Good article here: How the Beastie Boys made amends for their sexist early career.
The Beastie Boys haven’t been accused of harassment or assault, but they were accused (rightfully) of very misogynistic lyrics in their early music. They listened, apologized, and changed. Louis CK should have followed their example.
IOW, not even remotely a similar thing. I have no idea why you or the author of that piece don’t realize how idiotic the comparison is. The BBoys were being asshole 20 year old men and grew up. They were putting misogyny into their act because they thought it was cool. CK had a gross sexual kink he forced on women. Misogyny was not part of his act.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I disagree, and that’s okay.
I honestly have no idea how you could disagree. There’s literally nothing in common between the two stories other than they involve jerky men.
I agree with this.
But I don’t have information that the Beastie Boys “violated the consent of women on multiple occasions,” so I can’t say I can quite think of them the same way.
Their first album came out when I was 17, so I heard them being played a lot in my late high school and early college years. They sounded like assholes to me – the kind of people who annoyed me in school – and I hated their music. As a result, I have largely ignored them since. I can’t say I know whether their music changed at all. Still, I don’t see Licensed to Ill as equivalent to what Louis did.
Frankly, I don’t know if there’s anything Louis can do to regain his former position, but he could have done a lot more than he did.
I’d be happy to discuss it, but I suspect that would just invite another eye roll smiley, based on our past discussions on CK.
You’re probably right that it would be an unfruitful discussion. The only place I can imagine where you’re coming from is that there’s some underlying background for all misogyny so you feel free to equate lyrics on an album with offensive physical acts done in a hotel room. Given that, I would have trouble taking anything you say seriously.
It can be very difficult considering and trying to understand opinions that vary so widely from one’s own. Such discussions aren’t for everyone. Thanks for your thoughts.
Thanks for your worldly advice, Mr Kettle.
Just to be clear, you don’t have discussions with people who have different views. You try to convince people they’re wrong when they disagree with you. Yes, politely but you are not remotely as open minded as you think you are. I am actually quite open minded.
I stand fixed by another Doper psychic! Thank you for fixing me, sir. And thank you for telling me that you’re open minded – now I understand and am convinced!
Interesting Fact: One of the Beastie Boys is dead of cancer now… The ultimate penance for 80’s/90’s frat-bro music!
Yeah, pretty much. I mean, the jokes do tell me more about him, since he’s making jokes I thought he’d never make, but, ultimately, it is the lack of remorse that kills any fandom I had for him. The new jokes just kinda rub it in more how little he cares.
Like I said before, he’s just appealing to the only people who would “forgive” him: the people who go around shouting “freedom of speech” every time someone does something bad. He’s decided to go that route rather than change.
I’m all about forgiveness, but only for those who are really sorry and willing to put in the actual work of making amends. What that mean varies with the “crime,” but it has to be done.
If we don’t, then we tell everyone else that we don’t really think these things are wrong, and they can do them, too.
Totally agree with this. He’s shown no actual remorse. Even if you consider masturbating in front of someone a minor trespass, he actually interfered with other people’s careers to hush it all up. There’s no way that’s minor.
Well, he hasn’t shown andy or you enough remorse but what have his victims said recently? A while back, before these bootleg releases, I heard he bumbled a little on some of his personal apologies. Are any of them complaining about the stuff on the bootlegs?
His victim’s opinions are not really relevant here, frankly. He is someone who has a propensity to undertake lewd acts in front of non willing people.
That merits penal sanctions.
Well he claimed in his apology that he always asked permission, obviously probably most of them thought he was joking, either way I don’t see any charges ever being pressed, it sounds like that’s how he justified it to himself that he technically asked first.
For crimes like this, the victims’ opinions very much matter. You need someone to file a complaint and press charges. Though most of what I remember reading didn’t sound technically like crimes. I think there was a workplace incident I wondered about.
He said penal.
Apparently all of the incidents happened over 10 years ago and he’s stated he stopped then. Most likely any statute that might fit would be outside of the statute of limitations.
Whatever their answer to this question might be doesn’t trump my views on Louis. This is about what behavior should be acceptable in society overall, not just whether individuals are willing to put Louis’s behavior behind them.
And contrary to what AK said, this is not a criminal law matter. If Louis is being prosecuted for crimes, then he could legitimately be exonerated and be free from any legal punishment. That wouldn’t give him a free pass to be forgiven by society. Just because he hasn’t (hypothetically) been convicted a crime doesn’t mean he has the right to his prior status in society.
I have trouble understanding this mindset. A guy robs a bank and threatens the customers with death. They get the bejesus scared out of them and this probably causes PTSD in many. He get caught and gets 20 years. When he gets out you don’t hear cries over how he should now donate any of his subsequent income to support groups. The time is the punishment. In Louis’s case the loss of $35M is the punishment since he apparently didn’t break the law. Why is this not enough for people?