It IS an excuse. It implies that he just got into a habit and sexually assaulting women was part of that. Never mind that he threatened them afterward and ruined their careers. Never mind that he admitted it.
How come the explanation that he’s a predator who physically isolated his victims, picked victims who were much less powerful than him, employed a tactic that he knew he could use to argue intent later on, threatened them, and finally did in fact fuck up their careers before admitting it all isn’t, well, the explanation? He’s a predator. If it were a case of accidental conditioning, how come it never happened around men?
In the case of Louis C.K., I don’t think inability to handle fame-related temptations was at the root of his behavior. I get the impression he was really like this long before he achieved success and his notoriety ultimately only made many more people of aware of his behavior than if he remained an unknown run-of-the-mill sex offender. However, that’s only one aspect of his personality that I find especially creepy. Because much of C.K.'s pre-scandal material dealt with the concerns and anxieties of middle-aged adults, he was relatable to his often middle-aged audience. (The fact he was a balding middle-aged schlub also helped in that regard.) Granted, he did throw in a few outrageous jokes and routines but that was to jolt the audience out of its empathetic rapport and remind them they were watching a no-holds-barred comedian. I don’t know if his goal was to become some kind of “voice” for people in his demographic group but it did seem that way at times. Once the scandal broke, it became apparent to me he was a sociopath using humor to gain people’s trust and get them to put down their defenses. I think if C.K. had not chosen to go into a “legit” field like comedy, he probably would’ve made a very good living as a con artist.
Responding to both of these: I may not have articulated my thoughts as clearly as I should have. I’m not trying to claim fame caused the behavior so much as enabled it (and I’m sure as hell not trying to defend it). I see it as a variation of the “what we do in the dark” idea - how do we behave when we stop fearing the consequences?
Just to clarify my position a little more: some people - I really want it to be most, but I have no way of knowing that - just plain aren’t going to become predators (or thieves, or murderers, or whatever). They may not have the inclination, or they may feel that their own gratification isn’t worth hurting somebody else.
Some people just plain are. They’ll get their jollies, consequences be damned.
And I think some people need rules to keep them in line. “I’d do this, but I’d go to jail if they caught me.” And if those rules go away, or stop being enforced, then look out.
I don’t know which of the latter two categories Louis CK falls into. Neither is good.
Yes, because suggesting that black people are loyal andcreliable friends is… racist? Denigrating? Belittling? What the fuck.
Right because suggesting that being present at a tragedy doesn’t mystically embue you with profound insight and make you worth listenning to is both evil and wrong! Nazi, bigot, pedophile carnivore wrong!
For fuck sakes, you pestilential primate, saying “Not getting shot does not make you special in any way, in fact it makes you pretty fuckng normal.” Is not only not offensice it is objectively and demonstrably true.
No it is about the unremitting, unending self-flagellation (hee hee) that you masturbatory fuckwads insist is required to cleanse the blackened soul of all impurity and allow their grudging readmittance to the rarified humanity that you, and the other self-impressed woke-fucks, think you can lay claim to.
I commend you on your mind reading powers! Or consider this - maybe it’s possible that you’re not psychic, and we just disagree honestly but passionately on how we think about this kind of thing.
Just a thought. Our if you’d prefer to think I’m just an awful hypocrite, or whatever, feel free. Probably a lot easier than attempting real communication and engagement.
It’s a stereotyping generalization, one that he doesn’t offer support for, and one that doesn’t add anything to the premise of the joke, and it’s not funny.
The idea that the only or most significant thing about a survivor of such an event is that the person avoided being shot is an idiotic and dangerous idea. The idea that such a person has no more significant to say about that event than anyone else on the world who happened to not get shot is an idiotic and dangerous idea. The idea that listening to people who have survived such an event is treating them as if they have mystical power is an idiotic and dangerous idea.
Civilization has spread and improved over millennia based in no little way on listening to people who have suffered and making changes based on that.
