|Gmork - 2017-11-10 |
If the lizards didn't like it they would get up and run.
|Bort - 2017-11-10 |
It's reached the point that I'm saying, "oh thank God all he did was masturbate". Still completely unacceptable, but it could have been so much worse.
So, which celebrity would really break your heart if he / she turned out to be a sexual predator or a white supremacist? For me it's Amy Poehler.
For me it was Louis CK, pretty much.
Also, a handful of directors and musicians.
It was public in a rumored way since at least 2012 (Gawker, I think?), but the claims were vague enough that I wasn't about to draw any conclusions.
If there were 5 cases, I'm really ambivalent about the comedy duo's claims (go ahead and 'REEEEEE' all you want about that), but the other 3 cases mean I am no longer a fan of one of my favorite talents of all time.
I am not quite lumping him in with Polanski, Allen, Cosby, etc, but CK is still far enough over the line that I'm no longer a fan.
Jen Kirkman talked a few years ago about some very top-tier comedian who made her watch him masturbate, and a lot of speculation was that it was Louis CK. However, she was warned by people not to make any public accusations or her career would be over. She has publicly denied that she meant Louis CK, but all signs point to, it was him and she couldn't out him for her own well-being.
So I think it's a complicated thing: if you made the accusation you stood a good chance of destroying yourself. To be sure that was an issue for a lot of lower-tier celebrities. But then you've got Jon Stewart who was all "Wha, whoa, hey, what are these accusations you speak of, ha ha why I've never heard such a thing! I never even visit the Internet, what is that anyway?"
Jon Stewart is one of the few guys, I feel, who could have risked doing the right thing and very likely walked away okay -- he had less excuse than most.
Tie between Weird Al and Robin Williams
also Bill Nye...god damn that would suuuuuck.
To me this isn't that big a deal. It's gross, but it doesn't affect how funny I think he is (moderately funny), or the quality of his work. He's been dropped by FX, his agent, and who knows what else today. It seems like a bit of an overreaction, when there are people working in Hollywood who are butt fucking children on a regular basis, and everyone seems to know about it. I guess if Louis is one of the domino's that needs to fall to get to the bigger ones, so be it.
Anyway, Weird Al seems like a pretty good pick.
That or Ernest Borgnine.
i work in hollywood. the stories about louis ck jerking off in front of girls have been around for years. but what can you do with a rumor?
"but what can you do with a rumor?"
Yeah, it's one thing if someone is making an effort to defend Louis CK (or whoever), and it's another thing if they're simply not attacking him.
If you were, say, Amy Poehler or Tina Fey -- both of whom probably have no use for jerks who harass women -- you might well think the best you could do is provide a safe environment for women and encourage others to do the same. But picking a fight against an entire system that encourages or at least tolerates harassment, is like a mosquito picking a fight with a can of Raid.
Louis in fact guest starred on Amy Poehler’s Parks & Recreation after they already knew what was going on. I think someone from the show has publicly regretted it now.
Yes, Michael Schur has apologized.
If Steven Spielberg were ever accused in a realistic way, I think it would kill a small part of me.
I would say Arnold S. but he avoided sexually harassing anyone in lieu of screwing his ugly maid, which in all honesty was probably a much better route to go because an ugly woman is never going to resent being fucked by Arnold.
The masturbating in front of someone thing is bad, but I think it's somewhat hilariously included that he's also being accused of asking some women if he could masturbate in front of them and didn't. Like, I could understand for the woman he actually did it in front of. Who needs that? But this is straight out of an episode of his show. I have to wonder why he whipped it out and jacked off. I'm guessing some woman on his crew just really pissed him off and he wanted to get revenge.
He never raped anyone so he's still cool with me.
Also, Demi Moore. That would totally make Disclosure a horror movie.
Oh shit, might need to change my answer.
"I agree with Stanley, and think this sliding scale of sexual assault people are using to play rape-relativity with the victims is the exact process by which friends and colleagues of rapists choose to justify not telling anyone.
Remember when morality was a thing?"
I very much agree with you that someone should have done something. Only, it's hard to figure out who that person is and what they should have done.
I also imagine that there's so much harassment going on, of various kinds, that the only way to cut off contact with all harassers would be to leave the business altogether.
How do you fight racism / sexism / homophobia in an environment that encourages them? There's something very brave and poetic and unquestionably moral about being the first to denounce everyone who deserves it and, very likely, be smacked down hard for it. A more workable strategy -- which I suspect many have tried to practice -- is to foster safe environments and try to expand them as the opportunity permits.
We already know Brando did it because it was on film.
Lots of interesting suggestions, but Stephen Hawkings was the best by far.
Oh yeah, BTW, the dude is a total horndog and is known for leching after his nurses. It's not even a secret, just look at public accountings of his life. I seem to remember a story about him being at a conference in Nevada around his birthday and a bunch of physicists took him to a brothel.
Another total abuser of ladies and horndog? Einstein, naturally.
The boss guy from "Glengarry Glen Ross!"
Oh shit.. wait.
THAT GUY'S boss from "Glengarry Glen Ross!"
This is hard!
|jangbones - 2017-11-10 |
|Meerkat - 2017-11-10 |
I dunno man, masturbation with Greg Gutfield is pretty indefensible.
|BHWW - 2017-11-11 |
Ha ha, laughs all around, yes. Now, miss, would you sit on the corner of the bed and WATCH ME WHACK OFF
|misterbuns - 2017-11-11 |
so no one is going to talk about how horrible this entry level UCB sketch is?
|Braze - 2017-11-11 |
I was really impressed by Graham's portrayal of Judalon Smyth in the new "Law and Order Menendez Mysteries" or whatever.. the miniseries itself is batshit at times but Graham and Edie Falco reallly carry it and make it worth checking out.
|Adham Nu'man - 2017-11-11 |
Am I the only one who thinks that if I'm having a few drinks with a woman and she says "Let's go back to my hotel room" she means "HEY WANNA FUCK?".
Is that something I think just because of toxic masculinity or is there something else that happens in hotel rooms after drinks that I am unaware of?
I'd certainly consider it a likely interpretation, but not conclusive proof. Further investigation required. By the time her fist is up your ass, you can feel pretty confident that sexy times are afoot.
That doesn't apply here, though.
He asked a comedy duo after their performance if they wanted to go back to his room, and I don't think there were drinks involved and I don't think "threesome" is something most people assume.
One woman said he was jerking off over the phone during some random conversation.
Another one said she asked him while they were sitting around the set of one of the shows they were working on.
If these were women he was chatting with over drinks, invited them back to his hotel room, and then when they got there asked if he could paddle the pig newton, it wouldn't be as clear cut and people probably wouldn't be so upset. You can have your weird exhibition fetish, but you gotta work up to it not open with it.
|cognitivedissonance - 2017-11-12 |
On the one hand, it's really important that we frame the narrative as an infantilization of women, ultimately incapable of taking any initiative on their own and certainly never to be allowed near the corrupting influence of entertainers.
But on the other, Americans also really fear the human phallus, and the worst thing that could ever happen would be to merely see one. Simply seeing a penis you don't want to see is a terrifying experience. Our innocent women, who cannot make decisions on their own let alone make the active decision to choose not to be a performer (because performing is the most important thing a human being can do) are at the mercy of entire forests of dicks, thrusting themselves at them at every move, and should they ever make the mistake of enjoying themselves, they should be shunned and exposed as the syphilitic whores they actually are and must be displayed as being.
|somedongus - 2017-11-12 |
So lets see. Weinstein raped, harrassed, and abused dozens ofwomen all over the planet for 40 years, then payed a private intelligence firm to gaslight his victims and journalists. Cosby ditto, except he had the star power to cloak himself in the guise of a beloved moralistic grandfather type. Spacey apparently tried to rape a 14 year old and was massively sexually agressive towards male co-workers and strangers in bars for years, which he tried to pass off as just part and parcel of him figuring out how to be a gay man. Woody Allen might have sexually abused his 7 year old stepdaughter, & he then married a different stepdaughter. Charlie Sheen allegedly raped then 14 year old Corey Haim, and much later, after learning he had HIV proceeded to fuck a bevy of women over a number of years, sans protection, without ever mentioning his HIV status.
Fuck all of those people, they can rot in hell.
Louis CK masturbated in front of two women once, 15 years ago after first asking for permission(whether or not he should have accepted their laughter as consent or not is debatable). He then asked a couple of other women if he could jerk it in front of them, and when they said no he apologized. He also jerked it over the phone once. He has admitted to and apologized publically for these actions.
I can't say I am super happy about Louis CK having done any of that but to compare him to the aforementioned group of monsters is super extra unfair. As bad as what he did was I do not think that he, or his past (or necessarily his future)work is forever irredeemable as a result.
PS Please consider this defence null and void if it should in future be revealed that he too is a kiddy diddler\rapist.
Paul Reubens has bounced back and I’m sure Louis will. Pooty-Tang is a thing of beauty and wonder. If Chinatown is still a work of art even though Polanski is a kiddie diddler and possible Satanist, I’m sure CK will survive.
Yes I just compared Pooty-Tang to Chinatown.
I would agree that it's not on par with that other shit.
I'd also say that most or all of CK's actions in question were wildly over the line, and I am not sure how I would consider him redeemed, but I think it would be insanely puritanical to say that no one could ever redeem themselves from certain kinds of misdeeds.
But for fuck's sake, I wish the Louis CK story began and ended with 1:30am hotel room drunken bad behavior, but it doesn't.
It also includes fucking with people who work with you or for you, and cornering people and jerking off, and not letting them leave. That is way, way beyond awkward or rude.
It doesn't have to compare to *worse* behavior to be well over the line.
The thing about "consent" in the Louis CK case is, as even he admits, when there is a power dynamic you can't really get consent.
Let's put it differently: why are there no stories about Louis CK doing this to anyone except female comics of a much lower tier than him? Most likely because these were women who would be reluctant to slap the shit out of him, for fear of what it would do to their careers. There are no stories of, say, fans of his comedy work meeting him after the show and him pulling his junk out.
When I think about these various cases, I do try to factor in nuance, because sex is notoriously full of miscommunication. We're collectively getting better about understanding that. So there are cases where I can believe that it wasn't assault so much as misunderstanding of what the other person wanted; I do try to factor that in. But the thing that, to me, is damning about Louis CK isn't where masturbation falls on the scale of offenses, but rather whom he did it to. ... to? ... with? ... athwart?
Side note, I'm going to offer a partial defense of George Takei. While here, in this enlightened year of 2017, we recognize that trying to undress / fondle / sexually interfere with another person while they're unconscious is rape, back in 1981 that wasn't anywhere near consensus. As recently as, say, 2010 there was still debate about it. And as a data point, I give you an episode of "Laverne and Shirley" from 1977 or so, in which Laverne was very likely taken advantage of at a party, and it's no big deal except that it means she could be pregnant:
The (likely) rape is treated like a joke until Laverne starts showing signs of pregnancy. The guys who did it aren't even considered creeps, if anything they're more like protagonists of Mentos commercials who saw an opportunity and took it.
Anyway, George Takei. He invited a guy back to his place for drinks and the guy passed out. While we are clear today that you don't go further if you don't receive positive consent, by 1981 standards it somehow wasn't obvious. The biggest question in my mind is whether the drink was spiked; even back then, drugging the other person was crossing a line.
... I just remembered: in the late 80s, feminists and other sane people were still fighting the battle of "if she says 'no' it's rape". I can't even imagine that being a controversial perspective. I can remember it, but I can't imagine it.
How things have changed, for the better. And if SJWs sometimes embarrass us by going too far, that's the price we pay for having gotten as far as we have. It's a price worth paying.
I have never just asked someone for sexual intimacy, what sort of sick fuck do you need to be. What happened to the helpful kids shows about "How do I know if she likes me?" Where you figure out the intricacies of flirting and non-verbal cues? It's not fucking difficult people, and Louis the Wanker is a very intelligent person, he's just obviously a cunt. Should he go to jail? Who knows. Should everybody treat him as the cunt wanker he is? Absolutely.
And while I find it difficult to agree with Bort, he's right about SJWs, they do go too far, and some of the academic 4th wave feminism theories are just intellectually dishonest false drivel, but for whatever reason, the Twitter Pitchfork Army has created an environment of armageddon for every sick fuck who can't even learn his ABC's and follow them in order to respect other humans. Fuck this shit, and the way it's been, I've said it before up there, it's time for a witch hunt, in every fucking business, not just Hollywood or politics.
"when there is a power dynamic you can't really get consent"
is the sort of ideology or at least sloganeering that IS over-applied, to situations that don't merit it at all.
And, like any good puritanism, that over-application is used to scourge and persecute.
Also, surely "it's time for a witch hunt" is an ill-chosen phrase at best. I hope you understand the idiomatic meaning of "a witch hunt"...?
I hope it's clear that I'm talking about shit other than CK, here.
Yeah I guess it's a poor choice of words. But these guys might actually be witches, and as much as I hate the Twitter Pitchfork Mob, something is happening, and it's a good thing. I hate trial by media too, and there are already heaps of innocent black people in jail, so what's a few old rich white guys?
Oh, I agree that it's generally good, without a doubt.
Nobody should be subjected to the CK stuff or the Weinstein stuff, let alone the worse stuff.
I haven't seen weighty evidence that society as a whole has taken this too far. But there are notable people in the Twitter mob working hard at taking it too far.
I think this is one of those problems where most people agree damn well on where the line is, and it seems that we cannot really figure out how to enforce the line.
The line is drawn in the laws that were made, but the onus was on women to report it, or refuse to be coerced, and a lot of women feel complicit or guilty that they let it happen and gave "consent" and if not they WERE of the belief that no-one would believe them, and that 5-10 years in court while your career hits the furthest reaches of shit creek with no canoe was not worth the effort, and even not a wise decision in an industry influenced heavily by rich, white disrespectful men, or a justice system controlled by rich, white disrespectful men.
Whatever the reason now women feel that speaking up will manifest an effect is great, and I believe that it has something to do with women BELIEVING they are equal, instead of protesting and ASKING to be equal. And, individual belief gives a person power, and if it's the lack of power that caused the shit-fuck-stack to occur in the first place, then it shows ultimately what power is.
Hmm... we might disagree on some of this.
I hope you're not suggesting that people shouldn't even need to report things, or object to things they don't like or want; or that consent is impossible for metaphysical reasons in certain situations.
And although I will agree with you that the practitioners of law are much of the problem (and that it becomes an in-group all the time), I also hope you're not suggesting that we can generalize about white men being somehow worse by virtue of being white men than others in that same position would be by virtue of being not-white-men.
A lot of the problem is that our courts still operate on a standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt". Mind you, I think it's a good standard; it just makes it damn difficult to prosecute when there was a shortage of witnesses (other than the plaintiff and the defendant) and not necessarily much physical evidence.
The other side of it is, those of us who are not on a jury are fine to believe what we want. If Bill Cosby, Louis CK, and Vlad Bartleby want to go on a tour together, we are not obligated to buy a ticket. HOWEVER, that leads to the topic of defamation, where a person making accusations can be held accountable for the accusees' careers taking a hit. For example, I just implied Vlad Bartleby is a monster, when in reality I just made that up, and in fact I made up the name to make a point. (Google suggests nobody's got that name so hopefully I have done nothing to hurt anyone's career or reputation.)
Vlad Bartleby writes college essays for people.
I tried Vlad Bartleby's service, but he just got lazier and lazier.
I think I'm trying to make my point without writing 1000 words. So I'll try to answer some issues you raised. I'm saying women have felt like reporting abuse/assault was previously pointless, that no-one would believe them, that it would ruin their careers, and make their trauma worse, and that for whatever reason in the last few months this attitude has changed where reporting is happening, and good things are happening because of it. And it is my hope that more good will come in the future on a case by case basis, and women will report abuse/assault immediately and not lose their livelyhood or mental/emotional wellbeing or their reputation in any given industry.
And as for consent, for eg. someone like Rose McGowan who gave consent to weinstein for 6 years and got fucked/raped feels like she gave consent, knew she was being coerced into giving consent, felt she had no choice, felt like fighting back would only make things worse, and now all those women are fighting back and making things better, and the next young girl in a hotel room will have more power because of these things, and be in a position to refuse consent. I think that's what I'm saying.
And yeah, I read an article by a middle aged women, who spoke about requiring power to give consent, and that women now are realising their own power whereas say 10-20 years ago they felt powerless. And I like to theorise on where that power shift has come from.
It's not going to be a very popular opinion on this site, but I think a lot of the reason women are standing up and being heard is this most recent election, when one of the most qualified candidates ever was rejected in favor of almost certainly the worst. Talk to women and you'll see that too many of them have lived similar experiences, being passed over in favor of clearly unqualified men, being held to unreasonable standards, being the victims of blind unreasoning hatred that insisted it was perfectly rational and justified. A great many women ran out of fucks to give.
Cue the usual gang telling us about how perfectly sane and rational it was to let Trump into office because Hillary reminded them of their mothers or schoolmarms or whatever.
"Cue the usual gang telling us about how perfectly sane and rational it was to let Trump into office because Hillary reminded them of their mothers or schoolmarms or whatever."
. . . including 44% of women who voted.
I'm not disagreeing, though, and I don't know if that would be an unpopular opinion here.
I think the real question is, "What kind of woman is Hilary Clinton? And is that the sort of woman you want defending abuse/assault of women?"
|Nominal - 2017-11-12 |
Why did the chicken cross the road?
Because Louis CK was jerking off on his side.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|