New Louis CK special - "Sorry"

[Famous Mortimer]

I shouldn't keep posting in this thread as I know my view is not widely shared here. However I do keep drawing a blank when reading the commentary here and so I'm back for advice. Do the people who are disgusted by this Grammy really only want comedy from people who are basically morally sound? Does that extend to music too? Painting? Help me out!

Edit to add: Also - what about when they die? Is it OK to enrich their estate/kids?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nuance

[Pdine]

I get that you don't think we can retract the 'comedy genius' (not my words) moniker attributed to him for some of his works - however, the wankbeast debacle (for many of us) is a strong reason to not want to engage with his output anymore. If I'm forced to think about CK these days, I just have that image in my head of the hideous wankbeast. It's only funny if I want to laugh AT him, not WITH him - and even that's a massive stretch.

Sometimes things just get spoiled and you don't really want to bother with them anymore. There are plenty of other comics who don't jaywank after all.

Yes I totally understand that point of view, although for me I think I always found CK uncomfortable viewing. The 'this guy creeps me out argument' I can completely grasp. It's the 'this guy is objectively too immoral to be societally acceptable as funny/tuneful/artistic' that I don't get. As for Famous Mortimer's 'nuance' post - I think I'm too mentally dull to grasp how that fits in here? The moral outrage in this thread seems extremely overt and unapologetic.

[checkoutgirl]

Do the people who are disgusted by this Grammy really only want comedy from people who are basically morally sound?

There's no one correct answer. It varies from artist to fan to situation. I've never been a Gary Glitter fan but that song showing up in The Joker a couple of years ago didn't bother me but it bothered some people. If Glitter went on tour I probably would be annoyed.

If you enjoy CK then good for you but I can barely look at him anymore. The problem with the award is it was a very public acceptance thing and he still hasn't properly addressed what he's done wrong or properly apologised or made any kind of recompense, as far as I know. Shit like that leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

Having said that I'm sure there would be a contingent that would still condemn him even if he did address it properly. All he did, or seemed to do, was a half assed statement and kept his head down for a few years. Other than idiots, dicks and fanboys, who really thinks that's enough? Most people with half a brain think CK can fuck right off with himself until he makes some fucking effort, which it appears he has singularly failed to do.

[Pdine]

Having said that I'm sure there would be a contingent that would still condemn him even if he did address it properly. All he did, or seemed to do, was a half assed statement and kept his head down for a few years. Other than idiots, dicks and fanboys, who really thinks that's enough? Most people with half a brain think CK can fuck right off with himself until he makes some fucking effort, which it appears he has singularly failed to do.

These things start simply, with a collective wretch at something awful being revealed and a spontaneous withdrawal of attention/money as a result. I am interested in how they end, though, both in practice and in theory. I can see that for some people the idea that the thing that disgusted them might be forgotten is disturbing and they actively try to remind people to stay disgusted. In your response there you're calling anyone who feels five(?) years is enough 'idiots, dicks [or] fanboys'. It's kind of like this is a democratic process, where people feel they need to canvass to keep outcasts cast out, in case the other idiots forget. I think it's that that puzzles me: it's a quasi-judicial process but achieved through quasi-democratic means. It seems like a *really* bad idea to me, for the same reasons we don't vote on criminal trials. We litigate them, and make an effort to make sure even people that creep us out get a fair hearing in a controlled environment, followed by either acquittal or a sentence that ends at a defined time, not when people are too tired or forgetful to keep complaining.

Having said that I do tend to feel that art and the artist should always be considered separately, and that the undesirable outcome of this (talented cunts get bankrolled) is less undesirable than the ugly, ugly spectacle of people arguing morals vs aesthetics. I am an old cunt though, and I understand Mary Whitehouse is being reassessed as a prophet :)

[Famous Mortimer]

I am interested in how they end, though, both in practice and in theory.

Why?

Having said that I do tend to feel that art and the artist should always be considered separately, and that the undesirable outcome of this (talented cunts get bankrolled) is less undesirable than the ugly, ugly spectacle of people arguing morals vs aesthetics. I am an old cunt though, and I understand Mary Whitehouse is being reassessed as a prophet :)

Well, at least you're not making a stupid exaggeration in order to get your point across.

This argument is only ever made one way, which is why I think it's disingenuous. I never see any "separate the art from the artist" types arguing with right-wingers about why they should give, say, Mark Thomas, their money and time. It's always, always, people insisting that unrepentant sex criminals should have their old jobs back, as if they're the only possible person able to do what they do. Or people annoyed that they have to think about what their favourite comedian / musician / whoever actually did, and how it affects other people.

[Pdine]

Why?

Pausing only to note the anti-intellectualism of that question, I'd say it's because this kind of internet-facilitated ostracism is a relatively recent phenomenon so we haven't yet seen how/if it pans out for individual banishees.

Well, at least you're not making a stupid exaggeration in order to get your point across.

No I'm serious: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-60556060

This argument is only ever made one way, which is why I think it's disingenuous. I never see any "separate the art from the artist" types arguing with right-wingers about why they should give, say, Mark Thomas, their money and time. It's always, always, people insisting that unrepentant sex criminals should have their old jobs back, as if they're the only possible person able to do what they do. Or people annoyed that they have to think about what their favourite comedian / musician / whoever actually did, and how it affects other people.

Mark Thomas is a terrible example because his comedy is almost entirely political argumentation. The arguments about separating art from artists do occur often in contexts other than sexual abuse; take Lovecraft's racism or Ezra Pound's fascism. I do think that generally artists are the only people who could create the exact things they create, yes. I think that the view you give in the last sentence there is exactly the problem I'm pointing to: you're worried that consumption of art will undermine a moral principle.

[checkoutgirl]

In your response there you're calling anyone who feels five(?) years is enough 'idiots, dicks [or] fanboys'.

Five years of what, living in a big city as a multi millionaire? He did a gig a year or so after the story really broke. He's done I think two recorded specials in the last five years. He still has some fans, he's still making money. He never got in any legal or custodial jeopardy.

He got some press heat for a few months and his career hasn't been going gangbusters for a few years. And he did fuck all in the way of recompense and regret after retaliating against his accusers before the story broke against him in earnest. He didn't just get his lad out, he did the obligatory cover up and smear campaign, he's clearly a nasty piece of work.

Your thrust seems to be "I'm just asking questions" but when we try and answer you come back with the same thing it seems. What's your answer to it? Would you be happy with a Gary Glitter world tour?

I don't have an answer about CK but the award thing was in poor taste for a lot of people and was pretty stupid in this day and age.

[Pdine]

Five years of what, living in a big city as a multi millionaire? He did a gig a year or so after the story really broke. He's done I think two recorded specials in the last five years. He still has some fans, he's still making money. He never got in any legal or custodial jeopardy.

He got some press heat for a few months and his career hasn't been going gangbusters for a few years. And he did fuck all in the way of recompense and regret after retaliating against his accusers before the story broke against him in earnest. He didn't just get his lad out, he did the obligatory cover up and smear campaign, he's clearly a nasty piece of work.

Yes I agree, although as I said up-thread I'm not as convinced as others seem to be that that's uncommon among successful male standups, or indeed artists in general. This isn't to minimise being a nasty piece of work, it's to stress how hard I think it would be to actually be morally consistent on this issue. 

Your thrust seems to be "I'm just asking questions" but when we try and answer you come back with the same thing it seems. What's your answer to it? Would you be happy with a
Gary Glitter world tour?

He's been punished, so if I believe in judicial process I can't argue we should prevent him. I'm not a huge fan but if somehow he was able to drum up enough trade then I wouldn't be picketing venues or even posting angrily about it. As I say though, I appreciate I'm not in touch with the spirit of the age.

I don't have an answer about CK but the award thing was in poor taste for a lot of people and was pretty stupid in this day and age.

It was astonishingly poor judgement, given the current climate, yes. Their statement though - that they just examine artistic output from a specific period with no other considerations - has a purity I do support. Very likely the Grammy judges are old cunts like me :)

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

One of his accusers has given an interview regarding the grammy victory.

https://variety.com/2022/music/news/louis-ck-grammy-win-sexual-harassment-accuser-1235230060/

[evilcommiedictator]

I shouldn't keep posting in this thread as I know my view is not widely shared here. However I do keep drawing a blank when reading the commentary here and so I'm back for advice. Do the people who are disgusted by this Grammy really only want comedy from people who are basically morally sound? Does that extend to music too? Painting? Help me out!

Go send your teenage daughter over to Bill Cosby's house and let us know how that goes, cheers

[Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse]

Go send your teenage daughter over to Bill Cosby's house and let us know how that goes, cheers

Mate

[Pinball]

When someone is cancelled for wanking in public, is it a whole life sentence, or will 5 years do? Just wondering what the Twitter appeal court thinks, given this is where 'justice' occurs, apparently.

[Famous Mortimer]

When someone is cancelled for wanking in public, is it a whole life sentence, or will 5 years do? Just wondering what the Twitter appeal court thinks, given this is where 'justice' occurs, apparently.

Desperate trolling attempt: 4/10

[g0m]

When someone is cancelled for wanking in public, is it a whole life sentence, or will 5 years do? Just wondering what the Twitter appeal court thinks, given this is where 'justice' occurs, apparently.

I'm this guy

[ProvanFan]

If it was my dad who'd spent years wanking in front of female colleagues and having their careers threatened to keep them quiet, I'd settle for seven years of him enjoying his millions while making fewer millions than before, then maybe a BAFTA first before I'd be OK with a Grammy.

[somersetchris]

When someone is cancelled for wanking in public, is it a whole life sentence, or will 5 years do? Just wondering what the Twitter appeal court thinks, given this is where 'justice' occurs, apparently.

What do you think cancelled means? Doesn't it mean something that ends, and never comes back?

So doesn't apply to Louis CK then, obviously. More a case of 'keeping your head down'.

[ProvanFan]

Oh dad, you've really wielded your power irresponsibly here haven't you

[Thursday]

It's very useful that people just willingly tell on themselves over Louis C.K isn't it?

[Pinball]

He's served his time, and the album is good. Obviously I'm wanking as I type this.

[checkoutgirl]

When someone is cancelled for wanking in public, is it a whole life sentence, or will 5 years do? Just wondering what the Twitter appeal court thinks, given this is where 'justice' occurs, apparently.

This post gave me a big boner. Can I show it to you? I'm asking nicely so it's okay.

[Martin Van Buren Stan]

One of his accusers has given an interview regarding the grammy victory.

https://variety.com/2022/music/news/louis-ck-grammy-win-sexual-harassment-accuser-1235230060/

Imagine humblebragging in a public mea culpa about sex abuse. What an unbelievable cunt.

"These stories are true," C.K. said in his statement in 2017, which continued, in part: "When you have power over another person, asking them to look at your dick isn't a question. It's a predicament for them. The power I had over these women is that they admired me. And I wielded that power irresponsibly."

[checkoutgirl]

They admired me.

Apology accepted, I forgive you.

[Pinball]

This post gave me a big boner. Can I show it to you? I'm asking nicely so it's okay.

As a fellow equal adult, not being held under any physical duress or other restraint, I might say no you pervert, and walk out of the room. Or I might say yes and suck you off, you powerful big fat bald man, as long as you read my script later.

But TBH, I'm far too busy wanking to allow any distraction. I think I may have mentioned that I'm wanking as I type this, and sitting in my jacuzzi. I just hope I don't short circuit the keyboard, as it's vitally important that people read my ill-informed and prejudiced views on social media.

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

Well done. Most amusing and clever.

[Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse]

As a fellow equal adult, not being held under any physical duress or other restraint, I might say no you pervert, and walk out of the room. Or I might say yes and suck you off, you powerful big fat bald man, as long as you read my script later.

But TBH, I'm far too busy wanking to allow any distraction. I think I may have mentioned that I'm wanking as I type this, and sitting in my jacuzzi. I just hope I don't short circuit the keyboard, as it's vitally important that people read my ill-informed and prejudiced views on social media.

oh cool so the women involved either a) could've just walked away b) exchanged sexual favours in hopes of advancement

you know, you can just enjoy someone's creative output quietly and not accidentally look like you're a victim-blaming shitbag in your clumsy attempts to justify said enjoyment to others

[Memorex MP3]

I find the whole discourse around him baffling at this point because:

- general sentiment seemed to be that he was past his creative peak at the point he was "cancelled"
- his shows since don't seem to be garnering any positive reviews beyond "these are about as good as the quite good ones he was doing post-Hilarious, they don't bring a lot new to the table"; what's the draw supposed to be if I was already tired three or four shows ago?
- a big chunk of his stature at the point stemmed from being at the forefront of the kind of righteousness that would be now considered a key ingredient of cancel culture, it's hardly surprising people who liked him actively because of that now at best find him kind of cringe


If you liked him and you still do, fine? It really shouldn't be that hard to grasp why a lot of people who used to like him are now put off though.


There's maybe a secondary thing here that gets missed in the discourse of whether we need more than 3 standup specials by pretty much any normal standup act. Once they get to a certain point in their careers it's gonna be the same shit with diminshing returns. I think these are his 8th and 9th full shows?

[The Mollusk]

As a fellow equal adult, not being held under any physical duress or other restraint, I might say no you pervert, and walk out of the room. Or I might say yes and suck you off, you powerful big fat bald man, as long as you read my script later.

But TBH, I'm far too busy wanking to allow any distraction. I think I may have mentioned that I'm wanking as I type this, and sitting in my jacuzzi. I just hope I don't short circuit the keyboard, as it's vitally important that people read my ill-informed and prejudiced views on social media.

You've been pulled up on your dog shit opinions on the treatment of women a number of times here so it's funny to see you unable to resist wading in again and digging your own hole of stupidity.

[Bigfella]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nuance

He's talking NUANCE SENSE

[Pinball]

You've been pulled up on your dog shit opinions on the treatment of women a number of times here so it's funny to see you unable to resist wading in again and digging your own hole of stupidity.

My question is- when can Louis be allowed back into normal life 'out of the wilderness' after what he did? If never, then that is a whole life tariff, and he isn't a murderer, so I believe that would be clearly excessive, disproportionate and unfair. The Board of the Grammys decided that now is the time to normalise Louis, and I agree with them.

Please do debate me on the issues and discussion. I am not a troll. But please do not abuse and insult me like a classic cyber-bully. It's this bullying aspect of social media, to stifle debate, that offends me, and I will not be silenced by bullies like you. As you are unable to conduct civilized debate, and can only insult me, it's clearly you who are stupid, and vulgar to boot.

[Martin Van Buren Stan]

You did seem to victim blame and diminish the suffering of his victims though. YOU may have said no and walked away but they didn't. They may have been too scared to do so.