Louis CK

Hm, I did take it seriously, and I'm relieved that you know what is absolutely wrong about it. I'm not sure I understand "it's been a tough day with the football game, so for fun I'm going to pretend to have some awful, dehumanizing, victim-blaming views towards women". I know people actually do hold & express these viewpoints. For me, it's really dispiriting, and that's a luxury compared to how it must feel to those for whom this all hits a lot closer to home.

 
zoogs said:
Hm, I did take it seriously, and I'm relieved that you know what is absolutely wrong about it. I'm not sure I understand "it's been a tough day with the football game, so for fun I'm going to pretend to have some awful, dehumanizing, victim-blaming views towards women". I know people actually do hold & express these viewpoints. For me, it's really dispiriting, and that's a luxury compared to how it must feel to those for whom this all hits a lot closer to home.
Click to expand...


Well, I’ve realized for quite some time that we don’t look at hardly anything through the same lense. So, don’t worry too much about not understanding how I can make that obvious trouble stirring post (with a very strong clue at the end of it). You tend to be more invested in these types of issues and, today anyway, I was more interested in football. You can continue to try to draw me into some deep meaningful discussion about it with more backhanded comments and accusations but I won’t be obliging. So you can take my statements and explanation anyway you choose to.

 
I don’t think the joke was obvious. Clearly, in fact, it was not. Nor do I think it was funny, and if you didn’t see why before I hope you do now. I hope that’s direct enough.

 
I haven't changed how I see any of this except that I way underestimated your ability to discern it for what it was and also your willingness to accept my sincere explanation. I've got a pretty twisted and irreverent sense of humor and sometimes I prefer to lightly address heavy subjects. Or maybe you just don't like the fact that there are some shreds of truth in that over the top opinion. Either way I'll log it away that you don't appreciate it.

 
You posted the kind of thing people usually say seriously. Don't put that on others' "ability to discern". It sounded completely like you were expressing what you knew was an unpopular opinion, but one you held.

I completely accepted your explanation, by the way, and didn't doubt your sincerity. My first response was to point out that it was a really problematic take. Once I accepted that you knew that completely, I was trying to explain why I don't really feel that's a joking matter, anyway. And it's not because I'm humorless. It's because in framing this as a "Had a tough day, gonna stir the pot" thing, you're saying you enjoy writing genuinely harmful things because you know it'll cause certain people grief. There are silly versions of this, like giving Riley fans a hard time, for example. This was not that, and I really hope you see it, since I'm growing less and less sure with your elaboration.

Or maybe you just don't like the fact that there are some shreds of truth in that over the top opinion.
Click to expand...


...since at this point, yeah, "I totally get that was completely wrong and I posted it ironically" is starting to fall apart. Which returns us to the point where it's necessary to actually have a discussion about why no, that was a bad take. I'm sorry that your stance is really in fact "shreds of truth". I'm also not sure I have the energy or capacity for that discussion, and we'll have to agree to strongly disagree. You're right that this is exactly the source of my discomfort in all this; the feeling that this right here is what you were trying to say.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I’ll give you one example of a shred of truth related to this and then I’ll leave it up to you whether you agree or disagree.

Louis CK invites you up to his room (you’re a female and he has also invited your female friend). You’re xcited that such a prominent comedian has invited you so you go. You get to his room and first thing he asks you if you’d watch him masturbate and, in fact, you discover he already is doing just that. Now answer this question- Do you immediately turnaround and leave his room or stay and uncomfortably watch because you feel he may hold some sway over your career? 

I sure do do like to think it wouldn’t be very hard at all (no pun intended) to turnaround and walk right back out that door without going through a bunch of mental gymnastics about the repercussions on my career. If that is what brings it down then so be it. But I also realize that Louis is the one in the wrong here and that he shouldn’t wield that celebrity and power in that fashion and that he shouldn’t have ever placed those poor women in that predicament. Do you see the shred of truth that in some of these instances the women may not have acted, when they were apparently able to, in their own self interest?

I feel terrible about the many instances of sexual assault that occur where the victim really had no choice or opportunity to escape the circumstance but yes, I feel slightly less bad for those who could’ve walked away with only possible career implications. It’s still very bad and 100% on the sickos like Louis CK but it can only happen when a person places more value on a career or money or on something that should be of secondary concern at that time. IMO there are more important things like a persons safety and dignity and knowing when something is just plain wrong.

Anyway, that’s how I feel about it. I’m sure you’ll disagree and find a way to insinuate I’m some kind of heartless monster. So maybe you’ll think less of me and we’ll just have to acknowledge that once again we don’t agree on something.

 
I guess this goes back to why power, and its abuse, are being repeatedly stressed as crucial in this discussion. For starters, once the question was asked, the predicament -- and all the attendant damage -- was created. "Only possible career implications", which, by the way, these women absolutely suffered? I think you should do some more listening, and more reading, from the people who spoke up about this. I hope you'll then be able to understand the issue better. Incidentally, the original Gawker story pins Louis CK as physically blocking the door with his body, but to be clear that's the least important piece of information that needs to be communicated here.

Only somewhat tangentially, there's a good piece here by Jezebel covering some of the behind-the-scenes journalism leading up to the story: https://jezebel.com/on-rumors-1820301960

It kind of blows me away how much this was whispered about. Privately, publicly. But it didn't really hit the fan until it was known that the NYT story was about to drop.

 
I guess one of the accounts I read indicated that he was a little more nonchalant and much more passive about it. I’m sure in most cases and maybe even in many of Loius’ cases that it may not have been as easy as I portrayed it in my question. But my point was not to cast aspersions on all situations but rather the few, the exceptions to the rule. That is why prior I said it is only a fraction of what I think about in some of these cases. I’ve read some accounts where it seemed like it was not really a forced situation and those are the situations I was speaking to. I realize on this subject that it is not the best way to approach it because it leaves it open for people to misinterpret what is really being said and it ignores the much larger problem of sexual assault and power wielding. So yeah, I’m guilty of approaching it from a minority angle. And that is exactly what I was doing with my first post that I knew would not be received well. Thus why I said “There, that ought to get things fired up :lol: “ And those few cases where the victim could have walked away relatively unharmed are the “shreds of truth” of which I spoke. Trust me, I know that is not the way to generally approach sexual assault.

And not that it really matters but I am not invested one or way or the other in Louis CK, I barely know who he is. I’m aware he is a comedian and I’m thinking he maybe was in some TV sitcom that I’ve never seen. I watched about 5 minutes of one of his stand up acts and didn’t find it very funny or entertaining. And ironically the more I try to recall it I think the little bit I saw of him he was talking about masturbating or somehow mimicking doing that in his act. Probably why I flipped the channel.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top