Louis C.K.

Tools    





Welcome to the human race...
But this leaked set came out months after the initial wave of accusations so he's had enough of a chance to reflect on what he's done wrong and actively try to better himself - if the material in this set is indicative of what he's liable to do when given a second chance, then what was the good in giving him one?
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



But this leaked set came out months after the initial wave of accusations so he's had enough of a chance to reflect on what he's done wrong and actively try to better himself - if the material in this set is indicative of what he's liable to do when given a second chance, then what was the good in giving him one?
I don't follow. What's the point of giving him a second chance over sexual harassment if he...tells jokes about gun control? How are the two connected, beyond the fact that they presumably both go in the category of Things You Don't Like?



“Sugar is the most important thing in my life…”
I'm not smart enough to debate with Iro or Yoda...or anybody else for the most part. I get lost on why the content of a standup act matters. Is it because we always believe the person and act are one and the same? Is standup different from other art forms?



I think we probably enjoy and validate a lot of art that was made by scumbags before everyone had a mobile recording device and social media.



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
I'm not smart enough to debate with Iro or Yoda...or anybody else for the most part. I get lost on why the content of a standup act matters. Is it because we always believe the person and act are one and the same? Is standup different from other art forms?



I think we probably enjoy and validate a lot of art that was made by scumbags before everyone had a mobile recording device and social media.

I think it's becoming political (but not ideological)



Standup is tricky. It's obviously not just a pure expression of belief. On the other hand, I think pretty much all comics are expressing some version (exaggerated, perhaps) of things they believe, or things that are some expression of their id. George Carlin might not have literally believed we should broadcast executions on television and have people wager on them, but it's also hard to imagine he'd make that joke if he were an ardent supporter of Project Innocence or something.

Sure seems like a lot of newer comics are just expressing ideology, though, in moderately humorous ways. Whole lotta "here's my personal journey" stuff, too. A tiresome amount, if you ask me. And even if other comics aren't doing it, that ultimately has the effect of causing people to think of comics in general as people just expressing opinions a certain way, even though a lot of them aren't.



i’d be okay with forgiving him if he showed even the slightest amount of self-reflection. remember when he said he was gonna take some time to step back and “listen” lol. it turns out he decided it was easier to just become a hacky right-wing comic than to actually apologize.
__________________
Most Biblical movies were long If I Recall.
seen A Clockwork Orange. In all honesty, the movie was weird and silly
letterboxd
criticker



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
i’d be okay with forgiving him if he showed even the slightest amount of self-reflection. remember when he said he was gonna take some time to step back and “listen” lol. it turns out he decided it was easier to just become a hacky right-wing comic than to actually apologize.
right-wing? (back to school)



Welcome to the human race...
I don't follow. What's the point of giving him a second chance over sexual harassment if he...tells jokes about gun control? How are the two connected, beyond the fact that they presumably both go in the category of Things You Don't Like?
I would say that there is a certain overlap between the tacit acceptances of both rape culture and gun culture that are demonstrated by both him being afforded multiple chances to perform and his material that condescends towards shooting survivors respectively that would appeal to a certain political perspective. As such, I question how much he is actively trying to appeal to such a perspective now that he's lost enough of his "progressive" credibility (or rather hadn't lost so much but still saw the path he chose as the most reasonable of his available options).

I'm not smart enough to debate with Iro or Yoda...or anybody else for the most part. I get lost on why the content of a standup act matters. Is it because we always believe the person and act are one and the same? Is standup different from other art forms?



I think we probably enjoy and validate a lot of art that was made by scumbags before everyone had a mobile recording device and social media.
Regarding why the content matters, I think it's to do with questioning why we make the jokes that we do - a quote I saw attributed to W. Kamau Bell posited it as a means of demonstrating which individuals/groups we want to either include or exclude through the particular senses of humour we share with other people (e.g. telling racist jokes means you include racists and exclude people of other races). If a person chooses to share jokes with the public as a comedian does, they are expressing a viewpoint that can be engaged with by audiences for better or worse - even if they shrug off any criticism by saying they were "just joking", they were still advocating (consciously or not) for the proliferation of certain views and attitudes. As such, standup is like any other means of artistic expression - the artist creates material and the audience responds to it. That and the art created is different enough so that you can't seriously describe it as being all the same. You don't equate George Carlin and Jeff Dunham for the same reason you don't equate Citizen Kane and Disaster Movie.



i’d be okay with forgiving him if he showed even the slightest amount of self-reflection. remember when he said he was gonna take some time to step back and “listen” lol. it turns out he decided it was easier to just become a hacky right-wing comic than to actually apologize.
He apologized and disappeared for a year. He still hasn't communicated in public. He simply is doing some stand-up in clubs to test new material he's come up with.

For how long does someone have to "step back" and disappear for being accused of masturbating in front of women (with their consent) ten years ago? What's the appropriate punishment according to you?

All I'm seeing is the same Louis from before the public accusations. He isn't being a "hacky right-wing comic", he's simply being himself: a guy who isn't afraid to touch on difficult and controversial topics in his jokes and stand-up. If that automatically means he's a "hacky right-wing", I think that says more about the status of the left today than anything else. If you think he can't do that anymore, you are simply asking him to quit his job, because it's an integral part of his identity as a comedian and it always was.
__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019



I would say that there is a certain overlap between the tacit acceptances of both rape culture and gun culture that are demonstrated by both him being afforded multiple chances to perform and his material that condescends towards shooting survivors respectively that would appeal to a certain political perspective. As such, I question how much he is actively trying to appeal to such a perspective now that he's lost enough of his "progressive" credibility (or rather hadn't lost so much but still saw the path he chose as the most reasonable of his available options).



Regarding why the content matters, I think it's to do with questioning why we make the jokes that we do - a quote I saw attributed to W. Kamau Bell posited it as a means of demonstrating which individuals/groups we want to either include or exclude through the particular senses of humour we share with other people (e.g. telling racist jokes means you include racists and exclude people of other races). If a person chooses to share jokes with the public as a comedian does, they are expressing a viewpoint that can be engaged with by audiences for better or worse - even if they shrug off any criticism by saying they were "just joking", they were still advocating (consciously or not) for the proliferation of certain views and attitudes. As such, standup is like any other means of artistic expression - the artist creates material and the audience responds to it. That and the art created is different enough so that you can't seriously describe it as being all the same. You don't equate George Carlin and Jeff Dunham for the same reason you don't equate Citizen Kane and Disaster Movie.
So with his art an artist can solely express which audience he wants to like his art?
That's an extremely cynical and commercial-minded view on art that I don't share at all. Real artists (like Louis) can provoke uneasiness and gain approval with all kinds of people through their material. The best example is C.K.'s former fanbase, which consisted of both staunch liberals and conservatives. His talent brought a lot of people together and I think it still would if the political climate wasn't so absolutely toxic nowadays.

Avid leftists don't want Louis anymore because he's now become a symbol of misogyny and speech that doesn't belong in their "safe zones" where noone can ever be offended.



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
Yeah, all those people on the "left" who want to abolish private property, desiring a planned economy, shutting down all the fancy banks in an attempt to centralize the credit in the hands of the state.


There is no "left" in the US.. I'll say it over and over. It's elementary political definitions, but the lazy media throws it around for morons to watch. I don't see any liberals. I only see people wanting to be paid millions of dollars for retweeting.



He apologized and disappeared for a year. He still hasn't communicated in public. He simply is doing some stand-up in clubs to test new material he's come up with.

For how long does someone have to "step back" and disappear for being accused of masturbating in front of women (with their consent) ten years ago? What's the appropriate punishment according to you?
the amount of time doesn’t matter to me, what matters is whether he shows that he has actually learned his lesson and shows remorse. in what world do you automatically receive forgiveness if you just wait a little bit and then come back with no discernible changes? maybe he could try to prop up the women whose careers he’s ruined or donate some of his millions of dollars to RAINN, or perform a stand-up set where he reflects on what made him do the things he did. i was a huge louis fan and any of those things would’ve made me happy to go back to being a fan, but instead he decided to use his platform to attack one of the most marginalized groups in the world for having the nerve to request they be treated with respect. not to mention that the jokes are the hackiest **** you could find on the internet in like 2009 and kids these days are actually much wilder than they used to be.

All I'm seeing is the same Louis from before the public accusations. He isn't being a "hacky right-wing comic", he's simply being himself: a guy who isn't afraid to touch on difficult and controversial topics in his jokes and stand-up. If that automatically means he's a "hacky right-wing", I think that says more about the status of the left today than anything else. If you think he can't do that anymore, you are simply asking him to quit his job, because it's an integral part of his identity as a comedian and it always was.
his jokes that dealt with controversial topics used to be at least self-deprecating and about how he was a piece of ****, they weren’t just lashing out at marginalized groups. it is not a coincidence that some of his last bits before his downfall were about like supporting hillary and other social justice topics, but now that he’s been caught he is going after transgender people and gun-control advocates and right-wing media has accepted him with open arms. it was a calculated decision.

and i have no problem asking him to quit his job. until he demonstrates he has learned something, he is a genuine danger to the other female comics he works with and will result in women understandly dropping out of the shows he’s on, thus making stand-up even more toxically male and unwelcoming to women. he is also a multi-millionaire and will be just fine financially.



Welcome to the human race...
So with his art an artist can solely express which audience he wants to like his art?
That's an extremely cynical and commercial-minded view on art that I don't share at all. Real artists (like Louis) can provoke uneasiness and gain approval with all kinds of people through their material. The best example is C.K.'s former fanbase, which consisted of both staunch liberals and conservatives. His talent brought a lot of people together and I think it still would if the political climate wasn't so absolutely toxic nowadays.

Avid leftists don't want Louis anymore because he's now become a symbol of misogyny and speech that doesn't belong in their "safe zones" where noone can ever be offended.
More cynical and commercial-minded than the view that a guy with his history should keep getting chance after chance to stay relevant and profitable simply because he's a "real artist" even as his generally provocative material starts to seem/become more singularly reactionary?



Yeah, all those people on the "left" who want to abolish private property, desiring a planned economy, shutting down all the fancy banks in an attempt to centralize the credit in the hands of the state.


There is no "left" in the US.. I'll say it over and over. It's elementary political definitions, but the lazy media throws it around for morons to watch. I don't see any liberals. I only see people wanting to be paid millions of dollars for retweeting.

Not just the US but the UK and the world too. There is a lack of real discussion of issues and there is no a real lazy use of the terms left and right wing. The political debate should be healthy and be about the rate of government intervention, taxation, fiscal policy, protectionism etc. but instead it isn't, nowadays the terms are used almost solely to describe attitudes towards social issue. Left wing now means championing liberal rights such as those of minorities and right wing means that you disagree with that and don't think the government should intervene in the private lifes or try and police the opinions/actions of people. I don't see what is right wing about making jokes, or even gun ownership actually.
__________________



Welcome to the human race...
Jokes are a form of creative expression that also function as an extension of the joke-maker's worldview, which would include the potential influence of political opinions. As for gun ownership, you said it yourself - it's part of the whole small-government thing.



Jokes can function as an extension of the joke-maker's worldview, but I don't think that they necessarily do. This is the problem now, comedians are not allowed to joke about anything - illness, death, sexuality etc. - and if they do they are attacked. I would regard myself as very left-wing, I support the expansion of liberal rights but they shouldn't come at the cost of the right of expression, and it doesn't mean that I don't find jokes about them funny. Nowadays debate and comedy is suppressed and anyone who dares to attack "sacred subjects" are labelled as monsters and attacked, it's not okay to merely disagree and discuss. They are labelled as "far-right" and "fascists" and as a result these labels have now become meaningless and are rarely actually used correctly.


Also on gun owernship, a lot of left-wing communists support gun ownership, a lot of democratic socialists (in the vain of Orwell) do too. It's an example actually of an issue which has become so polarised and if anyone not seen as conventionally "of the right" states that they support gun ownership they are attacked as an immoral monster.



Welcome to the human race...
If we're talking about the "right of expression", then technically that means you have the right to make jokes of that nature and I have the right to criticise you over the jokes you made. The severity of the criticism rises to meet the severity of the jokes, hence why C.K.'s offences and his subsequent actions (including his attempts to return to live comedy) are being so thoroughly condemned rather than merely tolerated.

Also, I thought this particular gun issue that was referenced in C.K.'s set was to do with how America's lack of gun control allowed for such a proliferation of mass shootings that the teenage survivors of one such shooting decided they'd actually take a stand on it and that's bad because it's apparently not what the cool kids do.



If we're talking about the "right of expression", then technically that means you have the right to make jokes of that nature and I have the right to criticise you over the jokes you made. The severity of the criticism rises to meet the severity of the jokes, hence why C.K.'s offences and his subsequent actions (including his attempts to return to live comedy) are being so thoroughly condemned rather than merely tolerated.

Of course, and I agree with this. What I don't like is instead of people saying that they don't like these jokes, that they're tastless or whatnot, people instead label the joke teller as a right wing immoral monster, I think it's lazy, slightly irresponsible and a dissapointing sign of our current times where discourse is poor and people refer to cheap hyperbole instead of actual explaining their position.