I am not a multi-millionaire like the brilliant, boundary-pushing, irreverant Louis C.K., but I recently came into a little money, and to help raise awareness of the myriad of serious issues his lurid behavior churns up, I have decided to self-fund a foundation that will pay UC Berkeley “Gender & Woman’s Studies” undergrad students to follow C.K. around the nation’s comedy circut from venue to venue, self-righteously pelting him after he takes the stage with those tiny, 2 inch long, unnaturally neon pink-colored Vienna Sausages sold at all the finer interstate truck stops, artfully arranged with a petite dollop of mayonnaise, sour cream, ranch dressing or tartar sauce (really, any cream colored or off-white condiment would do, certainly Arby’s Horsey Sauce would be OK in a pinch) judiciously yet artfully applied on one end.
It wasn’t a punishment, it was a consequence. People not liking/forgiving him is also a consequence. Sometimes being a shitty person leads to more than one consequence.
The problem I see is we don’t know why he did the things he did. It’s easy to hand wave and say “he’s a dick”/free will/ made his own bed… But is that so? No matter how much we like to delude ourselves into believing we have total control over our actions at all times we are under the control of our own body chemistry. Louis may be an unbalanced guy - chemically. You cannot “will” the effects of too much testosterone away, for instance, any more than you can will yourself sober after drinking 5 shots of whiskey. Maybe “he just can’t help it”. And unless the guy gets his brain scanned and his body chemistry checked, I’m giving him a pass.
Anecdote (not data):
I had a relative who was overweight. Couldn’t stop eating. The usual comments ensued. Stop eating, control yourself. After much suffering she went to an endocrinologist and sure enough her body chemistry was askew. After treatment her weight went back to “normal”. Didn’t have the urge to eat so often anymore. So sure, people were technically entitled to feel she had no self-control but in fact they were wrong. She’s a better person than me because I would have told anyone who gave me shit during the heavy times to fuck off.
Cool, but maybe if you can’t control your dick around women because of your imbalanced brain chemicals or whatever he shouldn’t be put in social positions that give him any power (such as fame, high profile gigs at events, etc)? Maybe he shouldn’t be in a high profile position where people develop parasocial relationships with him that validate his behavior?
Like, sure, I’m all for more compassion for criminals and people with mental issues. The prison system is garbage, rehabilitation is good, etc. But if somebody is “broken” in a way that distresses or harms other people that doesn’t mean we go “oh, they’re just like that, get used to it”, it means we do what we can to curb that behavior while protecting the people harmed by it.
Of course we’d put such a person into proper mental care. And I’m saying the guy ought to be checked. He should have been checked (forced to by his managers) the second the first incident was reported.
Wait, what? You’re giving him a pass on the presumption that he has a medical condition that makes it an irrestistible impulse?
There’s a huge difference between someone who can’t control his or her eating and someone who forces other people into non-consensual sexual situations and then uses his status and power to punish them if they complain about it, and then fail to make any genuine attempt at amends.
Though in this specific case, all the incidents seem to be from well over 10 years ago and his private apologies came before the story blew up. So something does seem to have already curbed his behavior.
His manager, while his representative, was probably a more powerful man in Hollywood than CK was at the time. So, while not giving him a free pass, I think you might be misunderstanding the power balance when you say CK “allowed” his agent to suppress the story. Anything Becky threatened the victims with, he could have threatened CK with as well.
This is pure speculation. If you want to see CK as a victim of his agent, then go ahead, but I’m not going to, at least not without some sort of strong evidence that he was victimized by his agent. At his height, CK was a critical darling and possibly the most highly sought-after, and most popular comedian at the time. I’m highly skeptical that he couldn’t have prevented his agent from further harming his victims.
You are clearly predisposed wanting to defend your hip, edgy, irreverant comedic idol Louis C.K., but obviously don’t quite have the courage of your convivtions to go all in for him and perhaps risk alienating all of your liberal, open-minded Straight Doper friends (who have made it clear that C.K. must be shunned for his sins like an unwed Amish 14 year-old girl pregnant with Snoop Dogg’s baby) but you know full well that Just. Last. Week. he “joked” onstage about the backlash to his harmless little kink, (to roughly paraphrase) “What the fuck’s the big deal? Yeah, sure, I love to jack off, but maybe I just don’t like being alone! HAW HAW HAW!!!”
You are on record saying earlier in this very thread how hilarious Louis’ gut-busting (nut-busting?) routine about the taboo, forbidden, ineffable carnal delights that sexually abusing young children must surely bring to their molester was to you, no need to back off now.
Well, it’s speculation but not pure speculation. His Manager has a lot of big names in his stable and is also part of a production firm that did lot of big movies and television shows. I’m just saying he could have said "shut up or you’ll never work in this town again " to CK as easily as CK’s victims. And again, that’s not giving CK a free pass. He definitely should have come clean even in that case.
Umm, ok. Kind of cranking it to 11 here, aren’t you? I don’t expect you to know me but I doubt many will agree with you that I’m worried about alienating my Liberal friends on the SDMB.
Just a specific note, Louis wasn’t at his height. At least in the NYT article on this, the last incident was in 2005. His first HBO half hour standup was in that year. Lucky Louie came out in 2006. He was just about to become a cash cow, which of course would probably not have happened if he had admitted all. You think he would have got either of those jobs had he fessed up? His Manager probably thought the same as you are.
This seems like a pointless nitpick/strawman. He was a man with a certain degree of status in the entertainment industry. It’s not like you had to be a Weinstein or a Moonves to benefit from the system that protected male misbehavior and punished women for speaking up.
And he did break the law. He just wasn’t arrested for it.
Unless there is a State in the Union that doesn’t have a law against exposing yourself to unknowing and unwilling individuals. I am fairly certain that all States have laws against this.
It is pointless if the issue of whether he was truly “king of comedy” or not makes a difference in the final analysis. It doesn’t, so this is a pointless nitpick.
Are you a lawyer? The odd twist to this is that is was not done in public and he specifically asked permission before he did it. I’m not sure exactly how an indecent exposure charge would fly, myself.
I addressed a specific quote that claimed he was powerful in the industry and thus immune from his Manager’s influence. So, not a nitpick.