Gawker put up an article accusing Louis CK of sexual misconduct

Status
Not open for further replies.
No real sources, doesn't look like they've even really bothered trying to verify anything. Typical Gawker fishing expedition. Didn't "journalists" learn from the Rolling Stone fiasco?

This is nothing at all like the Rolling Stone fiasco. The article straight up disclaims that they only have the one source:

"We had no means of verifying Jason’s claims directly. He said the women he knew had told him they wouldn’t come forward, citing C.K.’s reputation and power in the comedy world. The two members of the comedy duo who were supposedly subjected to the Aspen jerk-off incident wanted nothing to do with the story then, and did not respond for comment when contacted before the publication of this post."
 
This shit is so mild. People reacting act like he drugged up and raped a girl.

There's quite the significant difference between exposing oneself and blocking someone's exit so they are forced to watch as you masturbate. I hope you know this...

Not saying the allegations are true, mind you, but Jesus Christ. How can you consider that 'mild'?
 
Let's play "compare GAF's reactions to C.K. and Cosby allegations and see who gets the benefit of the doubt".

To be fair, Cosby had allegations from dozens of women following him for a decade of much more severe behavior, while CK has seen a grand total of two articles alleging misconduct from the same iffy site with none of the direct victims coming forward or lodging complaints.
 
I've seen a lot of CK material at this point and I never got that impression at all. Sure, he has a lot of observations about how gross male sexuality can be, but you wouldn't have to actually be a gross predator to make those observations.

That's true. And I'm not just saying that because he makes those observations that it's 100% likely he is a sexual predator. I dunno, maybe it's because I'm not from America or something and I'm used to a different kind of comedian.
 
Wow, a bunch of comments are also from anon comedians or friends of comedians or friends of friends of comedians reporting similar stories--apparently him jacking off in public or out of the blue is a popular rumor? Obviously need more info, could absolutely be true. I'd find it weird though, because Louie's material and show so often makes fun of himself for jacking off alone too much and being mousy around women, and he also lampoons guys who want to stick their dicks everywhere and act as if it's their right. That doesn't mean the accusations aren't true, could be some weird psychotic preemptive defense. I dunno.

The Kirkman podcast thing doesn't seem like it could be about Louie. It sounds exactly like Louie until she says the comic is married. Also have Kirkman and Louie toured together? Also Kirkman has listed Louie as a #1 comedian of hers, so.
 
These rumors have been going around for a while. Jen Kirkman sees to be talking about Louis at 31:20 in these recent podcast: https://soundcloud.com/jenkirkman/bitch-were-all-madonna

It sounds like Louis, but she also lauds him in other media, so it might not be him. But she seems to hold him in high regard, regardless of how she feels about him personally (if it's him) http://www.timeout.com/london/comedy/jen-kirkmans-top-ten-stand-up-comedians

This podcast is awful from what I've heard, btw. I went to the timestamp and she's too cynical for my tastes. But, I'm open to the idea she's just having a moment about victimhood and I caught her podcast at a decidedly 'unfunny' moment.
 
Let's play "compare GAF's reactions to C.K. and Cosby allegations and see who gets the benefit of the doubt".

I mean if a bunch of women start coming forward saying louis did stuff to them then I'm willing to realign my opinion. I haven't heard of that happening, just a shitty no-source 'article'.
 
Terrible if true? It's pretty terrible if its false as well. Its terrible all the way around because if the article is as weakly sourced as many are suggesting then its a shitty way to load a gun that's doomed to kill whether its fired intentionally or via a miss-fire. I'd really expect more from news outlets if things like this are going to be put out there for all to see.
 
Its amazing how suddenly everyone is a comedian or knows a comedian who knows CK in the comments section.

Im not going to take a stance on it one way or the other. if True then it needs to be dealt with. If false Gawker as usual proves to be shit and should be dealt with
 
There's quite the significant difference between exposing oneself and blocking someone's exit so they are forced to watch as you masturbate. I hope you know this...

Not saying the allegations are true, mind you, but Jesus Christ. How can you consider that 'mild'?

I didn't see that in the OP. That's pretty bad, if he did that.

Still, nobody will care in a week. That's not to minimize whatever he is anonymously being accused of doing, it's just how fickle people are.
 
Let's play "compare GAF's reactions to C.K. and Cosby allegations and see who gets the benefit of the doubt".

There was a pretty giant gulf between this and the allegations levied against Cosby. Those rumors around Cosby have been around for decades, there was plenty reason to believe them given the quantity of women accusing him of sexual assault/rape and for how long those accusations were perpetuated.
 
The comments:

Great. He's the pasty ginger Cosby.

Oh, man... O.o

Well, I'd like to hear CK respond. Love the guy. love his humor, I honestly feel like he respects and understands women from what I've seen in his show Louie etc., though I totally realize that doesn't directly reflect his real life persona, he is a big force creatively behind the scenes and women are well represented there.

It's a little far out there but we're not talking Cosby levels of abuse. Though if he really is preventing people from leaving then he really needs to take a step back and check himself before he finds himself in the same boat as Cosby.

Sigh. Just, wacky.

Huh. And he just quit twitter recently too...
 
Cosby's allegations are much worse, but honestly the way Gawker just put these out their without any sort of support or evidence just seems a bit unprofessional.
 
This must be really awkward for the guys with Louis CK avatars. >_>

Here's the thing... if you knew Louis' stuff for two decades, you shouldn't be THAT surprised by this. He talks about sexual perversion stuff all the time on O and A. If he manhandled a girl and kept her prisoner while he jacked it on her, that's one thing. But, the idea that he'd whip out his dick in front of strangers? Sounds like good ole Louis.
 
A lot of time, people ask for proof or evidence on these types of stories. Just using the Aspen scenario, what proof or evidence would you expect the accusers to provide? Other than the facts that they were at the comedy festival or maybe stayed in the same hotel, what could they offer? That's what makes these stories so difficult to prove or disprove since not everyone keeps the stained dress in their closet.

their names for one
 
Let's play "compare GAF's reactions to C.K. and Cosby allegations and see who gets the benefit of the doubt".

One raped dozens of women for decades with dozens of people coming forward

The other jerked off in front of girls from anonymous sources verified from an internet comment. Although I guess that rumor was floating around for a while or something.

But yea, while both are not good, one of them is way more fucked than the other.

I mean, we're talking the size of Marianas Trench difference.
 
One raped dozens of women for decades with dozens of people coming forward

The other jerked off in front of girls from anonymous sources verified from an internet comment. Although I guess that rumor was floating around for a while or something.

But yea, while both are not good, one of them is way more fucked than the other.

I mean, we're talking the size of Marianas Trench difference.

I don't think he's talking about what they did versus who gets the benefit of the doubt when these stories first break.
 
I don't want to believe....doesn't sound like something CK would necessarily do honestly.....but then again it also doesn't sound completely impossible and the fact that there are multiple women is pretty damning.
 
I don't think he's talking about what they did versus who gets the benefit of the doubt when these stories first break.

What, the implication is that Louis CK is getting the benefit of the doubt because he's white? I could think of several reasons why that is stupid.
 
Let's review!

So Gawker, a very reputable publication finds out from some guy that Louie jacked off in front of two girls and possibly grabbed a girl and told her that he wanted to fuck them.

They have no way to verify these sources. Part of their sources is a commentator who thought he was right about Louie talking about his dick or something in comedic circles but it was really just some other dude.

So far, these are the only allegations leveled at Louie, submitted to Gawker and them alone.

- No sources
- Using commentators as sources (who plainly was proven wrong)
- Running on the fumes of assumptions and getting away with it by labeling it "rumors"

I mean, I guess you could argue that these sources didn't want to provide their names, but Gawker was smart enough to mention that they heard from a guy who heard from some girls that a thing happened and Gawker has no way to verify that.

Gee, I wonder.

(I ain't saying that it didn't happen, just that I'm very dubious out of Gawker as a source, who's continuously created shit-tier articles with terrible sourcing, awful writing, and incorrect information as a standard)

I don't want to believe....doesn't sound like something CK would necessarily do honestly.....but then again it also doesn't sound completely impossible and the fact that there are multiple women is pretty damning.

Holy shit read the story.
 
I don't think he's talking about what they did versus who gets the benefit of the doubt when these stories first break.

It's not comparable in that way either - these are all second-hand anonymous reports. With Cosby, it's been women publicly making the accusations.
 
No real sources, doesn't look like they've even really bothered trying to verify anything. Typical Gawker fishing expedition. Didn't "journalists" learn from the Rolling Stone fiasco?
I think they learned that controversy is a big seller, especially when it involves sexual assault.
 
I don't think he's talking about what they did versus who gets the benefit of the doubt when these stories first break.

But there were plenty of people who wanted to give Cosby benefit of the doubt? I'm not really sure what you're getting at.
 
Yeah I'm not forming an opinion on this until you know someone comes forward with some actual info. Gawker is the worst. I mean seriously taking what are people commenting on your articles is not real journalism. Like if someone on twitter decided to talk about it I'd be more willing to believe it rather than when it's from some random person commenting on a Gawker article.
 
What, the implication is that Louis CK is getting the benefit of the doubt because he's white? I could think of several reasons why that is stupid.

Me too, which is why I didn't say that!

But there were plenty of people who wanted to give Cosby benefit of the doubt? I'm not really sure what you're getting at.

I'm pointed out that the poster in question was misinterpreting Defied Data's post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom