinion - you were told that because you jumped head first into an argument without knowing the context of the situation. It undermined your point because you didn't know what you were talking about.

I disagree, as I stated before, due to their not knowing he was going to make an appearance having no bearing on my opinion on the outcome (the women being uncomfortable), but thank you for being largely respectful with your response. I absolutely accept and can live with the fact that other people may feel differently about these types of situations.

This is part of the larger issue, and doesn't necessarily directly apply to this discussion, but was it ever actually verified and proven that he physically blocked them from leaving during these incidents? I can't seem to find a credible source about it on the web.

[perceptionnexus]

You should start with Louis CK's apology where he said "These stories are true."

I have, and C.K.'s statement. They say nothing specifically about him blocking the women from leaving.

[playwithfire]

The women's stories say he blocked them from leaving?

[perceptionnexus]

The women's stories say he blocked them from leaving?

Where is that information though? A direct statement from one of the women that wasn't retracted saying that he blocked them from leaving. All I am finding on the internet about it is re-posts, either speculative and/or unsubstantiated.

[loopcloses]

The "blocked them from leaving" thing seems like it has no basis--the rumor that floated around on gossip sites for years were of a comedian blocking two female comedians in a hotel room and forcing them to watch him masturbate and the theory was (apparently correctly) that the perpetrator was CK. However, the statements from the actual women from that story mentioned nothing about that, just that he stripped naked in front of them and jerked off to completion before they left of their own volition. It seems as though that particular detail was embellished by whomever spread the rumor to gossip sites.

Which I'm grateful to know, because as inexcusable and shitty as what he did was, false imprisonment would make it many degrees worse. It's the difference between the actions of a pathetic weirdo and a sexual predator.

EDIT: to be clear I'm not saying this in any defense of CK or as a counterargument to anyone who feels he should fuck off, just hoping to add clarity to a misunderstanding.

[perceptionnexus]

The "blocked them from leaving" thing seems like it has no basis--the rumor that floated around on gossip sites for years were of a comedian blocking two female comedians in a hotel room and forcing them to watch him masturbate and the theory was (apparently correctly) that the perpetrator was CK. However, the statements from the actual women from that story mentioned nothing about that, just that he stripped naked in front of them and jerked off to completion before they left of their own volition. It seems as though that particular detail was embellished by whomever spread the rumor to gossip sites.

Which I'm grateful to know, because as inexcusable and shitty as what he did was, false imprisonment would make it many degrees worse. It's the difference between the actions of a pathetic weirdo and a sexual predator.

Thanks for clarifying that, and you're absolutely right on the kind of picture it potentially paints a person as, and lol @eversonpoe for apparently taking issue with me respectfully disagreeing with someone, and my internet searches revealing no proof that louis ck blocked women from leaving the room while he was jerking off. Very mature, sir. Nice community here. Lots of tolerance for opposing positions.