Louis CK

Amusingly, this scathing review of Daddy's Home 2 is no. 2 in the "top stories" feed on the Vulture story quoted earlier.

http://www.vulture.com/2017/11/daddys-home-2-review.html

 

Both of the following can be true:

1. Louis CK can be something of a sick fuck who put women in awful positions in his private life and has to answer for it.

2. Louis CK is a fascinating cultural critic and philosoher in the sense that he uses his own demons as a window to examine myriad societal issues.

 

One doesn't excuse the other, btw. But both can be true.

 

I feel like the accusations of misogyny against me would be easier to take if I wasn’t slobbering all over the Post’s Roy Moore story a couple threads over. They nailed it cold. The Times didn’t. The Times felt that, in light of the recent wave, they had enough smoke that they didn’t need to ask uncomfortable questions that really needed to be asked. It’s an extremely sloppy story. It is disgraceful that an editor would let someone anonymously accuse someone of weird consensual sex, regardless of the power structure. Absolutely disgraceful. That’s “National Enquirer” work.

 

Dude. Stop digging.

 

Dude. Recognize what “digging” is.

 

Hey if he wants to dig halfway to China parsing and angling the indefensible, so be it.

 

I’m not digging. I think that C.K. is creepy as fuck and probably commits serial sexual misconduct in some form.

And I think at the same time that the New York Times didn’t nail this story because, first, it’s awkward and uncomfortable to report it and, second, in this climate, the New York Times doesn’t have to.

The headline says that C.K. committed “sexual misconduct” against five women. Did he? The first pair were creeped out, for sure. It’s unclear that they didn’t consent. I’m not sure the reporter even asked that question. Oh, and they “heard” that C.K.’s manager was unhappy with them. Heard from who? Heard what? The third woman said he masturbated on the phone without consent (I think). I’ll give them that. The fourth woman turned him down. The fifth women was permitted the gossip anonymously about a weird but consensual encounter.

I mean, I think there is some kind of story here, but I don’t think The Times gets that story. At all. It’s nearly impossible to figure out the power structures here or how they mattered, for starters.

Why? Because, as always, when the issues are important enough, the facts are a buncha bullshit. It’s like that is taught in J-school now.

 

It's a conversation on a message board. I don't agree with DW, but are his takes so threatening that we can't even unpack them and debate them? Really?

 

Dick, women went on the record saying he jerked off in front of them. That oughta do it in terms of society condemning his behavior.

 

DW has a tendency to parse the hell out of these things, but I think he's absolutely right on this one.

The article completely glosses over the idea of consent from the first two women. A third flat-out gave consent.

A fourth said no, and he did nothing. So, does asking "Mind if I masturbate" constitute sexual misconduct?

The fifth was on the phone, which changes the dynamic considerably.

I'm not exactly going to defend the guy. It would appear that his behavior is creepy, gross, weird, and generally unacceptable.

That said, from what we know now, this isn't in a league with the Weinstein/Toback wing of the Men Behaving Badly club.

And all of this is subject to change when I wake up tomorrow and 30 more women have come forward.

 

Acceptance coerced by power dynamics is not consent.