Well sure, if he wants to come across as an uncaring asshole that hasn’t learned a single thing from his experience, then he’s free to just show up unannounced wherever he wants.
There’s nothing uncaring about not “screening the audience to see who is in it”.
That’s a totally absurd suggestion.
I guess that’s a risk that comedy fans are just going to have to take. I’m sure he’ll get walk outs. I’m sure he’ll get people complaining to management for a refund. I’m sure that has always been the case. The number of walkouts and unhappy interviews with blogs the next day will be higher for the foreseeable future. But that will die down gradually. Just like this discussion. We’ll be too busy talking about Raping Gerard Depardieu’s bearish physicality and emotional delicacy.
My suggestion is he not show up at all, unannounced. You really think I’d suggest he, a known sexual predator, screen women on that?
This isn’t her point at all, though.
The point is there is frustration that Louis C K’s arc is apparently a conversation about a path toward “redemption” but not a path about recompense. And without that latter conversation, how can anyone know what the appropriate restitution or contrition should be?
There isn’t an obstacle course in the court of public opinion that if you clear bar X and run as fast as Y you’re now good to go, it’s about judging whether that person has actually attempted to make serious changes in their life, about whether that person actually understands the severity of their crimes rather than feeling contrition because they were caught.
How can you tell if 6 weeks or 9 months or 9 years are enough? I was jury foreman on a case where the defendant broke down into tears because we gave him a much lesser sentence rather than the 20 years they were pushing for. I still wonder if i did the right thing, but at least there is a sense that the person really was truly sorry.
Yea, it’s annoying that public performance, and public validation and verification, is part of the unofficial Court of Public Opinion that shaming entails (and this is fundamentally a case about shaming), and it’s annoying to people that shaming has no legal recourse, no easy terms of enforcement. I don’t have an answer to that.
But redemption is a dialog, not a fixed script, and it has to be a dialog with those that are offended as much as it is with those that support and are ready to move on.
I think it brings up an interesting question:
How far do you need to go to “protect” a (possible?) minority?
x percentage of the audience are previous victims of sexual assault
y percentage of the audience are die-hard Louis CK fans
Do you ban Louis CK completely from every live comedy show?
That would protect the feelings of audience x but upset audience y.
Does the importance of protecting audience x outweigh ruining the enjoyment of audience y?
In my opinion it would be extremely wrong to ban Louis CK from performing.
Where would you draw the line?
The simple solution is to simply announce him as a performer. Then people can choose to see him or not. If he has to hide the fact that he’s going to appear, doesn’t that indicate a problem? And let’s throw out the whole ‘comedians showing up unannounced is a normal thing’ please because this is clearly not a normal situation.
I think he should announce his appearances beforehand and deal with the consequences as they unfold. That’s the bare minimum that should be expected.
I agree with that. There is a cost benefit analysis that needs to be done.
And while I do not agree with the calls for indefinite parish status, I do think that normalizing, as @Timex out it, through small scale shows without prior announcement, does feel inappropriate. Recompense is an important aspect of rehabilitation, and trying to do a series of small shows in surprise fashion in order to neuter an eventual backlash does feel wrong. It feels like trying to short circuit that portion, and make it so people can go ‘the comeback already happened, why are you still complaining’ at some future date.
I’m not accusing Louis of nefarious intent, I can see a perfectly reasonable line of thought that leads one to think the surprise set is the appropriate choice, I just happen to disagree with that.
I was responding to a general statement about comedians, not CK.
Does everyone realize that this is how comedians operate? I feel like that’s a factor here that lots of folks are simply unaware of.
It happens a lot of the time, especially when comedians aren’t ready for the full limelight, are working on routines, testing new material, etc. You see it a lot with big comedians who are putting together a new act, where they aren’t announced ahead of time, because such an announcement would end up drawing a huge crowd, which isn’t really what they are looking for at that time.
And that’s what would have happened here… You probably would have gotten some folks protesting it, but you’d also likely get a massive swell of people who wanted to see him. And that’s not what he wanted. And really, it’s not what you guys want either.
The suggestion that he announce it ahead of time wouldn’t actually achieve what you want.
There are a few criticisms being leveled at him for this, which I don’t think are really valid:
-
People shouldn’t have to pay money to see him, because they hate him. That’s not really how comedy clubs work. If you don’t like it, you walk out. That’s how it works. This happens. You are not guaranteed to only see people you expect when you go to a comedy club. Also, the reality is, CK was likely not even paid for his appearance in this case, so you probably don’t need to worry that your money went to him.
-
His audience somehow felt threatened by his appearance. This is pretty nonsensical, because there’s no rational way anyone could think that he was gonna hurt them. They weren’t ever victims of anything he did. He certainly wasn’t gonna jump off the stage and assault them in the club. They simply didn’t like him. While that’s fine, it also doesn’t really matter. It doesn’t matter if they like him. Being unliked by them is not him actually committing some offense towards them.
Would it disappoint you greatly to see the venue then sell out?
A question though, since CK was not scheduled did he appear before the main act? If so I think the venue owes it to the audience to announce their intent and offer refunds to those who would want them.
I have seen a few comedy shows but never one with an unscheduled act.
Timex, the issue is NOT comedians in general. We’re talking specifically about one comedian, a sexual predator that took advantage of women using his power/fame. That comedian. Not any other comedian. Just this ONE comedian. Louis CK. We all realize that comedians do this all the time. But that isn’t important right now and is completely irrelevant. I assume most comedians aren’t sexual predators either. Louis CK will never be just a normal comedian again (and obviously hasn’t ever been but we didn’t know it.)
Your #2 comment is extremely ignorant and frankly insulting to anyone that’s been victimized by sexual abuse. You don’t get it at all.
I’ll admit, I don’t really know much about how comedians work, in that respect. So my perspective is from completely outside of that.
And I do think that him making amends can certainly come in the form of him working as a comedian again. The real litmus test for me comes down to future behavior, has he reformed? Does he make amends with those he wronged? Does he make an effort to promote better, which would include promoting, assisting, or otherwise empowering female comedic voices? Those would be good indicators for me.
It has nothing to do with disappointment. He may well sell out. If he did so, many times, and ignored all further criticism, and/or walked past protesters ect., and/or entered to cheers, ect, i think it would inform all sorts of positions and things. But on some level it would be facing up to the situation, for good or ill, or to the relief or discomfort of whomever.
This way is a bit … sneaker. Running from behind the wall and making some comedy and ducking back behind the wall again. It feels more like a kid that has been grounded / sent to detention, but sneaks back into the classroom when no one is looking.
As I said above I have no experience with unscheduled comedy acts, but I know people who have walked into unscheduled musical acts and been very happy about it. But as someone said above, the topic here really is Louis CK and not some other unnamed comic.
It happens literally all the time in the comedy circuit.
There’s no reason for it to be different. To everyone here who wasn’t a victim, he’s just a comedian in that situation. Maybe you don’t like him. That’s cool. It doesn’t really matter.
He didn’t do anything to anyone in that audience. He had zero power over them. There is no reasonable way that anyone could possibly interpret his existence on stage as a threat. The requirement that he announce himself ahead of time is not, in even the tiniest way, reasonable.
And so when Trump does something bad that doesn’t effect me I shouldn’t care.
Like Ravens fans who were happy that Ray Lewis had nothing to do with that murder. Or Giants fans who thought Barry Bonds juicing was normal.
The reason Trump’s crap is so bad, is because it does affect us and everyone else.
And if someone who he had actually victimized was there, then i could see how THEY would be potentially traumatized. And I’d care about them.
But if someone who had no interaction with him before is claiming to be traumatized by his existence, they are full of shit.
When men prey on women, it affects everyone. It enforces the idea that women can be treated like objects. Look around.Hollywood is full of predators and it’s not just those men that caused that. What a naive idea that you can put a predator on stage and not affect anyone.
Let him do shows, face protests and give his fans a chance to prove they really don’t care what he does. At least he’d be open about it and prove he hasn’t changed one bit.