|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
I think the coming to light of all these accusations of sexual harassment and rape will probably lead to a better society where these things happen less often. Having said that. ..
It's a bad thing if the new normal is to ignore the 'innocent until proven guilty' thing, right? Public justice does have drawbacks... Do we simply banish from society every famous creep now? Is there no redemption possible? Louis ck's specials were really good. Can't he go to creep guy rehab, do a few months of community service and come back to host SNL again?
|
Sucks about CK - he is one of my heroes. But Kwarks assessment, even with its premise of a being in a power position seems fine, with the exception of that especially at work situations sexual bonds are created. More so, some jobs are even more prone to that, of course with the caveats of mutual consent and hiding it from the bosses or colleagues!
|
On November 10 2017 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 05:52 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2017 05:48 ShoCkeyy wrote:On November 10 2017 05:45 Nevuk wrote:Sexual misconduct keeps coming. Now Louis ck, whom I personally always felt somewhat uneasy about for no reason. Five women have stepped forward and accused the 50-year-old of sexual misconduct, with several alleging that his modus operandi seemed to be getting naked and masturbating without consent Comedians Dana Min Goodman and Julia Wolov told the paper that C.K. asked to take his penis out while they were all hanging out in a hotel room in 2002.
The comedy duo thought it was a joke until he actually did it.
“He proceeded to take all of his clothes off, and get completely naked, and started masturbating,” Goodman said. “We were paralyzed.”
“I think the line gets crossed when you take all your clothes off and start masturbating,” Wolov concurred. “Because of this moment, as gross as it is, we feel compelled to speak.”
A third comedian, Abby Schachner, has alleged that C.K. called her on the phone and began masturbating, all the while speaking about “unprofessional and inappropriate” topics.
“I definitely wasn’t encouraging it,” she said. “You want to believe it’s not happening.”
“I felt very ashamed.”
A fourth woman, Rebecca Corry, said the two were working on a television pilot together when the comedian did something similar, asking if he could masturbate in her presence.
“He asked if we could go to my dressing room so he could masturbate in front of me,” she said, noting that she reminded him of his wife and child. “His face got red and he told me he had issues.”
Actors Courteney Cox and David Arquette were executive producers on the unnamed pilot and both confirm that the incident occurred.
“What happened to Rebecca on that set was awful,” Cox said.
A fifth woman, who remains anonymous, also spoke to the newspaper, alleging that he repeatedly asked her if he could masturbate in front of her. She eventually relented.
“I think the big piece of why I said yes was because of the culture,” she said. “He abused his power.”
Rumors that C.K. participated in this brand of sexual misconduct have been floating around comedy circles for years, with many publications — most notably now-defunct Gawker — commenting on the rumors. This is the first time, however, that named sources have come forward.
Comedian Tig Notaro considered herself a good friend of C.K. When she found out about these allegations, however, she recoiled, accusing him of producing one of her comedy specials just so he could “look like a good guy, supporting a woman.”
“Sadly, I’ve come to learn that Louis C.K.’s victims are not only real, but many are actual friends of mine within the comedy community,” she wrote.
The New York Times has reported that the comedian has apologized in private to Schachner, sending a message on Facebook.
“Last time I talked to you ended in a sordid fashion,” he is said to have written in the message. “That was a bad time in my life and I’m sorry.”
“I remember thinking what a repulsive person I was being by responding the way that I did.”
Earlier today, the New York premiere of C.K.’s new movie was canceled and the comedian withdrew from an appearance on The Late Show With Stephen Colbert.
As of this writing, neither C.K. or his agent, Lewis Kay, have replied to these specific accusations.
Mediaite summary, full story at www.nytimes.com Uhhhh, If you listen to Louis CK comedy routine, he literally talks about how he does this to get people's reactions. It's what I think really common knowledge for all his fans. I am a fan and always assumed he was not serious since it is still a crime in all 50 states. It is illegal to masturbate at people without their consent. Sounds like he got consent (power dynamic not withstanding) except for the phone call one? Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 05:51 Danglars wrote:On November 10 2017 04:56 IgnE wrote: honestly a lot of you people make this "xdaunt vs the world" bit a lot worse by
1) misreading xdaunts posts 2) talking about shit you don't understand very well as if you did understand it 3) consequently failing to pick a legitimate point of contention and sticking to it 4) by the time you figure out what you should have been didagreeing with xdaunt about youve spent 10 pages building outrage over something stupid, like whether xdaunt sufficiently cares about whether dc residents get the right to vote, something btw that dc residents dont seem to care sufficiently about as evidenced by their failure to mobilize a mere 700k people on the issue 5) ignore this whole embarrassing fiasco and call xdaunt names
Accurate description. Some of it seems to be posters predisposed to calling xDaunt names in search of reasons to do so. He won’t help you along to having a precise and germane argument on the topic. He might meet you halfway to a sensible take, but less likely if your entire goal is an accusation of hypocrisy. We could actually save a lot of time if posts were summarized in (4) “I don’t think you care to the point that I would demand you care to avoid my attack on your internet morality.” Kwark homed in on the part that mattered and unless he answers that he's got no leg to stand on. Some of them definitely said no when he asked
|
On November 10 2017 06:25 xDaunt wrote: Why would I commit myself to a false dichotomy -- particularly one that is inapplicable to the topic at hand? I think people would happily accept an answer with some nuance to it. We're just trying to figure out what your position is, you know, the eternal struggle.
|
United States42784 Posts
On November 10 2017 06:25 xDaunt wrote: Why would I commit myself to a false dichotomy -- particularly one that is inapplicable to the topic at hand? You stated that the degree of government money they received was a relevant factor for how much you care about their disenfranchisement. Stand by your words, or retract them. Don't just pretend you never said them though.
|
i wonder if theres going to be a move towards mutual consent contracts or at least explicit permission for everything. #metoo seems like it could have a chilling effect on flirtation generally, since flirting always involves trying to figure out where the line is on both sides and will therefore include the statistical likelihood of line stepping of varying degrees
|
United States42784 Posts
On November 10 2017 06:29 IgnE wrote: i wonder if theres going to be a move towards mutual consent contracts or at least explicit permission for everything. #metoo seems like it could have a chilling effect on flirtation generally, since flirting always involves trying to figure out where the line is on both sides and will therefore include the statistical likelihood of line stepping of varying degrees As long as people get consent they should be fine. It's very rare to have an accusation result from consensual sex. The people getting into trouble now are generally not getting into trouble for anything consensual. Anything that would have been solved by a consent contract would have also been solved by just asking permission like a normal person.
|
On November 10 2017 06:26 warding wrote: I think the coming to light of all these accusations of sexual harassment and rape will probably lead to a better society where these things happen less often. Having said that. ..
It's a bad thing if the new normal is to ignore the 'innocent until proven guilty' thing, right? Public justice does have drawbacks... Do we simply banish from society every famous creep now? Is there no redemption possible? Louis ck's specials were really good. Can't he go to creep guy rehab, do a few months of community service and come back to host SNL again? It all depends on what people find acceptable. These people are subject to the realm of public justice because they are entertainers in the public domain. They make their living off the back of people who like them and what they do. If something particularly heinous comes to light about an entertainer, people vote with their wallets, and boycott them in protest, because when you have empathy for others it's important to make that stand. If content creators choose not to hire these people because they 1) don't want to be seen supporting these people, or 2) feel people themselves won't want to support them, or both, then they won't do it. It's simply business.
As for innocent until proven guilty, there's some nuance there too. Charlie Sheen's latest episode is so far unproven afaik, so even though we all know what he's like and he probably did it, I'd hold off on judgement, but cases like Spacey's are a direct admittance. Kind of hard to say it might not have happened.
|
On November 10 2017 06:26 warding wrote: I think the coming to light of all these accusations of sexual harassment and rape will probably lead to a better society where these things happen less often. Having said that. ..
It's a bad thing if the new normal is to ignore the 'innocent until proven guilty' thing, right? Public justice does have drawbacks... Do we simply banish from society every famous creep now? Is there no redemption possible? Louis ck's specials were really good. Can't he go to creep guy rehab, do a few months of community service and come back to host SNL again? Innocent until proven guilty is the standard set for the state bringing the power of force against a citizen for a crime they committed. Just like beyond a reasonable doubt. The court of public opinion has no judge. No rules of evidence that are enforced. No penalty for lying. The legal standard can’t apply because we can’t prove anything. We don’t even have a system in place to judge is something proven. So you are left with your own personal judgment.
|
On November 10 2017 06:27 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 06:25 xDaunt wrote: Why would I commit myself to a false dichotomy -- particularly one that is inapplicable to the topic at hand? I think people would happily accept an answer with some nuance to it. We're just trying to figure out what your position is, you know, the eternal struggle. I already explained my thoughts. It's not my fault that people won't accept them as is.
|
Norway28674 Posts
I personally don't see how the positions 'louis ck masturbating at women is fucked up' and 'I still think he's funny' and 'I can still enjoy his comedy' are in conflict with each other. In fact some of his sketches like telling the christian against masturbation that he's going to think about her while masturbating ends up being even funnier - especially his title (comedian/masturbator). Hamsun is also a great writer, even though he was a nazi, Spacey is still a great actor, although his offenses seem much more grievous and I think the 'can't hire him anymore' pov has a lot of legitimacy.
Iunno I just think most people, myself included, are deeply flawed in some ways (not that I'm an offensive masturbator) and while I understand that 'the totality of his being' might end up being negative, I'm still able to recognize ways that Louie, or whomever else, also have positive qualities, and I can still appreciate those. I mean yeah I can't really find myself supporting the artistic expression of someone who tortures dogs for fun, but this just isn't 'bad enough' for me to damn him in every way, kinda.
|
asking permission is what i meant by "explicit permission". coincidentally in almost all of the stories in that NYT article louis ck did ask for explicit permission. so thats a case where asking for explicit permission didnt solve the problem, although im sure you meant to include something like waiting for an affirmative answer that you are sure was uncoerced
generally though a lot of flirting doesnt proceed by asking for explicit permission to flirt.
|
On November 10 2017 06:26 warding wrote: I think the coming to light of all these accusations of sexual harassment and rape will probably lead to a better society where these things happen less often. Having said that. ..
It's a bad thing if the new normal is to ignore the 'innocent until proven guilty' thing, right? Public justice does have drawbacks... Do we simply banish from society every famous creep now? Is there no redemption possible? Louis ck's specials were really good. Can't he go to creep guy rehab, do a few months of community service and come back to host SNL again? it is a bad and imperfect thing if tha thappens; but complicated since the point that was come from often wasn't "innocent until proven guilty" but instead things like the case gets buried and noone ever even hears about the accusation. redemption is possible, but very hard, of course for the entertainment industry, redemption can in ceratin ways be extra hard: people pay money to see you do stuff, if they don't like you, they ain't gonna pay money for that (though the most exceptional talents can get around that sometimes). a more ordinary job is less subject to that kind of problem.
the american justice system, for good or ill, is generally not big on redemption. it also depends how extensive the offenses are; by the time most people are caught on things like this, it's usually gone far past one offense, it's usually a long list with a half dozen or more accusers occurring over decades.
|
|
United States42784 Posts
On November 10 2017 06:25 xDaunt wrote: EDIT: But no, I would not take away voting rights based upon receipt of welfare benefits. That wasn't a part of the question. The question was whether government tax benefits are a relevant factor or an irrelevant issue.
It was asked because you said in the D.C. case it was relevant to you.
|
On November 10 2017 06:41 IgnE wrote: asking permission is what i meant by "explicit permission". coincidentally in almost all of the stories in that NYT article louis ck did ask for explicit permission. so thats a case where asking for explicit permission didnt solve the problem, although im sure you meant to include something like waiting for an affirmative answer that you are sure was uncoerced
generally though a lot of flirting doesnt proceed by asking for explicit permission to flirt. Does masturbarion fall under flirting?
|
he goes on to comment on mary being a teenager and joseph being an adult carpenter. it's pretty bizarre.
|
Innocent until proven guilty is for actual punishment. I still get to use Occam's razor and say that when someone is accused by multiple people of having done a similar act repeatedly, it's most likely that they did it.
As for rehabilitation, the issue is that the damage is being done to their image. Let's say that Louis CK goes down for this, I would find it wrong to forbid him from being a comedian and I assume nobody is going to do that, but it would be equally wrong to force people to support him, and you kind of need the support of the people to be a comedian.
|
United States42784 Posts
On November 10 2017 06:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 06:27 NewSunshine wrote:On November 10 2017 06:25 xDaunt wrote: Why would I commit myself to a false dichotomy -- particularly one that is inapplicable to the topic at hand? I think people would happily accept an answer with some nuance to it. We're just trying to figure out what your position is, you know, the eternal struggle. I already explained my thoughts. It's not my fault that people won't accept them as is. You haven't explained them. You said that you don't care about voting rights bring denied when the people stripped of rights benefit from government spending but you haven't clarified at all on why you believe the two to be related. That's what we're all trying to get at.
|
On November 10 2017 06:42 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2017 06:41 IgnE wrote: asking permission is what i meant by "explicit permission". coincidentally in almost all of the stories in that NYT article louis ck did ask for explicit permission. so thats a case where asking for explicit permission didnt solve the problem, although im sure you meant to include something like waiting for an affirmative answer that you are sure was uncoerced
generally though a lot of flirting doesnt proceed by asking for explicit permission to flirt. Does masturbarion fall under flirting?
i suppose the anawer is "it depends" but ill short circuit this digression and just say "no" to avoid this pointless line of questioning. obviously what louis ck apparently has a history of doing is not a good thing
to go back to my original post on this topic though, i was thinking aloud about whether the #metoo movement, which has brought to light numerous instances of horrific and bad behavior, might have a chilling effect on flirting generally.
im not even necessarily opposed to explicit permission to flirt, although a lot of women seem to enjoy flirting themselves, and a lot of them think that explicitly asking for permission is anathema to flirting itself
anathema -- from the greek ana + tithemi . . .
|
|
|
|