Brilliant! Maybe I’m reading to much into the wording?
“public displays, premature comeback, appearance of a little more, put himself out there, feel it out, see what comes”.
I think he mostly appeals to women. Or did. And maybe that’s what all the brouhaha is about? I know I didn’t pay much attention to him, and then he got tangled up in some allegation or other. And then some people were upset that he still wanted to do whatever he was doing before. Post-responsibility ethics is a thing now.
That’s a pretty super wrong understanding of the story.
Ray Romano does before and after material. E.g., on his last appearance on Letterman he talked about the huge change in his life caused by Letterman’s production company giving him Everybody Loves Raymond.
Which immediately leads to Everybody Hates Chris, a TV show devoted to Chris Rock’s non-rich childhood.
There’s practically a genre of comics talking about their early life struggles contrasting it with their successful life.
It sounds like the guy needs therapy at a minimum. I’m not sure he understands that his actions were completely hostile to women. He gets that he was being shocking, but I think that’s how he gets off.
In principle, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with people doing what they can do to make a living, even when they’ve done something bad in the past. But making making that living should not include jokes about his foul actions without any sign of understanding that he actually hurt people.
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
ap·pro·ba·tion, /ˌaprəˈbāSHən/, noun
approval or praise.
Perhaps you meant opprobrium?
op·pro·bri·um, /əˈprōbrēəm/, noun
harsh criticism or censure.
Whoa. I give people a pass for stuff like the first part, where they question what happened and how bad it is, given they were colleagues or even possibly friends. But that second part is just horrible. It’s victim blaming bullshit that actually makes me think he’s probably assaulted some women. I googled, and I see no indication of an apology.
I’d tuned into the Netflix special and just didn’t find it all that funny, and I thought he had some ideas I didn’t care for. But I had no idea he went this far. And then left it in his specials, so that it would be repeated.
A woman is not weak because sexual assault and harassment that she is unable to talk about no longer wants to pursue a career where that happens.
Damn it. I thought I could still like him. Guess not.
I just assumed that, since the video existed, he must’ve been at least doing stand-up rounds. IMDb isn’t going to cover that. Now, my understanding is that he doesn’t do that.
I’d pay to see Louis CK, Michael Richardson, and Roseanne perform together.
I don’t think it’s all that grim for CK. The distribution rights for I Love You, Daddy were bought for $5 million so he made back his investment. According to Forbes, he made $52 million in “the year leading up to June 1st, 2017.” The first Netflix special had already been released and the second was in production when the shit hit the fan.
The money from “Louie” wasn’t chickenfeed, either. He wrote, directed, produced, starred in, and edited that show.
He might go back to doing his own stand-up production and distribution. In 2011, his Live as the Beacon Theater was posted on his website for five bucks and cleared a million in the first ten days. That’s remarkable, but if he was always so generous with his earnings, maybe he doesn’t have a high net worth.
The whole thing is so fucking disappointing. There was a decency (I thought) underneath the provocative and absurd comedy. Bleh.
I will admit I am not too familiar with Louis C.K.'s comedy, but I remember one of his bits was centered on how incredibly sexually satisfying pedophillia must undoubtedly be, as child molesters are willing to risk so much to indulge in it’s taboo, forbidden carnal delights.
HAW HAW HAW
That was the SNL monologue I described and linked above. That kind of uncomfortable topic humour has been a big part of his routines. I did indeed “haw haw haw” when I saw it.
I don’t think you have to assume there’s no decency underneath it all because of this. His exhibitionist predilection, for me, is just more pitiable than say a power abusing bastard like Weinstein. And afaik, the bad stuff CK did all happen a while back so it seems he was self correcting before it all blew up.
Probably there is. I don’t think much of his clumsy attempts to rehabilitate himself in public, but people are complicated. He had an awful lot of friends and seems to be a genuinely generous person. That’s coming from somewhere - one doubts that all of that was just a false front to cover for his creeper behavior, even if some of it might be.
He was a selfish prick who exploited his fame for cheap gratification and far, far worse at the very least passively let his manager intimidate people into not calling him on it( at the very worst he actively encouraged him to do so ). That makes him a fucking dirtbag overall. But there is no contradiction there with him being a decent human being in other respects.
You can be the kind of shitheel who exposes himself to teenagers on the bus and still be that “decent” guy who will stop and help someone with their flat tire and volunteer at homeless shelters.
Everyone is different, but I for one do not have too much pity for a multi-millionaire who, with a young daughter and pregnant wife waiting at home, pulls out his penis in front of two unsuspecting female colleagues and then proceeds to masturbate to orgasm and afterwards, when the story gets around the comedy circut, has his manager make it clear to their manager that they ought to keep quiet about what happened with the clear implication that any continued “exposure” of the incident would be detrimental to their career.
I doubt he was a multimillionaire at the time but whatever. Like I said, I am certainly not arguing that you should forgive or pity him
Threatening to shut down a woman’s comedy career if she told people what he did to her qualifies him as a power abusing bastard to me. The fact that someone is decent in some area, especially things like ‘being nice to people who are friends and/or who will do stuff for you’ is pretty meaningless; Hitler was very kind to animals and passed a bunch of animal welfare laws, but I don’t think anyone thinks we need to rehabilitate his image even though the bad stuff he did happened really far back also.
The idea floated in this thread that this rich boy who used his power to hurt people deserves another chance just doesn’t fly for me at all. His career isn’t over because of people being mean to poor widdle Louis CK, it’s damaged because people finally had enough of him being a power-abusing asshole to other people and spoke up. And it’s not like he’s even stuck working a boring retail job, he’s still working in his chosen field, just not making huge money at it. Pardon me if I fail to shed a tear for him.
I didn’t predict this thread would be Godwinized, but I guess that’s why it’s an internet law. I guess we’re done here.
Well, this is a totally reasonable response that I’ll waste time responding to.
Yes, it is certainly reasonable, and I agree that it would be a waste of time for you to respond, as there’s no reasonable comeback to it. Everyone, even one of history’s greatest monsters, does some nice stuff for people close to them, but Louis CK being generous to people who helped him silence his victims doesn’t negate that he has victims. The ‘but Hitler was nice to dogs’ defense is a bad one in general, and especially doesn’t work when there was a clear ulterior motive for the generosity. Before the situation blew up, Louis CK’s ‘generosity’ ensured that he had a whole parade of people including big-name comedians defending him and claiming there was no-way he would have actually done what he talked about in his routine. So no, I’m not going to take it at face value.
I’d pay to see a cage match, but I’m sure Roseanne would win.