That's just a poor excuse to dismiss them without any real cause to do so. Some people do legitimately value the opinions and experiences of those kids free of mind control or outside influence. Some people do not. Neither position is intrinsically more correct, but they can use that position to make silly statements, like you just did.
they demonized him and he fell off the map, now he is doing comedy shows at bars and clubs and they have given him national exposure. so what exactly do the haters want? do they want him to fail or succeed. his stock fell, its rising now that he triggered you all, then you gave him national exposure and now has the attention he wants again. if you don't like something its best to just shut up as it will probably fall of the map very soon. but crying and hollering only gives those you want suppressed the most attention. the day this story went national, louis CK was the most search name on the internet.
Their experience is in no way any reason to rewrite our nation's laws concerning gun ownership of the populace. So no, it's not a poor excuse to dismiss them, their opinion is automatically dismissed because of the narrative that's being pushed. I can't believe we're still having this conversation at this point in the game.
I won't be surprised at all if he still sells out shows. I would buy a ticket if he came here. It's got nothing to do with my moral compass. I think he's funny and not to be taken seriously. Just like any good comedian. The best ones will tell you themselves that they're full of shit.
"Take the time to sit down and talk with your adversaries. You will learn something, and they will learn something from you. When two enemies are talking, they are not fighting. It's when the talking ceases that the ground becomes fertile for violence. So keep the conversation going."
~ Daryl Davis
I mean I partially do take it seriously in the fact that it's a joke if they are going before congress. The same way I find it hilarious people keep trying to use them as political pawns and have thrust themselves into being public figures, but oh no we're somehow not allowed to critique anything they say or do publicly.
- - - Updated - - -
Somewhere between George W and Clinton it started. I at least remember the right was a massive joke and then the reversal is almost complete to where I'm almost ashamed to call myself a moderate with these jokers on the left now.
There were a whole lot of people laughing at a statement that was not funny then. In the past they would measure how funny a comedian is by how often a majority of the audience is laughing.
How do you measure funny? Clapter? Making sure the 'comedian' gets a good clap after each punchline? I heard that is the new bar, but I dunno.
Maybe what you meant to say is "that joke was not funny to me".
"Take the time to sit down and talk with your adversaries. You will learn something, and they will learn something from you. When two enemies are talking, they are not fighting. It's when the talking ceases that the ground becomes fertile for violence. So keep the conversation going."
~ Daryl Davis
The narrative that's being pushed? The only narrative is that they are victims of gun violence, any maybe we should take a look at our gun laws. Victims of gun violence also passed the Brady Bill. Basically, it takes something like this to get past the NRA and they still managed to fund enough lawsuits to take the teeth out of Brady eventually. No one does anything about gun legislation unless we have bodies. That's the point in the game we're at.
- - - Updated - - -
That's certainly one way to defend acting like a tool. The religious right didn't like cursing in music or sex on tv. People today don't like when you jerk off in front of women that didn't want you to. That's totally the same. You've got it.
Pretty much this. The kids aren't the joke. It's the adults who are using them as political pawns, fawning over their 'expertise', who are the butt of C.K.'s joke.
That makes sense. I've heard South Park's Matt & Trey talk about how they were scared their censorship would come from the religious right and said they were very surprised, that while they received letters of disappointment from conservatives, it was the Left that would come after them and their sponsors, constantly trying to get them fired. But anyway, for the time frame, it makes sense because that's when they got started. At a time when it was the one side who was known for the attempted censoring, and ended up being the other side who was doing it instead.
- - - Updated - - -
Yeah, you are going to have to help me with this one. Women who don't want something to do done in front of them tell you it's OK to do the thing in front of them? I'm not sure what you are saying. So when women say "yes", they are actually saying "no"? So Louis should have waited for them to tell him "no", because when ladies say that, it means yes? I thought yes means yes and no means no? You are really going to have to tell me how this consent thing works, because either you or I have really got it mixed up.
"Take the time to sit down and talk with your adversaries. You will learn something, and they will learn something from you. When two enemies are talking, they are not fighting. It's when the talking ceases that the ground becomes fertile for violence. So keep the conversation going."
~ Daryl Davis
It's this bullshit right here that I hate. You don't like what they have to say, so they are pawns of the system. They're just being used to push an agenda. They believe wholeheartedly in that agenda and are dragging the establishment kicking and screaming along with them to just sit down and talk about it, but sure, they're just being used. It's easier to dismiss them if they are dumb kids that the people you don't like are just using to further some political point than to actually consider that they actually want to be there and have something to say. There is no evil political overlord pulling the strings.
"Take the time to sit down and talk with your adversaries. You will learn something, and they will learn something from you. When two enemies are talking, they are not fighting. It's when the talking ceases that the ground becomes fertile for violence. So keep the conversation going."
~ Daryl Davis
You do realize that talk of what Louis did to female comics was going around for like 10 years before the story actually broke, right? He used to joke about how he would just do it and not give them the opportunity to say no. Or people that felt that they couldn't say no. There was no liberal crusade needed. He straight up admitted it. Other comics talked about it. But he was Louis so no one said shit. Don't give me this bullshit that those women wanted him to. Even Silverman said she didn't want it, but just thought he was a weird guy. And that was the nicest response to him.
- - - Updated - - -
No one is positioning them as experts. It's a thing people like you are inserting into the discussion. They are advocates with personal experience. Different than an expert, but valid enough to write an amicus curiae brief for a Supreme Court case. So I'm not sure what your point is. Also, you are positioning them as pawns that are being used to push an agenda aside from their own. Not as believers of their own ideas.
Louis used to talk about that stuff in his stand up. He would talk about how the sexual weirdness in his head goes way beyond anything these women he was around. Louis never tried to hide this. I have no idea of how that has anything to do with the fact that he asked for consent and received it before he performed any sexual act with or in front of women. So your task is to show me how asking for and receiving positive consent makes him a bad guy.
- - - Updated - - -
So if you agree they aren't experts, what's the point of putting them in front of congress?
"Take the time to sit down and talk with your adversaries. You will learn something, and they will learn something from you. When two enemies are talking, they are not fighting. It's when the talking ceases that the ground becomes fertile for violence. So keep the conversation going."
~ Daryl Davis
You can ask for consent with a minor and receive it. You can ask for consent with someone that works for you. You can ask for consent from someone that needs something from you or that needs you to not close a door on them. You can ask for consent and give the impression that there is only one acceptable answer or negative repercussions will follow. I didn't say he was a rapist. I said he was a shitbag that abused his position in a closed off community to get his rocks off on women who had no other recourse. Maybe he doesn't belong in jail, but he's certainly a scum bucket.
- - - Updated - - -
Advocates have never needed to be policy experts. Mr Rodgers testified before Congress.
They were grown women, not minors. They did not work for him. He didn't owe them anything and they didn't owe him anything. He never gave them the impression that their careers would be either hurt or helped by watching him. You seem to be making up your own standards to hate Louis. People ask other people for weird sexual situations all the time. Sounds like you believe only weak men are allowed to ask women for sex and any powerful man are not allowed to ask for consent, as they could potentially provide something of gain to the women, therefore it's impossible to give consent? Again, I really have no idea what you are talking about. It makes no sense to me.
You forgot to answer the part where I said, "what was the point".
"Take the time to sit down and talk with your adversaries. You will learn something, and they will learn something from you. When two enemies are talking, they are not fighting. It's when the talking ceases that the ground becomes fertile for violence. So keep the conversation going."
~ Daryl Davis
I thought the whole clip was pretty funny. Especially the part about the gender pronoun bullshit. If you're one of those perpetually offended people, no one is forcing you to listen to him.