Louie CK and his apology

[Fridgemagnetman]

I don't believe he didn't know at the time it was wrong or a misuse of power.

Either an apology or off to 'get treatment ' as in spacey et al

The contracts people are going to have to sign in future before meeting up in any sense..,,

What can you say that can't be misconstrued or given a new slant retrospectively.(ie after a breakup)

A few steps to go before thought crime.

A British tv presenter years ago put a camera in the toilet, filmed his producer and put it live on air(male)
A tv host spoke about how she grabbed men by the whatever's as a greeting - much fun and laughter. Yet assault.

A joke on the Roseanne show about dan when she was asleep.,,, quite common. An ex friend boasted to me about it. Rape.

A woman being abused to point of tears in the office. Someone said if you were asked would you testify? Yes. I was laughed at.

What am I guilty of?

Foolishness. Drunkenness. Hurtful words. I never liked to be touched so I gave people the same. Lucky I guess as social ineptitude leads to mistakes.

Did those above have the same excuse?

 

[AspieWatchmaker]

I'm conflicted.
I'm the one you could sell a fridge to in the middle of winter in Alaska

Hey, I live in Alaska, and I use my fridge every day in the winter

Not condoning his actions, but I have a hard time imagining saying yes even if I did look up to him. From what I understand, there was no physical contact either? Just seems strange.

 

[Joel's Hear]

I do think it makes a difference that he apologized, most of the others are hiding behind their spokespeople. Maybe not much, but Jesus says to forgive them 777 times if they apologize. But maybe he did not mean if they were completely insincere?

My dislike of Hollywood borders on hatred, so I might can't give an unbiased opinion. I think all those pedophiles and womanizers should be sent to Siberia for the gulag treatment but I don't really like the women and men and the entire organization over there either. It's not about talent, only about who you know and how much butt you can kiss to get to the top. Everyone and I do mean everyone in Hollywood knows the secret lives of debauchery that all members partake in, and, I do believe the Hollywood Beast is throwing to the dogs some of the creeps it deems dispensable, to hide the fact that they're all in on it.

Drugs, lies, and creepy, glamor-less sex seems to be the only thing they're doing over there.

 

[Fridgemagnetman]

(Ahem)

I hope 'his old man' wasn't too pleased with the apology!

 

[OlLiE]

In my opinion there is a gradation in things. Some things are worse than others so some punishments should be more severe than others.

Sexual indiscretion/offense is not the same as sexual assault.
Sexual indiscretion/offense is an abuse of power, abuses of power come in many forms and should be punished depending on the damage they cause.

the reason this particular form of abuse of power is getting this attention is because it is about sex and public figures, everyone loves a scandal and, ironically enough, sex sells

I definitely do not condone what these men are alleged to have done, if proven be true

One could also argue however that a women using sex to get ahead professionally, to the detriment and damage of more 'honest' colleagues, is also abusing power, i am curious if the court of public opinion would also be as open to judging and publicly humiliating these women, and permanently damaging their reputations permanently, even if guilt has yet to be proven

Given that, based on sexual bias, in these matters men are assumed guilty until proven innocent, and that, even if found innocent, the damage to their reputations and livelihoods would be almost permanent, i would hope that severe punishments would be placed on any people who falsely accuse other people of these crimes.

again, if all these allegations about all these men are true, i hope they are punished through the courts,
my objection is how the media is being placed above the courts, how tweets are considered 'proof', how the great unwashed as a mass are considered judges, and that people are being damaged before their guilt has been proven, it is an objection of process not of content or principle

If a man is conducting a job interview with a woman alone in a room, and she feels that she is not going to get the job, what is to prevent her from blackmailing him with unfounded charges of 'sexism' or 'undesired sexual conduct', it will be her word against his, and based on sexual bias, he will be assumed guilty, and if proven innocent he will still be damaged goods while, tased on sexual bias, everyone will see her as a 'hero'

if a women is approached with 'lewd advances' by the world's most eligible bachelor or an unattractive man, would the accusations be the same?

would a female colleague wearing a low cut dress, and bending over your desk exposing herself when she needs something be accused of sexual harassment, would women using flirtation to get what they want be called sexual predators, and be accused of sexual harassment and be subject to public shaming,

to avoid any confusion, i repeat, if crimes have been committed, these men should be punished for them, by the law (and afterwards by public opinion) but that 'woman' and 'man' needed to be treated equally whether victim or perpetrator, that there should be neither assumption of guilt nor victimhood depending on sex

 

[OkRad]

Meanwhile, USA gymnastics is involved in a pretty bad sexual assault thing after never removing a doctor accused of rape. On teen girls who went on to win medals like the bada$$es they are, but it's not like anybody seems to care. That was a story that made me cry today, much, much worse and traumatic than "I went for an audition and there was a table for 2 with a candle, so I ran away" (no, I'm not pitting victims against other victims, but I have issues with the proportions some events are given over others).


I'm currently resisting a very strong urge to go super off topic and ask if you've ever watched The Americans, and if so what you think of it. Fighting that urge really, really hard (or hardly fighting it, it seems).

OMGSOH!!!! I was stunned. I had a coach once that did weird stuff to us, and exposed himself through his shorts, etc,. There was inapproriate touching, etc., but NOTHING LIKE THIS MONSTER did to those girls. MONSTER!!!!!!! ANd, as a gymnast, you get into the zone. You are very immature in many ways when your whole life is gym, gym, gym and you never date and you don't udnerstand. A "Doctor" might say you need this. I don't know what I would have done in that situation. I really don't. I hope I would have smashed his lights out, but no one did...........group think is strong and Olympic Group Think? I can only imagine!!!!!.

 

[Judge]

Sexual indiscretion/offense is not the same as sexual assault.

Absolutely.

So far the accusations against Louis C.K. are just that- accusations of sexual indiscretions. Whether they develop into civil suits remains to be seen. To my knowledge no prosecutors are presently preparing any criminal indictments against him. His career is in shambles, and it isn't yet clear what kind of litigation if any he may face depending on what else may pop up in the near future. Unless of course it turns out that he exposed himself to a minor. That is a criminal offense as former disgraced congressman Anthony Wiener can tell you.

On the other hand, it appears Harvey Weinstein is facing criminal prosecution based on sexual assault and rape charges. With the possibility of severe prison sentences if his "dream team" cannot get him acquitted. Apart from a potential avalanche of future civil litigation. Especially in the event he is acquitted of criminal charges.

Much like O.J. ("I want my stuff!") Simpson. Who may have recently violated his parole so quickly over a different crime, armed robbery. Acquitted of criminal murder, but found guilty of the same crime but in a civil court. Though apparently he's hardly paid any of the settlement to the plaintiffs. And yet Simpson claimed his life has been "conflict-free".

 

[Katleya]

OMGSOH!!!! I was stunned. I had a coach once that did weird stuff to us, and exposed himself through his shorts, etc,. There was inapproriate touching, etc., but NOTHING LIKE THIS MONSTER did to those girls. MONSTER!!!!!!! ANd, as a gymnast, you get into the zone. You are very immature in many ways when your whole life is gym, gym, gym and you never date and you don't udnerstand. A "Doctor" might say you need this. I don't know what I would have done in that situation. I really don't. I hope I would have smashed his lights out, but no one did...........group think is strong and Olympic Group Think? I can only imagine!!!!!.

I don't know either. I think it's one of those cases where you deep down think something is off, but don't necessarily dare complain about it and rule out the possibility that it's not you being paranoid.
I mean, that's the thing with a person in a position of authority assaulting you, it makes even less sense than a random stranger, if I may put it that way. Think about it: the girls are training, but the organization is supposed to be looking out for them and taking care of most aspects of their life while they "work" as gymnasts on the team. You would expect the staff is adequately screened, the organization makes sure you're not mistreated, etc. So if anything happens, how can you reconcile it with that part? Also, as you said, they're not dating or anything, so they might be a lot less likely to realize what behavior is sexual. And they're not doctors; how do you know as a kid that such or such gesture performed on you is appropriate or not?
(I had a creepy X-ray tech guy once, when I was 15, ask me to remove my pants and top, and stay in just my panties... for an x-ray of a toe. I remember screaming "you pervert, you're taking a picture of my f**king toe and don't need me naked for that", and I just lifted my sweatpants above the knee and that was that, but I was still too embarrassed to go complain about it to management at the time. And what if it had been an X-ray of my femur? It wouldn't have been so conspicuous that he was up to something, so I would have complied, probably with removing my top as well)

 

[Judge]

I still recall years ago working in insurance for a branch manager who constantly committed sexual indiscretions with nearly every attractive female he came into contact with. Rumor with the Home Office was that they were well aware of it. However as an insurance company they felt a wrongful termination suit was more to worry about than the specter of sexual harassment at the time back in the 90s.

The "bean-counter" approach in all its glory. No ethics required.

 

[starving_artist]

In my opinion there is a gradation in things. Some things are worse than others so some punishments should be more severe than others.

Sexual indiscretion/offense is not the same as sexual assault.
Sexual indiscretion/offense is an abuse of power, abuses of power come in many forms and should be punished depending on the damage they cause.

the reason this particular form of abuse of power is getting this attention is because it is about sex and public figures, everyone loves a scandal and, ironically enough, sex sells

I definitely do not condone what these men are alleged to have done, if proven be true

One could also argue however that a women using sex to get ahead professionally, to the detriment and damage of more 'honest' colleagues, is also abusing power, i am curious if the court of public opinion would also be as open to judging and publicly humiliating these women, and permanently damaging their reputations permanently, even if guilt has yet to be proven

Given that, based on sexual bias, in these matters men are assumed guilty until proven innocent, and that, even if found innocent, the damage to their reputations and livelihoods would be almost permanent, i would hope that severe punishments would be placed on any people who falsely accuse other people of these crimes.

again, if all these allegations about all these men are true, i hope they are punished through the courts,
my objection is how the media is being placed above the courts, how tweets are considered 'proof', how the great unwashed as a mass are considered judges, and that people are being damaged before their guilt has been proven, it is an objection of process not of content or principle

If a man is conducting a job interview with a woman alone in a room, and she feels that she is not going to get the job, what is to prevent her from blackmailing him with unfounded charges of 'sexism' or 'undesired sexual conduct', it will be her word against his, and based on sexual bias, he will be assumed guilty, and if proven innocent he will still be damaged goods while, tased on sexual bias, everyone will see her as a 'hero'

if a women is approached with 'lewd advances' by the world's most eligible bachelor or an unattractive man, would the accusations be the same?

would a female colleague wearing a low cut dress, and bending over your desk exposing herself when she needs something be accused of sexual harassment, would women using flirtation to get what they want be called sexual predators, and be accused of sexual harassment and be subject to public shaming,

to avoid any confusion, i repeat, if crimes have been committed, these men should be punished for them, by the law (and afterwards by public opinion) but that 'woman' and 'man' needed to be treated equally whether victim or perpetrator, that there should be neither assumption of guilt nor victimhood depending on sex

This is so wrong in so many ways. Taking out your penis and forcing your colleagues to watch you masturbate is not a "sexual indiscretion"--and that you would name it something so innocuous says a lot about you. And that you would equate women having sex to get ahead--which says more about the sexist power imbalance in a workplace than the women using that sexism to their advantage in the only way they can--also says a lot about you. Forcing someone in your workplace to watch you masturbate is not a "lewd advance"--it's wrong and there is no place for it in the world. Men who do it need to be in jail (or certainly be gone from their workplace) because they aren't safe to be around other humans.

You are mixing up flirting and sexual harassment in ways that make me think you also might not be safe to be around other humans, if you can't tell the difference. It makes me feel sorry for your coworkers, if you have any. Also, your perceptions of what usually happens when a woman claims sexual harassment in the workplace are laughably inaccurate. You really just seem like a sexist troll.

 

[tree]

 

[OlLiE]

This is so wrong in so many ways. Taking out your penis and forcing your colleagues to watch you masturbate is not a "sexual indiscretion"--and that you would name it something so innocuous says a lot about you. And that you would equate women having sex to get ahead--which says more about the sexist power imbalance in a workplace than the women using that sexism to their advantage in the only way they can--also says a lot about you. Forcing someone in your workplace to watch you masturbate is not a "lewd advance"--it's wrong and there is no place for it in the world. Men who do it need to be in jail (or certainly be gone from their workplace) because they aren't safe to be around other humans.

You are mixing up flirting and sexual harassment in ways that make me think you also might not be safe to be around other humans, if you can't tell the difference. It makes me feel sorry for your coworkers, if you have any. Also, your perceptions of what usually happens when a woman claims sexual harassment in the workplace are laughably inaccurate. You really just seem like a sexist troll.

i believe i said that at least three times that i in no way condone what was alleged/done, especially if it is proven in a court of law
I also not once mentioned this specific case, but shared some general thoughts , because i found news reporting to be one sided,
i said that there are gradations in things without specifying what things
i believe that i in no way i said that lewd act = masturbating, and of course what he is alleged to have done is wrong
i believe that i said that I was opposed to the process (ie judgement by media), that judgement should be made by a court and not the masses
i believe i only asked that sexual bias be dropped both ways,
i also in no way generalised women's conduct at work, i in no way said that all 'women' use sex to get ahead, just like not all 'men' are perverts, to deny that there are some of both is naive bordering on stupid
i believe i tried to say that stereotyping the roles of victim and aggressor, impedes the law's attempts to find the truth

so in brief, i would suggest to you that you:
learn to read before reacting
learn not to put your own thoughts in people's mouth
ask yourself why you feel the need to react personally to something that was purely an exercise in thinking, to try and look at things in a broader sense than what is on the news

in summary
your text says much more about you, than mine said about me,
you were unable to use reason to address my words, and preferred the most base and vulgar attack by making things personal, the ultimate sign of intellectual weakness

shame on you, i won't bother to lower myself to reply to you further

 

[starving_artist]

i believe i said that at least three times that i don't condone what was done, especially if it is proven
i believe i said that there are gradations in things without specifying what things
i also not once mentioned this specific case, but shared some general thoughts
i believe that i in no way i said that lewd act = masturbating, nor did i justify it
i believe that i said that was opposed to the process (ie judgement by media), that judgement should be made by a court and not the masses
i believe i only asked that sexual bias be dropped both ways, ie in these cases that men should not be typecast as the aggressor and women as the
i also in no way generalised women's conduct at work, i in no way said that all 'women' use sex to get ahead, just like not all 'men' are perverts

so in brief, i would suggest to you that you:
learn to read before reacting
learn not to put your own thoughts in people's mouth
ask yourself why you feel the need to react personally to something that was purely an exercise in thinking

in summary
your text says much more about you, than mine said about me,
you were unable to use reason to address my words, and preferred the most base and vulgar attack by making things personal, the ultimate sign of intellectual weakness

shame on you, i won't bother to lower myself to reply further

good, because your apologist sexist nonsense about women is not helpful or welcome in the topic. keep it to yourself if you don't want to be told how gross and unwelcome it is.

 

[tree]

Personal bickering is not the point of this thread.

The original topic is the apology given by Louis CK for his behavior,
with some thought to whether you regard him as possibly on the spectrum,
the impact on his colleagues (females he approached),
and whether or not you believe his behavior is forgivable.