And the part after that is what this entire thread is about
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
In case you needed a reminder that Louis CK is terrible... (Check threadmarks for staff post)
- Thread starter Ottaro
- Start date
- Status
Yup. At the height of his popularity, which is sometime just before Louie coming out and whenever his last special came out, it wasn't a typical thing for his sets to punch down. Back then, I'd expect a "trans joke" from his standup to mock cis-straight people's dumb interaction with trans people, not for him to call them whiney entitled children for, God forbid, having a pronoun preference. That's straight up cliche right-wing bullshit.
And the thing about the shooting survivors like word for word the rhetoric the Parkland kids had to deal with from the right when they kept telling them to shut up because they're just kids who don't know anything. There isn't even a joke there, it's the laziest example of "haha libtards, amirite" sort of rubbish you'll find on any dumb fuck's Twitter account.
What's your point? My original post said that I thought the part before the trans material was funny, after that it very much wasn't.
I hardly spun off on a wild tangent
Well I guess his only audience now is people who didn't find what he did wrong at all, and this is the kind of material they'd enjoy. Shame.
Care to explain? I'm genuinely confused at what you're getting at (if you even are getting at something...)
The bolded is the gist of why I always tend to hear conservative comedians arent really funny. Their jokes and sense of humor essentially lack that element. Its just punching down on people. And if these are the types of jokes you're making, thats the only audience you're gonna have.
Here's the thing: what Louie was doing here can't be classified as satire at all. It was just mean for the sake of being mean. Whether it's dressed up as comedy or not, bigotry is bigotry. There's room for subversion, but this ain't that.
2 minute snippet of admittedly unfunny tone deaf content isn't enough to convince me he has deliberately and aggressively pivoted to chasing the alt-right "political correctness has gone too far hurrrrr" crowd.
Go away for another 6 months and listen some more Louis. You can still redeem yourself, but not like this.
Go away for another 6 months and listen some more Louis. You can still redeem yourself, but not like this.
He was actually responding in defense of the joke about the school shooting survivors...which uh yeah, not much better.
He's already doing his new material, and is unfortunately getting laughs from idiots and bigots - he's learnt exactly what he wanted to learn, he ain't changing
It's kind of amazing how his older comedy was seeped in self awareness and self deprecation. His new material could've been an avenue for him own up to his gross behavior and take steps to make amends. Would people have accepted that? Not everyone. Would some take it as crassly opportunistic? Probably. But this new stuff so uncharacteristic of his old style. A straight 180 where he's playing a victim in a roundabout way.
Thank you for taking a clear stance on this, it's very appreciated
Yep, I kept waiting for the joke to actually appear, for the setup to twist into the punchline. But, it never occurs, at least in that clip. Its literally just him punching on transfolk and school shooting survivors.
lmao what a thread to clean house in. people clutching them transphobia pearls like it's all they got. folks comparing this to 'thoughtcrime' foh.
Just now seeing this.
If you can't beat em, punch down. Very classy.
Anybody wanna die on the hill of "he lost everything" in this thread? I'm sure he's working on how to incorporate his sexual abuse into a set, to the glee of any crowd that will listen.
He was never interested in being sorry or taking responsibility. He just briefly hid like the coward he is and emerged as an evil asshole, punching down on trans people and fucking HS shooting victims who were brave enough to take a stand to make things better.
And the nuts thing is that there are a fuck ton of people who will lap this trash up.. Not just the alt right or republicans.
People showing their asses in this thread.
If you can't beat em, punch down. Very classy.
Anybody wanna die on the hill of "he lost everything" in this thread? I'm sure he's working on how to incorporate his sexual abuse into a set, to the glee of any crowd that will listen.
He was never interested in being sorry or taking responsibility. He just briefly hid like the coward he is and emerged as an evil asshole, punching down on trans people and fucking HS shooting victims who were brave enough to take a stand to make things better.
And the nuts thing is that there are a fuck ton of people who will lap this trash up.. Not just the alt right or republicans.
People showing their asses in this thread.
Sometimes idiots get impatient and wanna run back to GAF and complain/brag about getting banned here
I wish they'd catch more than days-long bans. Nuke every one of these accounts from orbit IMO.
Still not as much as the Henry Cavill #MeToo thread. That one had like three bans every page.
People choose the strangest hills to die on.
Last edited:
Swab wrote " or guilty of hateful rhetoric?
They should be deplatformed and hate speech/public decency laws need to be enforced."
Enforcing decency laws usually means fines and or jail time, that's what it has meant in the past.
I might be "stating the obvious here", but since a few posters have brought up the fact that C.K asked the women he masturbated in front if "it was ok", that his behavior should be seen in a much more lenient way than if he had just coldly done so anyway.
I think some of these posters are misunderstanding consent. In several reports, women who encountered C.K in this way described a situation where C.K didn't leave much time for the women to properly react to his proposition before starting to undress (ie, act as if they consented).
Consent isn't merely about saying a string of words, like you're throwing a "get-out-of-trouble"-spell. What's been fairly consistent with C.K's way of behaving, is that he's been - kinda cynically - leaning on the fact that he "did ask if it was ok"(I guess, mostly to soften his own behavior by distancing himself from other high-profile people who didn't "ask" before committing an act that later became established as sexual assault, once it came to light).
I don't want to sound all dramatic here, but there is something that's particularly off-putting about knowingly misusing the concept of consent in this manner.
If you start undressing 10 seconds after abruptly asking an acquaintance "out of the blue" if it's okay if you showed them your dick, you're clearly not particularly interested in establishing actual consent, as much as you're using the concept as a way to (cynically) soften the severity of your actions (in a way that's actually quite perverse, cowardly and very dark).
I'm obviously not privy to the precise circumstances of every time C.K has done or tried this strategy. But while it's possible that he did honor the wishes of the women who were quick-enough to rebuke him, the precise way several of these accounts have been described have left me with the feeling that asking for consent was more of a formality, than an actual choice given to these people.
I think most people - on this forum, at least - have properly picked up on the subtext of this behavior, and how flimsy it is as a point of defense. But I figured it wouldn't hurt if I just wrote out my precise thoughts about it, since it's been on my mind for the last couple of hours.
My point is that (as well I understand the situation) he might as well not have asked, because he clearly didn't give these people proper time and space to actually make an informed decision, which is what consent is all about.
I don't think C.K is dumb enough to not understand this; quite the opposite. I think he cynically worked a "nice-guy" angle to his assault, and it feels disingenuous to have it talked about as if it actually made much difference just because it superficially registers as "consent".
I'm not interested in "calling anyone out" here; just adding some thoughts. Cheers.
I think some of these posters are misunderstanding consent. In several reports, women who encountered C.K in this way described a situation where C.K didn't leave much time for the women to properly react to his proposition before starting to undress (ie, act as if they consented).
Consent isn't merely about saying a string of words, like you're throwing a "get-out-of-trouble"-spell. What's been fairly consistent with C.K's way of behaving, is that he's been - kinda cynically - leaning on the fact that he "did ask if it was ok"(I guess, mostly to soften his own behavior by distancing himself from other high-profile people who didn't "ask" before committing an act that later became established as sexual assault, once it came to light).
I don't want to sound all dramatic here, but there is something that's particularly off-putting about knowingly misusing the concept of consent in this manner.
If you start undressing 10 seconds after abruptly asking an acquaintance "out of the blue" if it's okay if you showed them your dick, you're clearly not particularly interested in establishing actual consent, as much as you're using the concept as a way to (cynically) soften the severity of your actions (in a way that's actually quite perverse, cowardly and very dark).
I'm obviously not privy to the precise circumstances of every time C.K has done or tried this strategy. But while it's possible that he did honor the wishes of the women who were quick-enough to rebuke him, the precise way several of these accounts have been described have left me with the feeling that asking for consent was more of a formality, than an actual choice given to these people.
I think most people - on this forum, at least - have properly picked up on the subtext of this behavior, and how flimsy it is as a point of defense. But I figured it wouldn't hurt if I just wrote out my precise thoughts about it, since it's been on my mind for the last couple of hours.
My point is that (as well I understand the situation) he might as well not have asked, because he clearly didn't give these people proper time and space to actually make an informed decision, which is what consent is all about.
I don't think C.K is dumb enough to not understand this; quite the opposite. I think he cynically worked a "nice-guy" angle to his assault, and it feels disingenuous to have it talked about as if it actually made much difference just because it superficially registers as "consent".
I'm not interested in "calling anyone out" here; just adding some thoughts. Cheers.
Last edited:
A lot of transphobes in this thread sliding straight out of their one week bans into my ignore list, much like Louis CK himself
So rather than attempt to redeem himself in the eyes of the audience he lost by being a fucking creeper he's instead decided to take the easy way out and pivot to the audience that doesn't give a fuck about what he did. As has already been said, this is basically the Evilore gambit.
The HS shooting victims joke was also pure trash.
LOL. Oh boy I almost forgot about that one. Showing My Ass, the Thread
Nah, buddy, you should be unique and accuse everyone else of being a hivemind while being dismissive of their outrage.
??
I'm just wondering if I'm missing something. Has Louis CK befriended Dennis Miller? Was there some kind of Louis CK + Dennis Miller union? If so, I'm curious because Dennis Miller is an insufferable prick and I'd love to know more.
Public decency laws don't really add up to jail unless you are jumping through the smallest of hoops or the offence was atrocious in the first place.
Fines, community service, ASBOs like we have in the UK.
Yes, it ends with someone asking you if this is the hill you want to die.
Not really, but if I'm banned so be it. Just found it curious. Why Dennis Miller?
This is an act from a man that knows he will never be in hollywood again. He will always have an audience just like Bill Cosby could have kept touring if it wasn't for his health and like Andrew Dice Clay can still tour. But Netflix, and shit? gone
There's a difference between offensive jokes that anyone could still laugh at and just being a jerk.
It's possible to be offensive and transgressive without also being cruel.
- Status