Make Your Picks

Complaint About Bill Murray Halts Filming of 'Being Mortal'

Tools    





I agree. I personally loved Louis CKs latest 2 specials.

The trouble is though, when art created by these people is given a positive response in public, you get alleged victims of those people claiming they are still traumatised (which they no doubt are), and the artist has been rewarded for bad behaviour.

https://www.nme.com/news/tv/louis-c-...******-3203891

I'm fine with people continuing to hate a perpetrator. I understand how someone who was victimized may not want to ever hear about them again. And how it may seem like a slap in the face when they are given accolades.



But, if we are going to look at this particular situation, this perpetrator and this victim, and what point does is the perpetrator morally allowed to continue with his work? A year? A decade? Never? At what point is an audience allowed to talk about how they appreciated the work, regardless of the bad things they did? And if this particular victim would still be bothered by hearing his name spoken of kindly thirty years from now, should Louis CK still have to stay off the stage. Should we no longer listen to his work. Ever?



I don't know. Everyone is going to have a different answer to this. Most especially victims. But if we have a system of justice that is completely beholden to victim impact statements, we are most likely going to have a society where there is no place for redemption. I know some people approve of this. But I don't. I've been on the record since I was a child that I think a world like this would be a pile of shit.



As sad as it may be for people to see their victimizers continuing on with their lives, after a certain point, what else can we do? It's not like Louis CK has got off without any kind of punishment. His career has been in tatters for years, he has been a social pariah, has lost income and most likely deeply damaged his releationship with his children. And while he didn't serve any prison time, even if they had thrown the book at him, how long a sentence would he have been given? And would he have been allowed to rehabilitate himself after that stint, or would it still not been enough. Would he still have to live in some kind of bunker where he can't tell jokes or ever be told he did a good job.


What Louis CK did was an enormously shitty thing. He hurt people. He potentially damaged careers. One can only feel so sorry for him, especially as he only has himself to blame. And his victims have every right to take every avenue to keep telling him to **** off. And if awards ceremonies choose to keep his name off of ballots, I suppose that's their right too. But I'm not sure if we all need to be beholden to their calls for his ex-communication from any kind of public life. That we all have to talk in hushed tones in case someone overhears us saying we laughed at some jokes by such a person as Louis CK.



The trouble is though, when art created by these people is given a positive response in public, you get alleged victims of those people claiming they are still traumatised (which they no doubt are), and the artist has been rewarded for bad behaviour.
I mean, there's nothing "alleged" about what Louis CK did.

But, if we are going to look at this particular situation, this perpetrator and this victim, and what point does is the perpetrator morally allowed to continue with his work? A year? A decade? Never? At what point is an audience allowed to talk about how they appreciated the work, regardless of the bad things they did? And if this particular victim would still be bothered by hearing his name spoken of kindly thirty years from now, should Louis CK still have to stay off the stage. Should we no longer listen to his work. Ever?
The wealth and status earned by his comedy is what gave him the power and position to commit his abuses in the first place. For me, it is partly about putting someone back in that position of power, back in a place to commit more abuses. The fact that he'll use (if he hasn't already) his crimes as fodder for jokes (self-deprecating ones, I'm sure!) doesn't help.

Also, and sorry if this isn't fair or whatever, but it can be hard sometimes to separate out the "He did a bad thing but I still respect his talent as a comedian" fans from the "He did nothing wrong and he shouldn't even have said sorry" fans.

I don't know. Everyone is going to have a different answer to this. Most especially victims. But if we have a system of justice that is completely beholden to victim impact statements, we are most likely going to have a society where there is no place for redemption.
In what ways do you think he's done anything toward redemption? I actually really liked in the piece where the woman talks about what redemption would actually look like. I don't think that keeping your head down for a year or two is redemption. Especially when literally tens of thousands of people are willing to go to bat for you and say things like "If they didn't like it they should have stopped it." Punishment and redemption are not the same thing.

I've done a lot of training around restorative justice, which involves ways to make the victim and the perpetrator more "whole". Essentially waiting things out until enough people aren't mad at you anymore isn't anything close to making something right. How has he improved the lives of any of the women he damaged, or taken steps to deter others from the path he followed? Taking his lumps until he gets a comeback is self-centered if there's no effort to actually make positive change. And while I don't think that everyone who commits a sex crime needs to make a visible, positive change, I think that people with such a huge platform (and, let's be real, such a huge platform with men) do. (You know, if they are actually sorry and not just sorry they got caught/called out).



The wealth and status earned by his comedy is what gave him the power and position to commit his abuses in the first place.
I get there is an issue here, but what is the answer? There are all sorts of avenues for men to achieve wealth and power. So would he be allowed to become successful in other ventures? Or is it only comedy that he can't be trusted in? Do we monitor that he doesn't become too successful or too powerful in time, somewhere else? How do we do this? For how long?



The fact that he'll use (if he hasn't already) his crimes as fodder for jokes (self-deprecating ones, I'm sure!) doesn't help.
Then people can criticize the content and the intent of his material. I saw a clip from his special with a giant "Sorry" sign lit up behind him, and without knowing the exact context of this, found it glib and in poor taste. And it doesn't have me rushing out to watch it, even though in the past I considered him possibly the greatest living comic.



He's not above criticism. He's not above scorn. And if it is about what he says or how he behaves, people can go at it for all I care when it comes to how much they hate the guy. I don't have any particularly great sympathy for him. He's pretty obviously a prick and an ******* and a sex offender. But I'm also against the notion that he's somehow doing something inherently wrong by getting on stage. And that people are doing something bad by being in that audience.



Now this isn't to say I would say there are NO issues with that, and I would agree that there is definitely discussion to be had regarding it, but the idea that this is a settled matter, and you are complicit with him unless you condemn his behavior on every level of what he does or does not do, has no traction with me. And that is definitely the hot take some people seem to be peddling



Also, and sorry if this isn't fair or whatever, but it can be hard sometimes to separate out the "He did a bad thing but I still respect his talent as a comedian" fans from the "He did nothing wrong and he shouldn't even have said sorry" fans.
There is an enormous gulf between these two groups of people. I don't see why they should ever be confused with one another. The only commonality between them is neither accepts the idea that there is only one way to deal with an offender like CK. But still, the distinction is huge between them. Mostly because those in the latter group are rejecting the premise he did anything wrong, and that these sorts of things don't need to change. I'm in the former group. He did something wrong. These things have to change.



These kinds of discussions remind me of the kind of arguments I had with others when I was younger, when they spoke of people in prison who have better cable packages then they do, and get to study for diplomas, and how they all should be breaking rocks on the side of the road all day and in hell every minute for the rest of their time in jail. And when I reminded them that most of these people are one day going to be reintroduced to society and we might want to consider what a prison sentence like this might turn them into (ie. something much worse than went in), these people would look at me like I was absolving their crimes. That I had no respect for their victims. As if the simple notion of looking at what happened outside of the accepted narrative that these people were awful, unworthy scoundrels, I was now in cahoots with them. And so if the insinuation above is that what I've said is somehow indistinguishable from someone who claims Louis CK did nothing wrong, um, let's just say I disagree.



In what ways do you think he's done anything toward redemption?
I have no idea what he's done. Possibly nothing. And that would be unfortunate. But as I am not living in Louis CK's conscience, and I don't know what he does in his private life, I'm not going to suggest that redemption isn't for him. Maybe he doesn't deserve it. But I'm not the one to make the official declaration on that.



Should he have done some grand public thing to show that he learned his lesson? Maybe. I don't know. Or maybe it would be better sometimes if people just did such things on the side, away from the public, on their own, like any average person would have to do if they are trying to make up for the wrong's they've done. I imagine even if he did do some perfect public gesture of atonement, no matter how sincere his intentions were, it would still be greeted by skepticism and complaints that he didn't do it right.



I get there is an issue here, but what is the answer? There are all sorts of avenues for men to achieve wealth and power. So would he be allowed to become successful in other ventures? Or is it only comedy that he can't be trusted in? Do we monitor that he doesn't become too successful or too powerful in time, somewhere else? How do we do this? For how long?
I'm speaking to why a return to comedy is, for many, really distasteful. It feels like rearming him with the ammo he used to hurt people in the first place.

Can I understand others separating the art from the artist? Yes. But listening to people talk about enjoying his latest special feels like watching a predator be re-empowered in real time. It's not about policing CK, it's about watching people give him back the status that allowed him to be so predatory in the first place.

I'm also against the notion that he's somehow doing something inherently wrong by getting on stage. And that people are doing something bad by being in that audience.

Now this isn't to say I would say there are NO issues with that, and I would agree that there is definitely discussion to be had regarding it, but the idea that this is a settled matter, and you are complicit with him unless you condemn his behavior on every level of what he does or does not do, has no traction with me. And that is definitely the hot take some people seem to be peddling.
Getting on stage sends a clear message to the women he victimized, namely, "Still here!". And the fact that he's using their trauma as a punchline? Yes, I think that is inherently wrong. And I think that people giving him money and applause to do that is also wrong and bad.

There is an enormous gulf between these two groups of people. I don't see why they should ever be confused with one another. The only commonality between them is neither accepts the idea that there is only one way to deal with an offender like CK. But still, the distinction is huge between them. Mostly because those in the latter group are rejecting the premise he did anything wrong, and that these sorts of things don't need to change. I'm in the former group. He did something wrong. These things have to change.
How is that gulf obvious when you're reading a 4/5 star review of his latest special?

And how is it obvious that some fans want him to change when the only thing they have in their power--giving him money and attention--is something they continue to do? Is just saying "I'm sad he victimized all those women. Bad move, man!" meaningful in any iota of a way?

And when I reminded them that most of these people are one day going to be reintroduced to society and we might want to consider what a prison sentence like this might turn them into (ie. something much worse than went in), these people would look at me like I was absolving their crimes. That I had no respect for their victims. As if the simple notion of looking at what happened outside of the accepted narrative that these people were awful, unworthy scoundrels, I was now in cahoots with them. And so if the insinuation above is that what I've said is somehow indistinguishable from someone who claims Louis CK did nothing wrong, um, let's just say I disagree.
I think that rehabilitation is a powerful thing and I think it is possible to advocate for rehabilitation and humane treatment of offenders while still showing respect for their victims. But I'm not sure how Person A thinking CK did nothing wrong and paying to watch his special and Person B thinking CK did something wrong and paying to watch his special are different. Aside from the opinions they have in their brains that are miraculously not reflected in the cash CK pockets from them both.

I have no idea what he's done. Possibly nothing. And that would be unfortunate. But as I am not living in Louis CK's conscience, and I don't know what he does in his private life, I'm not going to suggest that redemption isn't for him. Maybe he doesn't deserve it. But I'm not the one to make the official declaration on that.
In which case we aren't actually talking about redemption or rehabilitation, we are just talking about moving on. CK had two years to think about how he could make things right. And maybe he's secretly funneling money into an organization that helps female comics get a foot in the door. Maybe he's working with a mental health professional to identify and unravel whatever mentality made him think it was okay to use his power to abuse multiple people. But what is visible, right now, is him in front of a neon sign.

I don't have the answers. Like, I'm sure there are people in jail for stealing cars, who will almost surely steal another car, and yet of course it makes no sense to keep them imprisoned forever. So I get that sometimes "moving on" is what happens and someone gets a second chance whether it's "deserved" or not. I just hope he's not continuing to victimize those he has power over, and I wish that more people cared that he did it in the first place.