Louis CK

I know. You’re above it.

 

What the hell is wrong with you guys? He fucking jerked off in front of countless women. There's no parsing for details here. The Times story is incredibly detailed & backs up what has been written about on BLOGS for years. He's a fucking creep and he jerked off in front of countless women as a means to exercise his power. The scope of the assault isn't diminished b/c he didn't pin them down. Christ.

 

Actually, @typefitter and @Dick Whitman are parsing it* just fine. There are sides or angles to these stories that are interesting to consider.



*This is not a euphemism for bopping the bologna.

 

More.
Dude did this hundreds of times it sounds like.
Louis C.K. Will Call You Up to Talk About His Alleged Sexual Misconduct

 

Yes, it is highly unlikely the Times found the only five women he did this to.

 

I'm not parsing it. It's absolutely fucked up and I said so. Whatever negotiations I'm having with myself are for the selfish, terrible reason that I really love his work and it's been really important to me.

 

Well, the NYT's paradigm is different from yours. Those details are sufficient for them. Women laughing is not consent but a response to an abuse of CK's power.

Embrace the real likelihood that, for years, what you thought was a woman agreeing - to anything - was actually not agreement, but feeling trapped and coerced because you were a man, and she was a woman.

We will reach the point where even a "yeah" or "sure" doesn't mean "yes." Where even, perhaps, yes doesn't mean yes, because it was not a yes freely given. I said yes but I wanted to say no, and I couldn't because of the consequences, which were evident to the person asking me, who never should have asked, and knew when he did I could only say yes, so it's an abuse of power.

 

You are one superior SOB, I'll give you that. And on that point, there is no debate.

And there, right there, is the line we crossed not so long ago. If there is smoke, you send out 400 fire engines.

Dick's absolutely right on this point. We don't need cold facts anymore. The whiff of them is plenty. That's not to say CK is innocent of anything. It's about the burden of proof, which is pretty much gone.

 

Well, that sure sounds familiar.

 

Incontrovertible theories should sound familiar.

 

Can you name a specific case where you feel the burden of proof was not met?