Comedian Louis CK admits to sexual harassment of several women (1 Viewer)

[Zegras11]

I'm still not defending him and still not suggesting that he did nothing wrong. I'm still concerned about the standard that's being applied. 

The standard in Hollywood has been there for about a 100 years now. 

That standard is now broken, and that pendulum is going to swing way the hell the other way for the foreseeable future. The slightest hint of anyone violating anyone else now is going to get called out and there will be some obvious damage done to those that might not deserve it, but that will be 1/1,000,000,000,000 the damage women/those violated have suffered in the past. 

ETA: CK deserves everything coming to him. As will all the rest.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Ironically, im answering these questions again and again while you tell me I'm hiding behind something and not responding, but when I ask my questions, it all goes back to specifics of this case and other examples.  That's not very fair. 

That is ironic.

 

[McGarnicle]

As a generic gesture of good will, anyone here who's been falsely accused of something, i'm in your corner and available to commisserate. No shtick, i've been there and i get it. 

 

[Ilov80s]

As a generic gesture of good will, anyone here who's been falsely accused of something, i'm in your corner and available to commisserate. No shtick, i've been there and i get it. 

What about victims? I don't even want to say I was a victim although technically it was sexual assault- it just didn't bother me and I was able to end it. 

 

[McGarnicle]

What about victims? I don't even want to say I was a victim although technically it was sexual assault- it just didn't bother me and I was able to end it. 

It's humbling that you'd share that and I absolutely hate that you endured it. 

 

[Ilov80s]

It's humbling that you'd share that and I absolutely hate that you endured it. 

It was basically rape. It really wasn't cool on her part. The fact that we both had to get a car ride home together the next morning was the worst part. So awkward, we did not talk about what happened at all. There were 2 other people in the room- I don't know if they were awake or not, but they also were on the car ride home. That was super weird. 

 

[belljr]

I was technically assaulted and loved every second of it......

 

[Nipsey]

100% sure, assuming nothing else crazy comes out, he comes back from this. 100%. He'll go silent for good while and when the time is right he'll write all about what he did and why he thinks he did it. He'll write about it with brutal honesty. Eventually there will be a stand-up special marking his return and he'll get a standing ovation when he takes the stage. He'll talk about it in his act. Some people will go on the internet and say it makes them sick that he's performing again but it'll die down. Back by fall 2019 at the latest.

 

[Apple Jack]

He'll definitely be back. He's too good. Agree with '19 at the latest. I was thinking a year.

 

[dickey moe]

100% sure, assuming nothing else crazy comes out, he comes back from this. 100%. He'll go silent for good while and when the time is right he'll write all about what he did and why he thinks he did it. He'll write about it with brutal honesty. Eventually there will be a stand-up special marking his return and he'll get a standing ovation when he takes the stage. He'll talk about it in his act. Some people will go on the internet and say it makes them sick that he's performing again but it'll die down. Back by fall 2019 at the latest.

Agree with most of this but it might take an extra year or two.

 

[shuke]

Louis CK's friend Jon Stewart was asked about the rumors in 2016. His response was not very convincing.

How wasn't it convincing? 

It's pretty obvious that Stewart knew about the rumors. He tried to play dumb, but it wasn't very convincing IMO.

Then the moderator immediately ended the Q&A, which made me think that either A) the moderator also knew of the rumors, or B) Stewart somehow signaled for him to end it.

No it wasn't obvious.

And the moderator did not immediately end it, he let that kid ramble on for about 2 minutes.

 

[[scooter]]

Louis CK's friend Jon Stewart was asked about the rumors in 2016. His response was not very convincing.

How wasn't it convincing? 

It's pretty obvious that Stewart knew about the rumors. He tried to play dumb, but it wasn't very convincing IMO.

Then the moderator immediately ended the Q&A, which made me think that either A) the moderator also knew of the rumors, or B) Stewart somehow signaled for him to end it.

No it wasn't obvious.

And the moderator did not immediately end it, he let that kid ramble on for about 2 minutes.

The kid was obviously nervous, but he was persistent and he refused to let Stewart brush him off.

I personally wouldn't call it rambling, but YMMV. Here's the transcript (with editorial input from me):

Audience member: I wanted to ask you about the last interview on your show, which I think was Louis C.K.
Stewart: Yeah.
Audience member: So from my memory, I think that was after some of the rumors about Louis C.K.’s alleged harassment of female comedians—
Stewart: Whoa. (To me, I get the vibe of "Whoa, let's not go there", not "Whoa, I'm shocked to hear this")
Audience member: —had sort of started to come out.
Stewart: Wait, what? (He's feigning ignorance, IMO -- especially when his subsequent comments are taken into account.)
Audience member: It was after Jen Kirkman had talked about her knowledge of Louis C.K.’s alleged harassment of comedians — at least people interpreted it that way — and an article on Gawker, I believe, about it. I just wanted to know — if this is the first you’re hearing of it, maybe I already got my answer, but there wasn’t discussion about this on the show.
Stewart: [laughs] (Nervous laughter, IMO.)
Stewart: Wait, wait, wait. I’m a little lost. So the internet said Louis harassed women? (Trying to minimize the accusations by blaming "the internet". His defensiveness here speaks louder than his words.)
Audience member: So, there was first a Gawker article and then a couple of tweets by people—
Stewart: [laughs] You know who you’re talking to, right? (His tone here is a mixture of condescending "I don't read the internet" and "I'm friends with Louis", with a dash of the "Do you know who I am?" card. Again, his defensiveness speaks louder than his words.)
Audience member: It’s a fair point that internet rumors are not court cases or anything. I just wanted to know if there was any sort of discussion about that on the show, if that was a thing on your radar. (Good job here, sticking to the point.)
Stewart: No. I didn’t see the tweets. (Notice how Stewart is now being VERY careful with his language. "I didn't see the tweets" is NOT the same as "I have no knowledge of those rumors".)
Audience member: Or Jen Kirkman’s podcast about—
Stewart: I apologize. I’m not that connected to that world. (Again, "that world" has a patronizing tone to it. Trying to brush it off because it comes from the internet.)
Stewart: I don’t know what you’re talking about but — I can’t really answer. I don’t know what to say. (Again, I think he's choosing his words carefully. He's saying "I don't know what you're talking about" in reference to the tweets and the Jen Kirkman podcast. Otherwise he would flat out deny that he'd ever heard the rumors.)
Audience member: I think a lot of people at the time didn’t know what that was. Again, the internet is not for sure, but there have been comedians who have taken strong stances on Bill Cosby without certain knowledge, from Bill Maher to Hannibal Buress. I just wondered if you could talk about the role of comedians— (This was maybe too wordy, but it was well thought out.)
Axelrod: But as you pointed out, the Bill Cosby case actually is a legal case. (Axelrod is obviously trying to bail out Stewart here. Is it because he also doesn't want to expose C.K.? Or is it because Stewart is kicking him under the table?? Or is he just upset that his friendly and fun Q&A has suddenly taken a dark turn?)
Audience member: It is now but it wasn’t when Bill Maher and Hannibal Buress were talking about it. Maybe you can speak to the role of comedians— (This was an excellent response, IMO. The kid thought on his feet and deftly parried Axelrod's thrust.)
Stewart: All I can tell you is I’ve worked with Louis for 30 years and he’s a wonderful man and person and I’ve never heard anything about this. (Finally! A denial. Hmmm, but what exactly was he denying?)
Stewart: We’ve all known Bill Cosby was a prìck for a long time, so I don’t know what to tell you. (This response is a little odd because he's associating Cosby's acts with the fact that he was a prìck, thereby implying that "wonderful" people can't be sex criminals.)
Stewart: But I didn’t know about the sexual assault— (Aha!! More evasiveness!! This is classic Clintonian "I did not have 'sexual relations'" stuff.)
Audience member: Not sexual assault, but— (Way to go, kid! Stay focused on the topic and don't let him off the hook.)
Axelrod: Sir, appreciate your question. Thank you. And let’s say thanks to Jon Stewart. (Oof.)

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

As a generic gesture of good will, anyone here who's been falsely accused of something, i'm in your corner and available to commisserate. No shtick, i've been there and i get it. 

Me too.  One of the worst things about being falsely accused of something significant is learning who are quick to believe the worst about you.

 

[Ilov80s]

He'll definitely be back. He's too good. Agree with '19 at the latest. I was thinking a year.

Yeah, I would think so. He's kind of the counter to Weinstein. CK's actions were much less awful and he was more well liked by the public. If he can disappear for a bit, it's likely people will want to see him come back and succeed like they did with Tiger. The major hinderance for CK will be that his whole career is based on riding the edge. Tiger's was based on playing golf. Will people want to hear CK tell masturbation jokes or jokes about women or jokes about anything? That could be a tricky spot. 

 

[shuke]

Did Netflix just remove Louie from their lineup or did they do it recently?

 

[Capella]

The kid was obviously nervous, but he was persistent and he refused to let Stewart brush him off.

I personally wouldn't call it rambling, but YMMV. Here's the transcript (with editorial input from me):

Audience member: I wanted to ask you about the last interview on your show, which I think was Louis C.K.
Stewart: Yeah.
Audience member: So from my memory, I think that was after some of the rumors about Louis C.K.’s alleged harassment of female comedians—
Stewart: Whoa. (To me, I get the vibe of "Whoa, let's not go there", not "Whoa, I'm shocked to hear this")
Audience member: —had sort of started to come out.
Stewart: Wait, what? (He's feigning ignorance, IMO -- especially when his subsequent comments are taken into account.)
Audience member: It was after Jen Kirkman had talked about her knowledge of Louis C.K.’s alleged harassment of comedians — at least people interpreted it that way — and an article on Gawker, I believe, about it. I just wanted to know — if this is the first you’re hearing of it, maybe I already got my answer, but there wasn’t discussion about this on the show.
Stewart: [laughs] (Nervous laughter, IMO.)
Stewart: Wait, wait, wait. I’m a little lost. So the internet said Louis harassed women? (Trying to minimize the accusations by blaming "the internet". His defensiveness here speaks louder than his words.)
Audience member: So, there was first a Gawker article and then a couple of tweets by people—
Stewart: [laughs] You know who you’re talking to, right? (His tone here is a mixture of condescending "I don't read the internet" and "I'm friends with Louis", with a dash of the "Do you know who I am?" card. Again, his defensiveness speaks louder than his words.)
Audience member: It’s a fair point that internet rumors are not court cases or anything. I just wanted to know if there was any sort of discussion about that on the show, if that was a thing on your radar. (Good job here, sticking to the point.)
Stewart: No. I didn’t see the tweets. (Notice how Stewart is now being VERY careful with his language. "I didn't see the tweets" is NOT the same as "I have no knowledge of those rumors".)
Audience member: Or Jen Kirkman’s podcast about—
Stewart: I apologize. I’m not that connected to that world. (Again, "that world" has a patronizing tone to it. Trying to brush it off because it comes from the internet.)
Stewart: I don’t know what you’re talking about but — I can’t really answer. I don’t know what to say. (Again, I think he's choosing his words carefully. He's saying "I don't know what you're talking about" in reference to the tweets and the Jen Kirkman podcast. Otherwise he would flat out deny that he'd ever heard the rumors.)
Audience member: I think a lot of people at the time didn’t know what that was. Again, the internet is not for sure, but there have been comedians who have taken strong stances on Bill Cosby without certain knowledge, from Bill Maher to Hannibal Buress. I just wondered if you could talk about the role of comedians— (This was maybe too wordy, but it was well thought out.)
Axelrod: But as you pointed out, the Bill Cosby case actually is a legal case. (Axelrod is obviously trying to bail out Stewart here. Is it because he also doesn't want to expose C.K.? Or is it because Stewart is kicking him under the table?? Or is he just upset that his friendly and fun Q&A has suddenly taken a dark turn?)
Audience member: It is now but it wasn’t when Bill Maher and Hannibal Buress were talking about it. Maybe you can speak to the role of comedians— (This was an excellent response, IMO. The kid thought on his feet and deftly parried Axelrod's thrust.)
Stewart: All I can tell you is I’ve worked with Louis for 30 years and he’s a wonderful man and person and I’ve never heard anything about this. (Finally! A denial. Hmmm, but what exactly was he denying?)
Stewart: We’ve all known Bill Cosby was a prìck for a long time, so I don’t know what to tell you. (This response is a little odd because he's associating Cosby's acts with the fact that he was a prìck, thereby implying that "wonderful" people can't be sex criminals.)
Stewart: But I didn’t know about the sexual assault— (Aha!! More evasiveness!! This is classic Clintonian "I did not have 'sexual relations'" stuff.)
Audience member: Not sexual assault, but— (Way to go, kid! Stay focused on the topic and don't let him off the hook.)
Axelrod: Sir, appreciate your question. Thank you. And let’s say thanks to Jon Stewart. (Oof.)

I don't get the Stewart part here. Is he said to be part of a cover up or something? Otherwise why on earth would he comment on them before the allegations were revealed? 

 

[Capella]

Did Netflix just remove Louie from their lineup or did they do it recently?

Think they did it Saturday. 

 

[DA RAIDERS]

I've answered that repeatedly.  If you have quid pro quo or hostile work environments then that is sexual harassment.  In at least one of the cases reported by the nyt, he was a co worker and likely met both of those criteria.  I am not defending him for that at all.

However, in another case - where two women came to his room and he asked for their consent then did his thing - he was not their employer, was not in his work environment, and did not appear to have direct influence over their careers. However, because he was successful in his industry, they felt he could have influence over their careers.  

That is problematic to me, because it challenges the definition of harassment.

That's why I asked my original question, which remains unanswered. Is it now considered harassment for anyone who is successful in their industry to have any kind of sexual encounter with anyone else in the same or similar industry?  Because that appears to be the precedent. 

If that's not the precedent, then what criteria distinguish this from other cases?  Is it because the sex act was icky?  Because he was old and ugly?  Because you know his name? Is this not harassment? 

Ironically, im answering these questions again and again while you tell me I'm hiding behind something and not responding, but when I ask my questions, it all goes back to specifics of this case and other examples.  That's not very fair. 

i shouldn't engage, but here goes...

definition of harass:   subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation.

definition of sexual harassment:  harassment (typically of a woman) in a workplace, or other professional or social situation, involving the making of unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks.

you seem to be all tied in knots over this being a BS claim of harassment in the workplace.  it wasn't in the workplace, it was in a social situation.  it's still sexual harassment.  and if the people that pay him for his work, don't want to be associated with a sexual harasser, that's their prerogative and he's yet another idiot, that ####ed up his career because of stupid ####### decisions he made.

/fin

 

[Shrugs]

I'm more offended by Tig Notaro's ungratefulness to the guy who made her career than I am with what I've read of Louis doing. She fears he released her album to "cover his tracks; he knew it was going to make him look like a good guy, supporting a woman." Really? I'm sure he didn't release the album because he thought it was funny and that you deserved it. He was premeditating that someday the stories of his past perversions may be made public, and he needed to counterbalance them by doing something nice for a woman. I'm not saying you need to support the guy now, but there's no need to tear down the good he's done for you. He can be a troubled comedian with perversions and still be a good guy to many people most of the time. I'm interested to see a more thorough reaction from Pamela Adlon.

 

[Ilov80s]

I'm more offended by Tig Notaro's ungratefulness to the guy who made her career than I am with what I've read of Louis doing. She fears he released her album to "cover his tracks; he knew it was going to make him look like a good guy, supporting a woman." Really? I'm sure he didn't release the album because he thought it was funny and that you deserved it. He was premeditating that someday the stories of his past perversions may be made public, and he needed to counterbalance them by doing something nice for a woman. I'm not saying you need to support the guy now, but there's no need to tear down the good he's done for you. He can be a troubled comedian with perversions and still be a good guy to many people most of the time. I'm interested to see a more thorough reaction from Pamela Adlon.

No, what CK did is definitely worse. Tig has known about CK (and maybe even a victim herself) and has been distancing herself for awhile. Here is an article from August where she says CK needs to step up and take responsibility for what he's done. It's also no surprise her recent series featured an incident where a guy masturbates in front of a woman. After reading it, it sounds like she has good reason to hate CK. 

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/08/tig-notaro-louis-ck-one-mississippi

 

[bostonfred]

Did the women consent?

We don't know.  We know everyone seems to agree he asked for consent every time, and we know that when he didn't get out, he didn't continue.  We know the nyt article paraphrases them as saying he laughed it off. That could mean haha ok or haha what or haha I dare you wait wtf he's really doing it.  It was over 10 years ago and has become a huge deal now so I don't know if we'll ever know for sure. 

What concerns me is that the journalistic and public standards don't appear to care whether he got consent.  They literally wrote this

Louis C.K. asked if he could take out his penis, the women said.

They thought it was a joke and laughed it off. “And then he really did it,” Ms. Goodman said in an interview with The New York Times. “He proceeded to take all of his clothes off, and get completely naked, and started masturbating.”

The nyt reported that they laughed it off, but didn't dig deeper?  That's surprising to me, especially when they lead off the article with this story.  Regardless of whether or not they followed up further, the real issue is that they apparently think it doesn't matter.  

And the fact that they led off with this example suggests that this was a prime example of the behavior they were reporting.  You don't start your article with your worst example.  

And based on the backlash here and elsewhere, it seems that the new standard is, it doesn't matter if you get consent.

Which is a huge concern.

Because if you invite a woman to your room, she comes up, and you ask for and get consent to have a sexual encounter, there are people who think you should get fired for it more than ten years later and lose all future employment opportunities.  

Forget Louis ck. Forget the other stuff he did and admitted to.  Forget the actual loss of work he's seen.  Forget all those things.  Think only about what this means for future precedent.  

We're talking about someone who had a sexual encounter between consenting adults and saying he deserves to face eggnormous punishment for it because it was icky.  

That's cuckoo.

Also why did my phone change enormous to eggnormous? 

 

[Ghost Rider]

The kid was obviously nervous, but he was persistent and he refused to let Stewart brush him off.

I personally wouldn't call it rambling, but YMMV. Here's the transcript (with editorial input from me):

Audience member: I wanted to ask you about the last interview on your show, which I think was Louis C.K.
Stewart: Yeah.
Audience member: So from my memory, I think that was after some of the rumors about Louis C.K.’s alleged harassment of female comedians—
Stewart: Whoa. (To me, I get the vibe of "Whoa, let's not go there", not "Whoa, I'm shocked to hear this")
Audience member: —had sort of started to come out.
Stewart: Wait, what? (He's feigning ignorance, IMO -- especially when his subsequent comments are taken into account.)
Audience member: It was after Jen Kirkman had talked about her knowledge of Louis C.K.’s alleged harassment of comedians — at least people interpreted it that way — and an article on Gawker, I believe, about it. I just wanted to know — if this is the first you’re hearing of it, maybe I already got my answer, but there wasn’t discussion about this on the show.
Stewart: [laughs] (Nervous laughter, IMO.)
Stewart: Wait, wait, wait. I’m a little lost. So the internet said Louis harassed women? (Trying to minimize the accusations by blaming "the internet". His defensiveness here speaks louder than his words.)
Audience member: So, there was first a Gawker article and then a couple of tweets by people—
Stewart: [laughs] You know who you’re talking to, right? (His tone here is a mixture of condescending "I don't read the internet" and "I'm friends with Louis", with a dash of the "Do you know who I am?" card. Again, his defensiveness speaks louder than his words.)
Audience member: It’s a fair point that internet rumors are not court cases or anything. I just wanted to know if there was any sort of discussion about that on the show, if that was a thing on your radar. (Good job here, sticking to the point.)
Stewart: No. I didn’t see the tweets. (Notice how Stewart is now being VERY careful with his language. "I didn't see the tweets" is NOT the same as "I have no knowledge of those rumors".)
Audience member: Or Jen Kirkman’s podcast about—
Stewart: I apologize. I’m not that connected to that world. (Again, "that world" has a patronizing tone to it. Trying to brush it off because it comes from the internet.)
Stewart: I don’t know what you’re talking about but — I can’t really answer. I don’t know what to say. (Again, I think he's choosing his words carefully. He's saying "I don't know what you're talking about" in reference to the tweets and the Jen Kirkman podcast. Otherwise he would flat out deny that he'd ever heard the rumors.)
Audience member: I think a lot of people at the time didn’t know what that was. Again, the internet is not for sure, but there have been comedians who have taken strong stances on Bill Cosby without certain knowledge, from Bill Maher to Hannibal Buress. I just wondered if you could talk about the role of comedians— (This was maybe too wordy, but it was well thought out.)
Axelrod: But as you pointed out, the Bill Cosby case actually is a legal case. (Axelrod is obviously trying to bail out Stewart here. Is it because he also doesn't want to expose C.K.? Or is it because Stewart is kicking him under the table?? Or is he just upset that his friendly and fun Q&A has suddenly taken a dark turn?)
Audience member: It is now but it wasn’t when Bill Maher and Hannibal Buress were talking about it. Maybe you can speak to the role of comedians— (This was an excellent response, IMO. The kid thought on his feet and deftly parried Axelrod's thrust.)
Stewart: All I can tell you is I’ve worked with Louis for 30 years and he’s a wonderful man and person and I’ve never heard anything about this. (Finally! A denial. Hmmm, but what exactly was he denying?)
Stewart: We’ve all known Bill Cosby was a prìck for a long time, so I don’t know what to tell you. (This response is a little odd because he's associating Cosby's acts with the fact that he was a prìck, thereby implying that "wonderful" people can't be sex criminals.)
Stewart: But I didn’t know about the sexual assault— (Aha!! More evasiveness!! This is classic Clintonian "I did not have 'sexual relations'" stuff.)
Audience member: Not sexual assault, but— (Way to go, kid! Stay focused on the topic and don't let him off the hook.)
Axelrod: Sir, appreciate your question. Thank you. And let’s say thanks to Jon Stewart. (Oof.)

I would watch the video, rather than simply reading the transcript:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9nsMIshJr0

Stewart clearly was going out of his way to say as little as possible.  I always liked Stewart a lot, but it's clear that he was aware of these allegations and was doing his best to not say much, especially given that he was blindsided by the question. 

 

[bostonfred]

i shouldn't engage, but here goes...

definition of harass:   subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation.

definition of sexual harassment:  harassment (typically of a woman) in a workplace, or other professional or social situation, involving the making of unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks.

you seem to be all tied in knots over this being a BS claim of harassment in the workplace.  it wasn't in the workplace, it was in a social situation.  it's still sexual harassment.  and if the people that pay him for his work, don't want to be associated with a sexual harasser, that's their prerogative and he's yet another idiot, that ####ed up his career because of stupid ####### decisions he made.

/fin

Thank you for your reply.  A few things 

That's not the general legal definition, because the legal definition typically covers workplace harassment.  But I agree with your point, sexual harassment can occur in social situations. And I also agree that in this case the studios have every right and every reason to distance themselves from a bad pr situation.  

What scares me is not Louis ck's case, but the precedent.  I keep saying this and people keep quoting me to explain why Louis ck is bad and deserves bad things.  I'm not defending him. 

When i discuss the points of his case, it's not to defend him with loopholes, but too say that if he asked for consent and nobody has confirmed whether he got it,  and he still gets a ton of backlash for the incident, apparently consent doesn't matter. 

It's also really concerning when people change the facts of his case. Multiple people have referred to him "whipping it out" as though it happened suddenly and without warning.  Nobody has reported that, to my knowledge. Multiple people have referred to him as not getting consent.  That was not reported. 

What I'm worried about is the slippery slope. I have real concerns with the long term fallout from this.  

 

[parasaurolophus]

i shouldn't engage, but here goes...

definition of harass:   subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation.

definition of sexual harassment:  harassment (typically of a woman) in a workplace, or other professional or social situation, involving the making of unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks.

you seem to be all tied in knots over this being a BS claim of harassment in the workplace.  it wasn't in the workplace, it was in a social situation.  it's still sexual harassment.  and if the people that pay him for his work, don't want to be associated with a sexual harasser, that's their prerogative and he's yet another idiot, that ####ed up his career because of stupid ####### decisions he made.

/fin

What he did does not meet the definition of sexual harassment. If he had repeatedly propositioned them and they rejected him it would be. One isolated proposition has not been held to be sexual harassment. For obvious reasons, really. Even women don't want it to be illegal for a guy to make an advance towards them one time. 

 

[Ignoramus]

We don't know. We know everyone seems to agree he asked for consent every time, and we know that when he didn't get out, he didn't continue.  We know the nyt article paraphrases them as saying he laughed it off. That could mean haha ok or haha what or haha I dare you wait wtf he's really doing it.  It was over 10 years ago and has become a huge deal now so I don't know if we'll ever know for sure. 

What concerns me is that the journalistic and public standards don't appear to care whether he got consent.  They literally wrote this

Louis C.K. asked if he could take out his penis, the women said.

They thought it was a joke and laughed it off. “And then he really did it,” Ms. Goodman said in an interview with The New York Times. “He proceeded to take all of his clothes off, and get completely naked, and started masturbating.”

The nyt reported that they laughed it off, but didn't dig deeper?  That's surprising to me, especially when they lead off the article with this story.  Regardless of whether or not they followed up further, the real issue is that they apparently think it doesn't matter.  

And the fact that they led off with this example suggests that this was a prime example of the behavior they were reporting.  You don't start your article with your worst example.  

And based on the backlash here and elsewhere, it seems that the new standard is, it doesn't matter if you get consent.

Which is a huge concern.

Because if you invite a woman to your room, she comes up, and you ask for and get consent to have a sexual encounter, there are people who think you should get fired for it more than ten years later and lose all future employment opportunities.  

Forget Louis ck. Forget the other stuff he did and admitted to.  Forget the actual loss of work he's seen.  Forget all those things.  Think only about what this means for future precedent.  

We're talking about someone who had a sexual encounter between consenting adults and saying he deserves to face eggnormous punishment for it because it was icky.  

That's cuckoo.

Also why did my phone change enormous to eggnormous? 

But we aren't talking about acts between consenting adults in this specific instance. According to what has been reported, and what he admitted to in this case, he asked for but did not receive consent. Uncomfortable laughter isn't consent. He has admitted as much.

I agree with you that people should not be persecuted for consensual acts amongst adults. I agree with you that they should not be persecuted just based on one accusation.

 

[bostonfred]

But we aren't talking about acts between consenting adults in this specific instance. According to what has been reported, and what he admitted to in this case, he asked for but did not receive consent. Uncomfortable laughter isn't consent. He has admitted as much.

I agree with you that people should not be persecuted for consensual acts amongst adults. I agree with you that they should not be persecuted just based on one accusation.

Any information that came out after the article was published and people responded to it is irrelevant to the point that the Times published the article without explicitly saying whether consent was given and the public didn't care.  

Again, I am not defending Louis ck.

Again, Louis ck appears to have agreed that he sexually harassed a co-worker and apologized for it, so none of this is said in defense of him or his actions. 

I am talking about the precedent.  And the precedent appears to be that if someone comes up to your room and you ask for consent, it doesn't matter whether you get it or not, you can still be guilty and face serious consequences many years later if the thing you did was icky.

Because the nyt led off with that story in their article and didn't feel it was relevant enough to clarify whether he got consent, only to editorialize that she laughed it off without any further clarification. Because it doesn't matter. 

That's scary. 

When pressed, people were more ok with someone physically touching the victim in an unwanted kiss than not touching them. People were more ok with a consensual blow job than what he did. It seems like the issue was the specific icky sex thing that he did, regardless of consent or physical contact.  

Are you comfortable with someone else using their morals to decide that  consensual sexual activity you had over ten years ago was not ok and that you should lose your job and all future employment and give up your money from past employment and rot in jail?  This particular slope is incredibly slippery and very dangerous. 

 

[Ignoramus]

It wasn't consentual.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

I would watch the video, rather than simply reading the transcript:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9nsMIshJr0

Stewart clearly was going out of his way to say as little as possible.  I always liked Stewart a lot, but it's clear that he was aware of these allegations and was doing his best to not say much, especially given that he was blindsided by the question. 

No kidding. Telling how relieved he was at the end when it was cut off.

 

[shuke]

Think they did it Saturday. 

Weird, because they have some of his standups on there.  Seems like they are picking and choosing.

 

[Henry Ford]

Any information that came out after the article was published and people responded to it is irrelevant to the point that the Times published the article without explicitly saying whether consent was given and the public didn't care.  

Again, I am not defending Louis ck.

Again, Louis ck appears to have agreed that he sexually harassed a co-worker and apologized for it, so none of this is said in defense of him or his actions. 

I am talking about the precedent.  And the precedent appears to be that if someone comes up to your room and you ask for consent, it doesn't matter whether you get it or not, you can still be guilty and face serious consequences many years later if the thing you did was icky.

Because the nyt led off with that story in their article and didn't feel it was relevant enough to clarify whether he got consent, only to editorialize that she laughed it off without any further clarification. Because it doesn't matter. 

That's scary. 

When pressed, people were more ok with someone physically touching the victim in an unwanted kiss than not touching them. People were more ok with a consensual blow job than what he did. It seems like the issue was the specific icky sex thing that he did, regardless of consent or physical contact.  

Are you comfortable with someone else using their morals to decide that  consensual sexual activity you had over ten years ago was not ok and that you should lose your job and all future employment and give up your money from past employment and rot in jail?  This particular slope is incredibly slippery and very dangerous. 

It has always been the case that if you do weird #### as a public person and it gets out to the public your career is over unless you can somehow make them like you again.

I don’t think anyone claimed Tiger Woods committed any offenses against the women he slept with.  Haven’t seen many endorsements with his name on them recently.

 

[cockroach]

Did Netflix just remove Louie from their lineup or did they do it recently?

Fox stuff was coming down anyway. 

 

[ILUVBEER99]

No kidding. Telling how relieved he was at the end when it was cut off.

What is Jon Stewart supposed to do there?  He's maybe heard rumors but didn't know for sure at that time (May 2016).  Considering the timeline not really his place to start speculating on television about something he doesn't have all the facts on.

 

[AAABatteries]

If your wife makes you wear her underwear and someone in your industry sees it, is that icky enough to lose your job? 

Makes?

 

[shader]

C.K. Lewis needs to go away forever. It’s becoming disgusting how people are applauding his “honesty” when in reality it’s just a better PR agent.

When you do things like he did, you are simply a bad person.  Take your money and go live out your days in luxury surrounded by friends and family who will forgive you if you change.

But his career should be over.

 

[[scooter]]

No kidding. Telling how relieved he was at the end when it was cut off.

What is Jon Stewart supposed to do there?  He's maybe heard rumors but didn't know for sure at that time (May 2016).  Considering the timeline not really his place to start speculating on television about something he doesn't have all the facts on.

Stewart could have said something to the effect of "I don't listen to rumors so I'm not going to comment on that. All I can say is that I've known him for 30 years and never witnessed anything improper". It makes the question go away without making him look bad. But instead he expresses faux shock and tries to dismiss the story by blaming the internet. Just not a good look for him.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

If your wife makes you wear her underwear and someone in your industry sees it, is that icky enough to lose your job? 

Makes?

Lighten up.  He's asking for a friend.

 

[Shrugs]

No, what CK did is definitely worse. Tig has known about CK (and maybe even a victim herself) and has been distancing herself for awhile. Here is an article from August where she says CK needs to step up and take responsibility for what he's done. It's also no surprise her recent series featured an incident where a guy masturbates in front of a woman. After reading it, it sounds like she has good reason to hate CK. 

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/08/tig-notaro-louis-ck-one-mississippi

And? People in comedy circles have been talking about this for a while because the women told other comedians about his perversion. I wonder if she had even heard the stories before she allowed him to help her. That she knew about it for years and was passive aggressively calling him out on it from afar doesn't mean that she should be questioning whether he was genuine in boosting her career.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I think Louis CK is funny.   

He is not less funny because of this.  I don't go out of my way to watch any of his shows, but I would not "not" watch his shows now.

 

[General Malaise]

C.K. Lewis needs to go away forever. It’s becoming disgusting how people are applauding his “honesty” when in reality it’s just a better PR agent.

When you do things like he did, you are simply a bad person.  Take your money and go live out your days in luxury surrounded by friends and family who will forgive you if you change.

But his career should be over.

Ted Nugent's career wasn't over and his ickiness was way worse because it involved children.  He gets to visit the white house.

 

[Nipsey]

C.K. Lewis needs to go away forever. It’s becoming disgusting how people are applauding his “honesty” when in reality it’s just a better PR agent.

When you do things like he did, you are simply a bad person.  Take your money and go live out your days in luxury surrounded by friends and family who will forgive you if you change.

But his career should be over.

You want him to beat it?

 

[Capella]

Stewart could have said something to the effect of "I don't listen to rumors so I'm not going to comment on that. All I can say is that I've known him for 30 years and never witnessed anything improper". It makes the question go away without making him look bad. But instead he expresses faux shock and tries to dismiss the story by blaming the internet. Just not a good look for him.

Trying way too hard to hang anything on Stewart here. He had zero to do with any of this. 

 

[Ilov80s]

And? People in comedy circles have been talking about this for a while because the women told other comedians about his perversion. I wonder if she had even heard the stories before she allowed him to help her. That she knew about it for years and was passive aggressively calling him out on it from afar doesn't mean that she should be questioning whether he was genuine in boosting her career.

I think that is a fair criticism of Tig, but to say I don't see how it's worse than what CK did. 

 

[[scooter]]

Stewart could have said something to the effect of "I don't listen to rumors so I'm not going to comment on that. All I can say is that I've known him for 30 years and never witnessed anything improper". It makes the question go away without making him look bad. But instead he expresses faux shock and tries to dismiss the story by blaming the internet. Just not a good look for him.

Trying way too hard to hang anything on Stewart here. He had zero to do with any of this. 

Whoa, what's with the defensiveness? I'm not hanging anything on Stewart. I'm not trying to tie him into the "Hollywood elite knew about predators for years" narrative.

My opinion of Stewart is not going to change based on whether he knew or didn't know. But I think his attitude and response in that interview is not a good look for him.

 

[Tom Skerritt]

My wife describes this in a way that I have not seen anybody in here say, so I will share.

Was Louis CK asking to masturbate in front of female executives or even Sarah Silverman or Amy Schumer? Was Kevin Spacey grabbing the junk of ranking producers/directors or other A-list actors? And the answer is always no. There is a reason why these people choose the victims that they do.

 

[Capella]

Whoa, what's with the defensiveness? I'm not hanging anything on Stewart. I'm not trying to tie him into the "Hollywood elite knew about predators for years" narrative.

My opinion of Stewart is not going to change based on whether he knew or didn't know. But I think his attitude and response in that interview is not a good look for him.

Defensiveness? Don't confuse disagreement on a bad opinion with defensiveness. It's really just super super odd you are trying to associate him with this. And even if he did hear of it, unless he heard it from Louis or a victim then it's just a rumor. And he probably shouldn't comment on it. 

 

[dickey moe]

My wife describes this in a way that I have not seen anybody in here say, so I will share.

Was Louis CK asking to masturbate in front of female executives or even Sarah Silverman or Amy Schumer? Was Kevin Spacey grabbing the junk of ranking producers/directors or other A-list actors? And the answer is always no. There is a reason why these people choose the victims that they do.

Yep. It's done from a position of power.

 

[Shark Week]

Seems like a lot of people aren't into seeing him back yet.

 

[Sebowski]

i shouldn't engage, but here goes...

definition of harass:   subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation.

definition of sexual harassment:  harassment (typically of a woman) in a workplace, or other professional or social situation, involving the making of unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks.

you seem to be all tied in knots over this being a BS claim of harassment in the workplace.  it wasn't in the workplace, it was in a social situation.  it's still sexual harassment.  and if the people that pay him for his work, don't want to be associated with a sexual harasser, that's their prerogative and he's yet another idiot, that ####ed up his career because of stupid ####### decisions he made.

/fin

"in a workplace, or other professional or social situation"

You colored the wrong phrase in red. I would have gone with "or other professional". When you are in a social situation with people in your same profession, you are in an "or other professional situation". If you didn't know that, you're welcome. 

 

[Tom Servo]

Seems like a lot of people aren't into seeing him back yet.

Yup.

Disgraced comedian Louis C.K. has quietly stepped back into the comedy ring. The “Louis” star was spotted at New York’s Comedy Cellar on Sunday night performing a set.

 

[pantherclub]

Seems like a lot of people aren't into seeing him back yet.

he got a standing ovation