Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
There isn't even a "he said, she said," its just a rumor from a third party. There isn't an actual accuser.
Gawker put up an article accusing Louis CK of sexual misconduct
- Thread starter shadyspace
- Start date
- Status
There isn't even a "he said, she said," its just a rumor from a third party. There isn't an actual accuser.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Gawker putting up nonsourced allegations...you do the math.
So you're saying its a "he said she said"?
Did I say no one? I said the people that were shocked.
Then they were either young or looking the other way, because no one that was actually paying attention were shocked all.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Nah, you don't HAVE to pick a side. Especially not in this instance when what we're going on is a three year old rumor and an email exchange that refers back to that blind item.
But that doesn't change the frequency with which the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" is misused, or the reasoning behind the majority of that misuse.
People often hold "innocent until proven guilty" up like it's a badge of honor, without thinking about what it really means, or why they're invoking it. It's a self-given reward for being obstinate in the face of arguments that deserve more thought than the easy dismissal "whatever. Innocent until proven guilty" allows.
Most people start out in stories like this already ON the fence. We're just sitting there, watching shit go by and talking about it. And as the discussion goes on, we eventually pick our side, and come down off the fence. For a lot of people "Innocent until proven guilty" is their ticket TO the fence. And they want to be morally rewarded for riding that motherfucker all night long.
There's football fields worth of gray area and doubt between Cosby's bullshit and this blind-item that just won't die. I'm not advocating people pick a side at all. I'm just using this opportunity to point out to people that championing their belief in "innocent until proven guilty" isn't necessarily the pat on the back they might think it is.
TheSadRanger
Banned
I dunno, I'm slightly skeptical because one of Louis standup jokes was about being super aware of this type of thing.
One of his stories involves meeting a waitress and making out with her in his hotel room but not taking it any further because he didn't think she wanted to have sex.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXpFtwYIKew
I know it's a comedy act but I would surprised if he was the exact opposite of this in real life.
One of his stories involves meeting a waitress and making out with her in his hotel room but not taking it any further because he didn't think she wanted to have sex.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXpFtwYIKew
I know it's a comedy act but I would surprised if he was the exact opposite of this in real life.
TheOohChild
Member
This is barely a step above national enquirer journalism. Although if this is true, I hope he is exposed.
Yet the problem is, there's no evidence in this case. I understand what you're saying, but I'm going to lay out my outlook more clearly. I am using it in the context of a courtroom. No matter how much supposed evidence is accumulated and dissected outside the courtroom, I presume innocence until that same process takes place within the courtroom under the guidance of due process.
The press had convicted Tsarnaev the moment he was arrested. I chose not to believe he was guilty until the verdict last April.
Ben Morales
Member
Adding to my podcast list. She is pretty awesome.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Then you don't understand what I'm saying.
This isn't a courtroom.
Applying the rules of evidence in a legal proceeding to general discussion amongst your peers is a bad fit. It doesn't work. It's stifling. That nature is needed in a legal proceeding. It's unnecessary, limiting, and more often than not obstructionist outside of that. You did not inherently "do it more right" than anyone else because of your choice. Pretending you're serving on a jury while having conversations with other people isn't really doing anyone any favors. It's just playing pretend, often to the detriment of the conversation.
It's an out, more often than not. You can withhold judgment without invoking "Innocent until proven guilty." I mean, I'm doing it right now.
bengraven
Member
Doesn't even matter if it's true or not - he's going to be destroyed by this.
I have faith he'll play it smart either way.
Inertia Creeps
Banned
If your accusation/arguments have not even a single shred of legitimate, tangible evidence to support them, like this worthless trash from Gawker doesn't, then your ramblings don't deserve anything but an outright, hasty dismissal.
BUNTING1243
Banned
I feel like I've heard stuff like this before about CK, which is a real shame.
Eighty Deuce
Banned
I'll trust this when NPR reports it, until then I call bullshit
Battersea Power Station
Member
How much do you want to bet? If the allegations are made up, I'd wager real money that his career will be even stronger.
Anyway, I really hope this is nonsense. As a father of a young girl, I consider him a model feminist dad.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Again, I'm not saying people need to pick a side right now. I'm using the opportunity provided by someone pledging allegiance to "innocent until proven guilty" to point out the problems in applying that rule of evidence to anything outside of an actual legal proceeding. It's a fairly misunderstood/misused phrase, and while we're all here with not much to go on at all, and nowhere useful really to take what IS there, I figured a quick sidebar to this tangential topic was worth it.
I'm not saying anyone is wrong for withholding judgment (again).
fluffydelusions
Member
This. Will just give him more material to work with as well as more exposure to people who've never heard of him. I also hope it's not true
Eh, I don't buy that it's the secret society it may have been in the past. Tons of comedians are all over the podcast circuit on their free time and filling a lot of air with very candid (and often very drunk) conversation about the biz. I don't get the sense there's much of a chance for any groupthink rumor containment given how many gums are flapping.
I know Louis CK has had an iffy name in the skeleton-sphere for the last couple of years, but that was more about the content of his work and him being against the censorship of rape jokes if IRRC, its either rape or trans, rather than his actions toward people.
Maybe thats what people are talking about him having a creepy reputation in the blogosphere.
Maybe thats what people are talking about him having a creepy reputation in the blogosphere.
I love how every time allegations like these pop up, there are suddenly insiders coming out of the wood works who always knew this and how did the rest of us never hear about it before.
I mean, come on, what the hell is the "comedy geek fan scene" and how is everyone supposed to be privy to these open secrets circulating through this niche club?
SolidChamp
Banned
This makes me curious about the time I saw him on Conan (80% sure it was Conan) a few years ago when he said something about how when he's walking out in public and sees a woman from behind and she has really nice hair, he always feels the need to catch up/pass her to see what she looks like from the front.
The audience reaction to that was a little "Uhhh..."
I remember thinking he was a bit of a pervert for saying that, but maybe that's just me and I wasn't getting the joke.
The audience reaction to that was a little "Uhhh..."
I remember thinking he was a bit of a pervert for saying that, but maybe that's just me and I wasn't getting the joke.
I fail to see how reserving judgement until due process has followed its course is any of those things. And I never claimed that I was taking any high road by doing so. I'm not saying that evidence-based discussions can't take place outside of a courtroom: I'm just saying that we can't make conclusions from them until we let the justice system come to its decision.
And yet, having read your posts, I can't shake the feeling we're arguing for the same things. We're both avoiding making a judgement because of a lack of evidence. If you don't want to call that "innocent until proven guilty", feel free to suggest a superior term, and then you can consider the semantic argument won.
hitsugi
Member
It's bullshit. Drive-by insiders are in.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
I disagree with this entirely, though. We don't (and shouldn't) be expected to put our opinions on hold until a court of law weighs in.
There doesn't need to be a term at all. I'm suggesting don't strictly apply rules of evidence to forum discussions.
Cosby didn't get the benefit of the doubt? Talk about revisionist history... He skated on that shit for over 20 years.
I'm not biting on this story until we get something from someone other than Gawker.
Damn, has this gained any real traction? It could definitely put a creepy weird cloud over his snl appearance.
I'm not biting on this story until we get something from someone other than Gawker.
Damn, has this gained any real traction? It could definitely put a creepy weird cloud over his snl appearance.
T
Transhuman
Unconfirmed Member
What is the legal ruling on sarcastic consent?
Yet that is my difficulty with your outlook. If, for instance, we have a scenario where some circumstantial evidence is presented regarding Louis' sexual misconduct, and it gains widespread traction in the media and public opinion, only later to be proven false, we would nevertheless have a situation where the accused is considered guilty in the public eye of a crime he didn't commit. Even though he's innocent, he may as well be guilty insofar as his reputation is concerned. His name is tarnished through no fault of his own.
I can't help but think of Michael Jackson. He was acquitted of child molestation charges, but he still carries the stigma from the accusation, even in death. That's not fair or just, and is something that I find deeply unsettling. While I don't claim my approach is perfect, it's an attempt to withhold judgement in case the consensus of the rabble turns out to be wrong.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Then that's where we break.
backflip10019
Member
I don't buy it.
RustedPieces
Banned
Truth.
As far as I know, people were mostly upset because of his use of the n-word and his comments after Daniel Tosh's rape joke.
This will serve as "I knew it!" confirmation for very many people, even if no evidence is ever provided.
I haven't followed him too much, but do you have any examples?
blame space
Banned
I'm not ready to take non accusations seriously just yet. I mean it's 2016 and all but still.
Nice talking with you, then. I learned nothing of value from our encounter.
Yeah, I was about to add it.
Edit:
The final l in the URL is missing (.html).
styl3s
Member
I don't care where the accusation comes from i won't bite until actual proof comes along because i don't live by guilty until proven innocent, i live by innocent until proven guilty.
There have been both women and men throwing out horrible accusations to ruin their career/life, it's very serious and serious accusations need serious consequences when being lied about.
blame space
Banned
.
blame space
Banned
.
In the year of our benevolent lord anno domini nostri jesu two thousand and fifteen there are still people who give Gawker clicks? For shame.
As for the accusation:
a) I don't believe it until further, concrete evidence is shown
b) While I find the guy crazy funny, I don't get attached to people I don't know so it wouldn't affect me one way or the other if this was true or not, nor would it affect in any way my enjoyment of his material or my memories of the times I went to see him live when he was just starting out
As for the accusation:
a) I don't believe it until further, concrete evidence is shown
b) While I find the guy crazy funny, I don't get attached to people I don't know so it wouldn't affect me one way or the other if this was true or not, nor would it affect in any way my enjoyment of his material or my memories of the times I went to see him live when he was just starting out
Love this related story too:
http://gawker.com/fred-armisen-has-a-reputation-1677187580
Gripping stuff! Male celebrity is a womanizer.. a scathing editorial about comments made on a blog.. there are more than a few, therefore it's true!
The CK story is pretty gross; I'd hope it's not true.. not because I care about Louis CK but because I don't like hearing true stories of men being gross to women.
http://gawker.com/fred-armisen-has-a-reputation-1677187580
Gripping stuff! Male celebrity is a womanizer.. a scathing editorial about comments made on a blog.. there are more than a few, therefore it's true!
The CK story is pretty gross; I'd hope it's not true.. not because I care about Louis CK but because I don't like hearing true stories of men being gross to women.
- Status