Louis CK's premiere, Colbert appearance canceled. Multiple Sexual Allegations

[The One Percent]

Perfect time to strike. Well played.

[callipygoustp]

I don't see an issue with what is discussed in the article. Most, if not all, of us have our own kind of kink that others would find pervy. Without passing any judgement on CK : was CK being pervy? Sure. Not so sure that there was anything "wrong" with what he did.

[oplawlz]

? isn't that the issue? she is stating she didn't give permission. Silence is not a yes.

Now we're in he-said she-said territory though. She didn't leave, which to me gives any claims by him about her agreement plausibility. Was she locked in the room? Was blackmail involved? I've seen no indication of such. Once again, I respect her enough to assume she made her own decision and thus expect her to accept responsibility for it.

[NihilSustinet]

I know what empathy is, I just don't care about random people. My point was merely to demonstrate the absurdity of the entire "Well, if doesn't bother you, pretend like it's someone you care about so it does bother you" mind set. It's fucking infantile.

You seem like a sociopath. not attacking you, but you might want to get some help with that. The point of that exercise is to generate empathy if you lack it. carign about other people is the opposite of infantile. your way of thinking is the childish one here. "people dont matter unless i know them" fuck right off.

[DSRilk]

Fair enough, from what I read in the yahoo article it never said they wanted it. Might say differently elsewhere.

The article said they thought it was a joke. However, they were invited to hang out in his hotel room. I'm sure he assumed they knew he was inviting them up there for lascivious reasons. Even if they didn't know that, however, it's his hotel room. You chose to go into it. You can choose to leave. You say stop unzipping, he doesn't stop, but in no way tries to keep you there, then you leave. Or you do what these people seemed to do, which is continue to stand there and stare at it, then come about as if he made them look under duress. There's plenty of real assault. Printing crap like this as if it were assault is a horrible thing to do, as it totally belittles actual victims of actual crimes. Weinstein had power over people. What he did was horrible. What I'm reading Louis did was just gross.

And since when did we as a people decide that for non-violent crimes that theoretically happened over a decade ago, for which there has been no proof presented and no trial, the proper response is retributive unemployment?

[Orange Joe]

I know what empathy is, I just don't care about random people. My point was merely to demonstrate the absurdity of the entire "Well, if doesn't bother you, pretend like it's someone you care about so it does bother you" mind set. It's fucking infantile.

You are thinking about this the wrong way. It's not to make it bother you. It's to make you understand that it is wrong even though it happened to random person. it's saying if you would get upset about this happening to your sister, You should understand see why it is wrong that it happened to this person.

Essentially it's not having double standards.

[DSRilk]

I know what empathy is, I just don't care about random people. My point was merely to demonstrate the absurdity of the entire "Well, if doesn't bother you, pretend like it's someone you care about so it does bother you" mind set. It's fucking infantile.

You say infantile, I say ethical... potayto potahto. You may know what empathy is, but from your statements, you just don't have any. No judgment, btw, but I do think you should own it instead of seeming to pretend otherwise.

[Orange Joe]

Now we're in he-said she-said territory though. She didn't leave, which to me gives any claims by him about her agreement plausibility. Was she locked in the room? Was blackmail involved? I've seen no indication of such. Once again, I respect her enough to assume she made her own decision and thus expect her to accept responsibility for it.

Shock can effect many people differently. Should could have been in shock he asked than even more shock when he just pulls it out.

That said, this is just guessing atm. Only 2 people know what really happened in the room.

[DSRilk]

Getting naked and waxing one out in front of unwanting parties doesn’t seem the least bit.... criminal to you? Again weather this is true or not is what matters.

Inviting someone (over whom you have no power or authority) who knows you might fancy them up to your hotel room, having them say yes, asking them if you can do something, and not having them say no... according to the article that's what went down, btw... no, it in no way seems criminal to me.

[Mistame]

You seem like a sociopath. not attacking you, but you might want to get some help with that.

I'm good, thanks.

The point of that exercise is to generate empathy if you lack it. carign about other people is the opposite of infantile.

Learn to read, kid. The method of garnering empathy is what I said was infantile, not the empathy itself.

You are thinking about this the wrong way. It's not to make it bother you. It's to make you understand that it is wrong even though it happened to random person. it's saying if you would get upset about this happening to your sister, You should understand see why it is wrong that it happened to this person.

I didn't say it wasn't wrong, I merely said that your attempt to garner sympathy for these women was silly. It's just a fucking dick. It's like society is regressing sexually. I really can't be bothered to "empathize" with someone who "unwillingly" saw some dude's dick and then didn't report it until years later. The behavior on both sides is fucking retarded.

And for the record, if it were my sisters, one would have put it her mouth and the other would have beat his ass. I, personally, wouldn't have cared. They're grown women and can take care of themselves.

You say infantile, I say ethical... potayto potahto. You may know what empathy is, but from your statements, you just don't have any. No judgment, btw, but I do think you should own it instead of seeming to pretend otherwise.

In this scenario, no, I have absolutely none. If a grown-ass woman can't handle her shit and then decides to jump aboard a pity train years later, fuck her and her little dog, too.

[Requimortem]

Are they trying to time it so the news comes out at the most inconvenient moment?

With all the allegations coming out, nobody has bothered to put their pitchfork down and take a step back to ask how much of this true or to even wait for, as I said earlier, irrefutable evidence. You would think with all the technological advances our race has made for the past twenty years or so that we would be smarter as a whole but it turns out the opposite is true.

[I Push Buttons]

The article said they thought it was a joke. However, they were invited to hang out in his hotel room. I'm sure he assumed they knew he was inviting them up there for lascivious reasons. Even if they didn't know that, however, it's his hotel room. You chose to go into it. You can choose to leave. You say stop unzipping, he doesn't stop, but in no way tries to keep you there, then you leave. Or you do what these people seemed to do, which is continue to stand there and stare at it, then come about as if he made them look under duress. There's plenty of real assault. Printing crap like this as if it were assault is a horrible thing to do, as it totally belittles actual victims of actual crimes. Weinstein had power over people. What he did was horrible. What I'm reading Louis did was just gross.

And since when did we as a people decide that for non-violent crimes that theoretically happened over a decade ago, for which there has been no proof presented and no trial, the proper response is retributive unemployment?

They didn't say it was assault, they said it was misconduct.

[Celista]

Haven't read the story but have read comments about Louis CK all over the internet for years.

[Sky High]

And since when did we as a people decide that for non-violent crimes that theoretically happened over a decade ago, for which there has been no proof presented and no trial, the proper response is retributive unemployment?

you can look at my first post in this thread for the answer to that.

- - - Updated - - -

Inviting someone (over whom you have no power or authority) who knows you might fancy them up to your hotel room, having them say yes, asking them if you can do something, and not having them say no... according to the article that's what went down, btw... no, it in no way seems criminal to me.

...what? they laughed it off thinking he was joking, that's not saying "uh huh yeah, start masturbating in front of me". ugh, this thread is gross, already.

[DSRilk]

I'm good, thanks.



Learn to read, kid. The method of garnering empathy is what I said was infantile, not the empathy itself.



I didn't say it wasn't wrong, I merely said that your attempt to garner sympathy for these women was silly. It's just a fucking dick. It's like society is regressing sexually. I really can't be bothered to "empathize" with someone who "unwillingly" saw some dude's dick and then didn't report it until years later. The behavior on both sides is fucking retarded.

And for the record, if it were my sisters, one would have put it her mouth and the other would have beat his ass. I, personally, wouldn't have cared. They're grown women and can take care of themselves.



In this scenario, no, I have absolutely none. If a grown-ass woman can't handle her shit and then decides to jump aboard a pity train years later, fuck her and her little dog, too.

Wasn't meaning you SHOULD feel bad for the women in this article - I certainly don't, given what we know of it from the article. I was more referring to your specific comments on feeling that empathy for other people was "infantile".

- - - Updated - - -

you can look at my first post in this thread for the answer to that.

- - - Updated - - -



...what? they laughed it off thinking he was joking, that's not saying "uh huh yeah, start masturbating in front of me". ugh, this thread is gross, already.

I didn't say they told him it was all good, or that their silence implied that they wanted him to whip it out and play with it. I'm saying that even if they had no idea he was a pervy guy interested in them for salacious reasons, they could have just walked out. Someone thinks they're in a situation where they can do something sexual, so they start. You say no. They either stop or you leave. Either they saw him pull his pants down and left, thus he did not masturbate in front of them, or they stayed there after he dropped trow and watched - in which case, it's their own fault. He didn't have them trapped or something, nor was he holding movie roles over their head or anything.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

I mean people are complaining about guilty until proven innocent but with what Hollywood has experienced recently(Weisntein and others). You can't just ignore this shit.

[DSRilk]

They didn't say it was assault, they said it was misconduct.

I'm not sure what the definition of misconduct is, but I can't see how what was done - even if it happened exactly as reported - should result in destroying that person's career. I don't like Louis C.K. as an actor or comedian, and I'm pretty prude by any standard, but I just can't see how what he did was anything other than put himself and a couple girls in awkward situations. In college, I took a girl to an observatory. She assumed it was a date and tried to kiss me afterward. I wasn't interested. I said so, and that was the end of it. If I had stuck around, it would have been my own fault. What she did was not misconduct or anything else, and Louis didn't even make physical contact with these people as far as is being reported. I just don't understand what is going on these days - what Weinstein reportedly did and what Louis supposedly did... just aren't in the same ballpark, and yet they seem to be having basically the same result. And that's not even considering the point that these results are happening without any trial where both sides are being played out. It's literally, and not in a Trumpian way, a witch hunt.

[Sky High]

I didn't say they told him it was all good, or that their silence implied that they wanted him to whip it out and play with it. I'm saying that even if they had no idea he was a pervy guy interested in them for salacious reasons, they could have just walked out. Someone thinks they're in a situation where they can do something sexual, so they start. You say no. They either stop or you leave. Either they saw him pull his pants down and left, thus he did not masturbate in front of them, or they stayed there after he dropped trow and watched - in which case, it's their own fault. He didn't have them trapped or something, nor was he holding movie roles over their head or anything.

I don't give a shit about your hairsplitting, take a hike.

[DSRilk]

I don't give a shit about your hairsplitting, take a hike.

Standing in some guy's hotel room and watching him masturbate after he TOLD you he was going to whip it out vs being forced somehow into watching it is not splitting hairs, sorry.

[Video Games]

At this point it would probably be easier to list the famous people not accused of, or been the victim of, sexual assault or harassment.

1. Liam Neeson
2. The lead singer of Dexy’s Midnight Runners
3. I’ve run out of names

I was actually questioned by police about this happening back when i was younger (I won't share details). It's very rampant.