People in their industry gossip about them. Which is why admitted serial sexual harassers having to leave their field and transition into new careers is the normal standard for normal professions. Louie shouldn't get held to a lower standard just because he's a famous millionaire.
It is exactly the same standard, he is just rich.
Okay, then why should Louie get the benefit of the rich man's justice and be able to buy his way out of consequences? My position is that that double standard shouldn't exist for anyone.
So what are you suggesting? Anyone who breaks a law should have their wealth confiscated by the state?
What exactly is going on in that scene?
If you've seen his show you don't even have to use your imagination.
Hey that might not be a bad idea in the case of some of the ultra rich.
Not at all. I merely think that it is normal and appropriate for admitted serial sexual harassers to have to leave their fields of work for flagrant professional misconduct, and that for Louie to face those consequences is normal and appropriate. For some reason a lot of posters here think that he should be held to a lower standard for absurdly illogical reasons such as: he is rich, he is funny, they don't like "outrage culture," or they think people being drummed out of industries for flagrant misconduct is new territory somehow. Often they are just ignorant of the basic facts of Louie's misconduct.
It's exactly what it looks like. He's sexually assaulting his friend.
But once again, you're missing the entire point. What you consider to be 'normal practice' when these things happen is not in of itself the result. People aren't changing jobs because they sexually assaulted someone, they're doing it because they need money. Louis does not. He's rich, and he has other revenue streams. He's a landlord in two nice buildings in New York. He doesn't have to work ever again. He's choosing to do so.
aint no drive by if I'm answering.
Should? Should is irrelevant.
That's the exact opposite of your argument though.
I think he should apologize and open up much more than he has. This is a guy whose entire brand is aggressive self-scrutiny and deconstructing his worst impulses. He hasn't scratched the surface of what he needs to do to rebuild the trust of his audience. If he wants to have a relatively normal standup career that's not constantly disrupted and derailed by protesters, that's the bare minimum. If he doesn't, then public criticism, protests, disruption, and deplatforming will be the reactions that should greet him.
So he should try being a comic in another English-language country like New Zealand or the Bahamas. If he refuses to atone, then exile seems appropriate. Even so, in places where we can stop the OJ standard of non-justice for rich men, we should do so.
Not a rapist.
Oh, by all means, be willfully ignorant then.
Minimizing it by calling it what it was instead of stupidly calling it what it wasn't? There's no need to lie about the facts when what he did was fucking heinous already.
It's a lie to call someone who hasn't raped a rapist. I can't believe that actually has to be explained to someone, but here we are. This is such a stupid conversation to be having and I can't believe I actually engaged you.
I understand your strong feelings toward Louie, and I agree that what he did was disgusting (I don't agree with people who willingly go to his shows or applaud him just for showing up, and don't think he should be anywhere near a comedy stage), but calling him a rapist only detracts from discussion. Some similarities are there in terms of the power mindset and taking advantage of people/treating them like sexual objects, of course.
All that needs to be said really.
