Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 06:52:23 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Louis CK returns to comedy after wankbeast shenanigans [split topic]

Started by up_the_hampipe, August 28, 2018, 08:41:20 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

checkoutgirl

Quote from: Maow on January 01, 2019, 12:17:01 PM
Awareness of CK's transgressions has certainly coloured the public's view of him, and for the reasons you say. But I struggle a bit with the idea that, because of this knowledge, we now "know who he truly is" in any all-defining sense. The way he behaved with women was obviously horrible. But it's like a switch has been flicked that's transformed him from a humanist, everyman figure to a pariah whose persona until now was a facade, and whose words and deeds are being re-examined and subjected to the worst possible reading. A headline from Vulture reads, "The Real Louis CK Is Finally Standing Up", even though his act is much the same as it ever was (though admittedly it seemed to become less edgy as he grew increasingly famous). People are messy and complicated, is all I'm saying, and I'm not convinced his persona has, until now, been an elaborate put-on, like some people seem to think it was (not you, necessarily). It's possible to be a guy with sincerely-held 'woke' views and someone whose sexual compulsions caused him to hurt others. Our cultural tendency to reduce people to their worst deeds, and to eschew more complex character assessments, just makes me uneasy, I guess.

Agree with all this 100%, just couldn't be arsed articulating it. I understand if people are uncomfortable with his comedy now but the extrapolations people are making are inconsistent, arbitrary and seem to be based on various personal gripes and irritations.

Also I can't escape the notion that CK is not in any legal trouble or at least appears not to be. Why are the police not taking an interest in him now that multiple allegations are in the public domain?

lankyguy95

^
Pretty sure none of the acts described in the allegations were actually illegal.

Quote from: Monsieur Verdoux on August 29, 2018, 07:00:40 PM
If the scenario at the Colorado Comedy festival happened as described (and he has admitted that it did) then it counts as indecent exposure, which is a Class 1 misdemeanor in Colorado, meaning that he could face up to 18 months if the women choose to press charges.


From the NY Times article:

QuoteIn 2002, a Chicago comedy duo, Dana Min Goodman and Julia Wolov, landed their big break: a chance to perform at the U.S. Comedy Arts Festival in Aspen, Colo. When Louis C.K. invited them to hang out in his hotel room for a nightcap after their late-night show, they did not think twice. The bars were closed and they wanted to celebrate. He was a comedian they admired. The women would be together. His intentions seemed collegial.

As soon as they sat down in his room, still wrapped in their winter jackets and hats, 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."

...

During Ms. Goodman and Ms. Wolov's surreal visit to Louis C.K.'s Aspen hotel room, they said they were holding onto each other, screaming and laughing in shock, as Louis C.K. masturbated in a chair. "We were paralyzed," Ms. Goodman said. After he ejaculated on his stomach, they said, they fled. He called after them: "He was like, 'Which one is Dana and which one is Julia?'" Ms. Goodman recalled.

up_the_hampipe

Two questions on that though. The most important part of the story is glossed over. What exactly was said when they "laughed it off"? Also, if he can be charged regardless, has the statute of limitations passed?

I don't imagine that they'll press charges so I wouldn't worry about that if I were you

up_the_hampipe

Quote from: Monsieur Verdoux on January 04, 2019, 01:49:02 AM
I don't imagine that they'll press charges so I wouldn't worry about that if I were you

Oh I'll be up all night with this.

Urinal Cake

Quote from: up_the_hampipe on January 04, 2019, 01:41:45 AM
Two questions on that though. The most important part of the story is glossed over. What exactly was said when they "laughed it off"? Also, if he can be charged regardless, has the statute of limitations passed?
A laugh isn't consent. You could argue that CK overstepped any consent by stripping naked and then masturbating.


Lisa Jesusandmarychain

Quote from: Urinal Cake on January 04, 2019, 03:20:57 AM
A laugh isn't consent. You could argue that CK overstepped any consent by stripping naked and then masturbating.

I think everyone on 'ere would agree that the above  cited incident is a clear and cut case of indecent exposure, and yer man could have been done for it, would the comediennes have  been prepared to press charges.

checkoutgirl

Quote from: Monsieur Verdoux on January 04, 2019, 01:49:02 AM
I don't imagine that they'll press charges so I wouldn't worry about that if I were you

Aren't there instances where the justice system go ahead and prosecute anyway even if the victim don't press charges? Why aren't they pressing charges? You have people coming out from the 1970s pressing charges, why not in this case? The longer this goes on the more I'm softening towards CK. Even though I enjoy his comedy I don't like him as a person particularly and I don't think he's a very nice person. But leaving that aside, if he was prosecuted and got a jail sentence, when he came out of jail at least he could say he served his time and could at least claim he paid his debt to society. But without that it can drag on indefinitely, with everyone pitching in with their opinion on when he can start to work again. I'm not pro CK but it makes me confused that even the people who want him punished can't agree on how or how long for. Then they throw in little asides about the quality of lack thereof of his act and "ah, you see, he was just pretending to not be a monster when we all know now he was a monster"

Cosby was a monster. CK was an occasional sex pest with a penis narcissism and exhibitionist tendencies. Cosby's in jail for heinous crimes including rape that spanned decades, was predatory and systematic and ruined lives. CK's predilections were relatively twatty by comparison. I think that CK should be treated less harshly than the likes of Cosby, Weinstein or Savile. But the current climate seems to have no scale of crime. It doesn't help that when you whip your knob out in front of women you're leaving yourself open to a pisstaking.

We will take the piss out of him,
he must be punished,
his comedy's rubbish anyway,
he charges 5 quid a pop for his comedy,
people should have advance warning of his appearances,
he should never do comedy again,
what he did wasn't that bad anyway,
it was terrible he should be in jail,
he should come back in 2 years,
1 year,
he never should have left,
he's not funny anyway,
he's hilarious and always will be,

It's all very jumbled up. Opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one.

As I say, I wouldn't worry about it. He'll just carry on performing as usual and nothing will happen except occasionally people will talk about it on twitter. That's all. He clearly doesn't think that he's done anything truly wrong, and neither do his loyal fans, so he'll just continue to be out there for them, and they're welcome to him.

The responsibility for contrition or change was on him and he's chosen to waive it, carrying on in much the same style as before.

checkoutgirl

Quote from: Monsieur Verdoux on January 04, 2019, 10:30:17 AM
The responsibility for contrition or change was on him and he's chosen to waive it, carrying on in much the same style as before.

What form would the contrition or change take? (I would genuinely like your answer to that). I assume he's not doing it (indecent exposure/surprise exhibitionism and masturbation) anymore and said sorry. It's obvious from his last recording that he feels losing x millions of dollars was a punishment, and a severe one at that. His career hasn't just picked up where it left off either. He lost artistic projects, he lost respect, he lost friends, he lost his public profile for about a year. He probably has no film or TV projects on the go (citation needed). I dunno, I'm genuinely on the fence. Has he been punished enough? Should he be punished more?

My personal opinion is I do think that he should have taken around 5 years out, taken a more behind the scenes type job that doesn't involve being a public figure (part of the problem with all these narcissists that transgress is that they can't seem to spend any significant amount of time without clamouring for the chance to get in front of an audience and be a public figure, this is a privilege, no one is entitled to this). When he eventually returned, his material should have been like Pryor's Sunset Strip act, scandals forcing him to up his game, vary up his style and approach, make himself the main target, and try harder to win people back.

It was never impossible for him to come back, he's just let his entitlement and impatience override his good sense and hit against the edges of his talent. He failed morally, and now he's failing artistically, and only the loyal are fooled.

checkoutgirl

5 years, see I've always thought 2 years. Which is right? Also you're lumping in the quality of his latest material, like that's particularly relevant to a set of sexual indiscretions/crimes. I'm not sure how they are related. Then you cite Pryor coming back which has nothing to do with anything (besides which there was a lot less recording equipment around when he unveiled his polished and no doubt honed Sunset Strip piece so less chance of catching a rubbish early draft).

The confusion comes when it's a public figure. If a plumber did what Louis did nobody would be thinking that last plumbing job he did was so great, it addressed all the sexual allegations and crimes against him beautifully. Nor would they be demanding he lay off the plumbing for 5 years. I'm still struggling with the mechanics of how this is supposed to work.

Also your assertion that speaking to an audience is a privilege. The unhappy fact is it's a privilege afforded by any group of people willing to be that audience. CK will always have an audience because people love a bit of stand up comedy and he's still very good at it compared to his peers. His last recording wasn't great but was that a fully prepared special edited and honed from months on the road? I don't think so. Even if it was good would that alleviate any of the things he did? Unfortunately for some people it would, when it really probably shouldn't.

#587
I don't know what you were expecting

The 'public figure' factor isn't a confusion, it's a key distinction. Only when people can get their heads around this will they be able to see why he's no plumber. The stakes are different, the privileges are different, the rewards are different, the cultural impact is completely different

I talked about his material because it's something he can use to show his contrition/evolution, and he's chosen not to do so

The 'early draft' excuse doesn't cut it. There's no significant change of approach, that's the problem. It's just rough versions of his usual stuff

Also, 2 years is nothing. Most comedians take 2 years between specials. It's nothing.

checkoutgirl

Quote from: Monsieur Verdoux on January 04, 2019, 11:41:37 AM
I don't know what you were expecting

Neither do I to be honest. And everyone expects different things, different punishments and different approaches to their latest work. There's so many moving parts that I find it very difficult to quantify. One of the best yardsticks of justice, the law, is completely absent which causes problems. When I said 2 years I can see Louis asking where I got that figure from and I wouldn't have an answer. Then you say 5 years which seem like a long time. Then Hadley Freeman rows in with eternity and I'm just lost. We demand moral lives from public figures but what level we demand from who is all over the place. It's very uneven which means personally I find myself on either side of the fence at different times. I could defend your stance one day and then be sick of the whole thing and wonder what Louis is supposed to do the next. I'm not worried or anything but it is interesting. It seems to be an evolving, moving target with no rhyme nor reason to it.

I do envy people who are sure of what they think about it at all times because I've lost that.

I wouldn't trust Hadley Freeman on anything, for what it's worth

checkoutgirl

Quote from: Monsieur Verdoux on January 04, 2019, 12:07:15 PM
I wouldn't trust Hadley Freeman on anything, for what it's worth

She could be right for all we know. Fire Louis out of a cannon into the side of the moon. Make him walk with his trousers down around the sea of tranquility. Give him a telescope so he can look back upon the people of Earth enjoying public masturbation and comedy gigs with abandon. Make VHS tapes of his kids not enjoying expensive university educations and fire it by rocket to his hovel on the dark side of the moon.

a woman who doesn't like watching men honk off is accidentally fired into his moon hovel, THE ONE THING WE DIDN'T WANT TO HAPPEN

Cuellar

Quote from: Monsieur Verdoux on January 04, 2019, 10:51:38 AM
taken a more behind the scenes type job that doesn't involve being a public figure

Like a job in a wanking factory


checkoutgirl

Quote from: Monsieur Verdoux on January 04, 2019, 12:30:53 PM
a woman who doesn't like watching men honk off is accidentally fired into his moon hovel, THE ONE THING WE DIDN'T WANT TO HAPPEN

Ha!

Petey Pate

It's kinda amusing to see Louis CK be embraced as an alt-right savior on 4chan and reddit, despite the fact he publicly endorsed Hillary Clinton for president (his main reason being because she's a mother) and how in the past he was frequently decried as Louis CuCK for being comparatively liberal on Opie and Anthony.

There's also this scene in Horace and Pete, which is odd viewing in light of his recent 'attack helicopter' material on gender identity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHrXtzYC0Jc

checkoutgirl

Is that the scene where he boffs a trans person? (has whiteknighting intimate relations with a transnormative genderqueer). To be honest I was more shocked by the scene where Steve Buscemi puts vaseline on his nips for some reason.

(Edited out transphobic term, please avoid this kind of shit - BAdmin)

St_Eddie

Quote from: checkoutgirl on January 04, 2019, 02:52:43 PM
To be honest I was more shocked by the scene where Steve Buscemi puts vaseline on his nips for some reason.

Oh, stop.  You're getting me all hot and bothered!

Thursday

Quote from: checkoutgirl on January 04, 2019, 10:15:01 AM
Aren't there instances where the justice system go ahead and prosecute anyway even if the victim don't press charges? Why aren't they pressing charges?

Probably because of what women who do press charges on issues like this have to go through.

grassbath

Quote from: Petey Pate on January 04, 2019, 01:51:36 PM

There's also this scene in Horace and Pete, which is odd viewing in light of his recent 'attack helicopter' material on gender identity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHrXtzYC0Jc

This floored me when I first saw it, but it feels pretty besmirched now. Not by the wanking stuff - I could just about put that out of my mind to applaud the guy who wrote and performed that scene.

But I'm really disgusted by the sheer hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance involved in writing and performing that scene, and then clawing back depressing Cheap Laffs from an audience who *he knows* don't know any better. With that scene in mind, he's willingly stooping to their level, willingly pandering to cunts that *he knows* are actively making the world a worse place for others. That's the shittest part.