-
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.
Louis C.K. performs another surprise set at the Comedy Cellar
- Thread starter Saya
- Start date
Sexual predator though he may be, pretending that Louis CK isn't funny comes across as a schoolyard insult. Just say he's a dick and you didn't want to see him.
Funny is subjective, you do realize there are people out there who legit can't stand Louis' comedy? Same goes for every artist who has ever existed.
The problem with the article is the misleading title and cherry picked quotes to paint a broad image of the entire audience., but there's absolutely nothing wrong with the quote you responded to just now. It was just a dumb quote to use in context of a misleading article.
To be fair, the thread is about the article which is very misleading.
Although at this point the conversation has mostly moved beyond the claims in the article.
Not everyone enjoys his comedy. I thought he was just okay on the two specials I watched. Not that it matters as the quality of his new material is irrelevant.
I'm sure every person who walked out did it because they thought he was never funny, lol. It's one quote from one person. They also didn't comment on whether or not they left due to his behavior, or if his behavior is a factor in whether or not they find him funny.
lol. just say he's a sexual predator who you didn't consent to seeing, but don't be a fucking dick and say he isn't funny, that's just uncalled for.
..calling him unfunny is "being a dick"? You know some people actually don't think he's funny. That's OK.
This is where I am. Part of Louie's appeal was that he was insightful about men's relationships with women, be they mothers, daughters, wives. And another was that he was willing to look hard at himself. He was funny of course, but that was what made the best of his work powerful. But by abandoning that, he's given up the most interesting part of his work. So even on a pure fan basis, even if I were able to overlook what he's done, he's shittier now as a result. Plus it seems like he has all these other idiot scumbag fans who've flocked to him because he isn't PC or some shit. These "wHy shOulD he aPoloGize?" morons don't even appear to know his work, given that the throughline in his standup for the past 20 years has been him talking about what a piece of shit he is. His cowardice is bizarrely out of character before you even get to the level of moral judgment.
lol
Don't want to dogpile you, but this is a bit silly. They could have genuinely disliked him, not everybody dislikes him because he's got a crippling sexual abuse addiction
I was being sarcastic lol. I know tone is hard to parse through written words, but i was laying it on pretty thick :P
The dude I quoted is insane lol
It's not a schoolyard insult. If someone is discovered to be a dirtbag then all their comedy is viewed through a different lense. He is no longer endearing, self deprecating and awkward he is a forward obnoxious douchebag. Of course he is no longer funny.
Watch I Love you Daddy and how he writes all the women as the main ones defending the predator. That movie is very telling in what type of person he is.
Take a look at this thread. People have said more absurd things than what you did with a straight face.
Why is it our place to forgive him? Have any non-victims who have forgiven him tried to find out if his victims have forgiven him, or seen how their careers have been affected?
I'm all for forgiveness, but it's not my place to forgive someone for things he didn't do to me. That's the victims' decision.
I think the sticking point for a lot of people wasn't just the jacking off and the entrapment, but also the attempts to blacklist them from the industry afterwards, effectively sabotaging their careers.
Maybe I can get down for a reformed Louis CK performing somewhat different material. Right now I think he needs to sit with what he did for a while longer, maybe the better part of a decade, maybe more. His loyal fans need to do the same... entertainment is cheap these days. You don't need him.
Last edited:
Sigh I got alert I was quoted by another poster and come to see your still coming at me.
Fact: neither NY or CA legeally define what C.K. did as sexual assault but indecent exposure. The only case where indecent exposure is considered assult is when a child is involved. So I was correct in my origional assertion it wasnt assault. Call it a sex crime if you want but assault means something.
2nd the Aziz example was used to show how once people devalue the case being made its easier for people who want to bring it down to take pot sbots at it. When its brought up now contrarians argue the Aziz story to say its gone to far.
No, watching more of this guy's work will not do anything to change the impression of this man who committed sexual abuse and got away with it completely and is still being supported by people like yourself despite the fact he has taken no action to prove he's even sorry for what he did.
I'm not "coming at you", I'm responding to people who are making excesses for your posts.
Sorry, but I see it as assault. He assaulted these women by forcing the sexual encounter on them. There was sexual contact even if it wasn't physical.
And the term is indeed very nuanced and applied differently in different places, here's an example:
He intimidated these women into a sexual encounter, hence it could easily be considered sexual assault.
Your assertion that it is 100% not assault and that term needs to be avoided has always had a very poor foundation.
the Aziz example was ridiculous as Louis literally committed sexual abuse. Aziz's case ws a much more mundane example of toxic behaviours that could lead to and help perpetuate abuse. It was a terrible comparison and had no value,.
Last edited:
When the problem with someone is that they're a talented person who has done some problematic things, saying they aren't talented seems like a weak point that doesn't hit the mark.
I can accept that maybe they just don't find him funny, as some people above above pointed out. Opinions etc.
The thing is, a lot of people are willing to look the other way about his past behavior because he is funny. Thats the real challenge, saying "bye" to someone who does give value to people.
I can't enjoy stuff by people that are exposed as being degenerates in real life. I don't have a high bar either just don't sexually assault anyone and I can deal.
User Banned (1 Week): Downplaying concerns over sexual abuse
Apparently he cleared your bar then.
What? There's 30 episodes of Better Things. He wrote 17 of them. 2 more of them he wrote the teleplay for it, and one more it was his story idea. The show is most definitely Adlon's and his. She's said as much, which is why the events of last year hurt her so badly, and unfortunately has affected the production of the show in such a way that it won't be airing this year.
And reductive is saying writing more than half the episodes of a show is "co-writing several episodes".
Louis CK has always been an overrated Carlin wannabe and his allegations don't make him any better. Dude hasn't even learned a single thing. But no he's a famous person, he should be fine.
Also she dropped Dave Becky from her representation once this stuff came out. I'm not sure she's a Louie fan at this point.
Are you saying the allegations are false? Or jerking it in front of women without consent isn't assault?
That poster doesn't care about the victims, or the fact Louis got away with his abuse almost entirely without making amends and is now returning to gigs to applause, because they enjoy their work and that's more important than the harm and suffering his actions caused.
He sexually assaulted them with his sexual abuse.
Quibbling over the term just proves you literally don't care about the victims.
lol he used to make fun of people and pretend like he's on a high horse and morally sound yet he's the same as the people he ridicules. Pathetic.
Also, his last Netflix special was unfunny - talking about abortion and murder and all that crap in a forced, unfunny way.
Also, his last Netflix special was unfunny - talking about abortion and murder and all that crap in a forced, unfunny way.
When you look at US law it isnt. And I checked 3 states NY, CA & WA 3 very liberal states. And what he did is indicent exposure in all 3, and would only be assualt in Washington if the person was unable to leave or mentally disabled.
A comedian being ousted for sexual harassment via exposing himself indecently in front of an unsuspecting audience and then going on to expose himself in front of an unsuspecting audience while never mentioning the first part is exactly the type of thing Louis C.K. would mock the shit out of.
Lol. Sounds very welcomed to me. I give it a year and he'll be back in full swing.
Sorry mate, but I've given enough information to prove that sexual assault fits because the term is nuanced and inconsistently used the world over.
So let's drop this please.
Pamela is the lead, it's about her life as a woman/mother/daughter and relationship with her own daughters, the show is drawn from her own life, and she has directed a majority of the episodes. I'm not reducing Louis' role in it -- I think "co-wrote more than half the episodes" and "co-write several episodes" is kinda splitting hairs -- I'm just pointing out that Pamela is the central driving force on that show. If that weren't the case, then there'd be no S3 happening.
You can take out Louis CK and still have Better Things (assuming this next season isn't a massive nosedive in quality or something). But you can't take out Pamela and still have Better Things.
I know all of that and it doesn't change the fact that he wrote some of the best episodes of that series, which is why I said I'll miss him on it. Pamela is also a great writer and actor. The entire show was great and hopefully she finds another competent co-writer to help her get the next season out. There aren't a lot of really good shows with an all female cast.
This where you play the technical tap dance and pretend what he did wasn't that bad?
OP
OP
yeah that's how the Comedy Cellar works. they don't bill Chris Rock or Amy Schumer, but they show up and do sets there too. that's kind of the whole appeal of the venue.
We understand this, it's just not a good look for someone who forced himself on others to suddenly appear before an audience like that. Of course people were free to walk out, and a few did, but of all the ways he could have chosen to make a come back this doesn't look great.
It might not seem like much, but to me it's part of the entire package of him not really caring about making amends.
From google:
i mean, i guess so. i don't think it's crazy to see a comedian who featured the club you're at in the opening of his TV show, where did his first gig after his 'hiatus' like two weeks ago, show up at said club, though. he's going to drop in sets somewhere before doing a billed gig - it shouldn't come as any surprise it's at the place he's been doing it for over a decade
After having what he did on the back of your mind may provoke that you don't find his jokes (Specially sexually charged jokes or about current affairs) funny anymore , you know?
We're upset because he seems to have not actually made any kind of effort to back up his claims that he's sorry, understands, and is listening, and while the link between trapping people in a room to abuse them and taking a room full of people by surprise with a set are flimsy, it definitely comes across as a little tone deaf as there is a parallel, which discredits his claim that he understands and is listening again (as well as the fact he doesn't appear to have tried to make amends at all, just hid for a bit and is now trying to ease himself back in without addressing the elephant in the room at all).
I think that he should have probably done something in public before even trying this, like a tour tailored specifically to take this issue head on, or some kind of public charity work using his wealth and platform, something... anything but just slinking back in like nothing happened.
I don't think just because this is what comedians usually do is a valid excuse here, his case is specific and he could have done a whole lot more to prove he meant what he said in his statement.
Saddest part?
This isn't "just" allegations, he's admitted it.
i'm well aware as to the reason for the consternation, and i share those feelings. there's been no real contrition or anything really out of CK since he addressed it initially, and coming back onstage without any kind of recognition of what happened doesn't assuage my skepticism about how he might eventually try to tackle it. i agree that there probably should have been some acknowledgement in a medium other than stand-up beforehand, but it's unrealistic to expect him to do a tour on material about him being a sex creep out of the gate. the whole point of doing these drop-in shows is to work on material for those tours - those annual hours are a result of those hours in smaller venues. putting his name on the bill will instantly sell out venues and result in a crowd who are attracted to the flame of the "BIG LOUIS COMEBACK SHOW" rather than the reaction a semi-neutral audience that wasn't expecting him would give. i guess he could attempt to do a tour with material he developed in a vacuum, but it would automatically suck since that's not how any of his other shit was created.
i'm not saying this as part of any "give him a chance" shit, especially since i'm not even interested in his "comeback" or whatever anyway, just pointing out that it's part of the process that would lead to a billed show. we're a little off of my original point here, but my initial point was that the audience at the Comedy Cellar wasn't being 'held captive' or having anything 'forced' upon them, and tbh the post i initially quoted is pretty grimy for the implied parallels between an audience paying for a comedy show and having someone unexpected do a set and actual sexual assault. just an unnecessary and inadvertently dismissive stretch imo