The Fall of Harvey Weinstein


Yeah, and they both happen to be personal friends of his. I think this is how we all react around friends, we always just take their side, even, when in retrospect (he is walked back a bit of his commentary) it isn’t the right thing to have done. I think the Roseanne thing cut him really raw, because I know he worked with her on the reboot, and by all accounts, in person she doesn’t act that way (though Norm is white, so who knows) So it would be shocking, after what appeared to be just one tweet, a personal friend of his would lose her show. He lack context, and probably shouldn’t have said anything other than. “The Roseanne I know isn’t racist” or some lame stuff like that.

To quote Norm on what he said in the interview

“I’m a fcking dumb guy,” said the host of Netflix’s upcoming Norm Macdonald Has a Show . “I get confused a lot and sht.”


I like Norm, but he’s kind of a fucking idiot.


Just completely ignored what he said, and responded to a straw man.

And I can already imagine your response to this, but have you ever considered not making absolute statements like that? Really? Any and every form of sexual “violence” (whatever exactly that means to you) is worthy of the punishment of losing a career or ability to work, forever?

Again, how about robberies? Other forms of assault? Should we just strip the ability to make a living in perpetuity from anyone who engages in “violence?” What about anything offensive? What if someone engages in harassment who doesn’t have millions and so will not be perfectly fine if unable to work? Are we now matching punishment to ththe wealth and “ability to be fine” of the perpetrator? What if Louis CK had never made it, but was just some schmuck comic grinding out $40k a year on the standup circuit?

Why do you keep responding to the arguments and issues in your head, instead of what is actually being presented? What’s the point of even responding, if you’re just engaging with imaginary people?


It’s literally what he said Sly, in his interview.

In the THR interview, Macdonald said he was glad that #MeToo seemed to have “slowed down a little bit,” and said of C.K. and Barr, “There are very few people that have gone through what they have, losing everything in a day. Of course, people will go, ‘What about the victims?’ But you know what? The victims didn’t have to go through that.”

He downplayed the victims experiences and that’s what he is currently apologizing for the most. He said that.


“Out of sensitivity to our audience and in light of Norm Macdonald’s comments in the press today, ‘The Tonight Show’ has decided to cancel his appearance on Tuesday’s telecast”

“Then Jimmy came back in, said can I talk to you buddy?”, Macdonald said. “He was very broken up about it, he said ‘I don’t know what to do…it’s just that I have so much pressure, people are crying. Senior producers are crying.”

I find it ridiculous that having a dissenting opinion on this subject can result in career damage. The level of vitriol on this subject is extreme.


Aw man, I love Gilbert Gottfried.


I’m sure it’s a lot of pent up anger from all the bullshit people (primarily women) have been dealing with for ages. Once a seam split, the steam is venting.


Ok, fair enough. I do not think he was comparing in the way you were suggesting. I think he is asking the same question that has been previously asked. How much do we ostracize and harm someone, and for how long?

We ask that question every day with other crimes and injuries. I think there is no reason we cannot ask it just because “sex” is involved in the issue.

Also, thanks for responding. Sincerely.


Victimhood Politics

“Today, any sort of suffering from any cause, especially on the part of those considered victims of historical oppression, is used to obscure rational discussion and debate with clouds of pathos and emotion.”

“Focusing on any one citizen’s unfortunate experience obscures the fact that public policy affects millions of people with differing views on what aims we collectively pursue and put into law.”


And if he had stopped there, maybe he wouldn’t have gotten as much flak as he did. But he didn’t, he went on about MeToo and his statements just do not play well. They really don’t.

Now does that mean I think he shouldn’t have had a chance to clarify. No I didn’t say that. The fact that these two people are his friends also matters. And again, Roseanne said horrific things that may cost her her career forever, but she is not even on the same stage as MeToo.

And dear lord, his apology talking about Downs Syndrome like that… Norm is clearly out of touch. As a public figure, maybe he should take a step back and get some awareness.

As for that last question, neither Roseanne nor CK are long-term suffers here. Ask again in a a few years although I doubt either of them can actually exit the spotlight for a bit

Now as for the sex part, if it’s an actual crime… the USA has a registry. Society decided to treat those differently. We can certainly debate whether that’s okay or not but the courts and laws did that a long time ago. And MeToo had nothing to do with that.

But I want to be clear. Roseanne and CK did not wake up one day and something happened to them. They’re the ones trying to play victim. It was their actions that put them in these positions, not the other way around.


I’ve never said that the Louis CK’s and Roseanne Barr’s of the world can never earn a living or work again. What I am suggesting is that maybe these people have demonstrated they should not work in their chosen field. Like a lawyer that gets caught repeatedly perjuring himself, or a doctor that abuses her patients, they’ve essentially lost their license, so to speak. Go find a job that does not require public showings of empathy or puts the careers of others in those genitalia-filled hands. Like, if you have a bad habit of showing your dick to women without their enthusiastic consent, perhaps you should not mentor any women, nor should you get much leeway to make pithy commentary about other people’s social transgressions. Go drive a bus or dig ditches or maybe just retire with the millions you do have and go into real estate or investing.

There’s plenty of careers I’d love to have, but I don’t get to do those jobs because I don’t have the skills to pull them off. Despite all their success on stage, I think their inability to not be shitheels puts these folks in a position where they may be more suited to life out of the public eye.


What you’re suggesting is such an arbitrary penalty. “Don’t do the thing you do best anymore because you abused people and also fuck you”. Their careers are telling jokes to audiences, not mentoring women.

If the audiences decide that their transgressions are terrible enough that they won’t show up to see them perform, that alone decides if they will be able to carry on with their careers.


Apparently, CK’s career did require interaction with women all the time, which gave him the opportunity to show that he’s terrible at that aspect of the job.

And yes, I’m saying audiences should pass judgment. Isn’t that what we’re doing here?


If people don’t want to watch them perform, and don’t want to so much that they make it unprofitable for other people to produce their performance, is that a penalty? I mean, people don’t want to watch me perform enough that I can get stuff produced; does that mean I’m being subjected to a penalty? Do some people have a right to perform profitably?

In the end, if enough people want to pay to see Louis K perform, he’ll perform. If not, he won’t. He isn’t being held in prison.


I’m not sure how that’s any different than what I said.

P.S. Will somebody please take away Scott’s italics tags.


Also, too, it seems like MacDonald is a Tucker Carlson fan, so maybe his opinions about Louis and Roseanne ought to be considered in that light.


Other than calling it an arbitrary penalty you mean.

(Italics tags are useful)




I was describing Telefrog’s position that they should be barred from working in the entertainment industry.


I didn’t read his position that way. I thought he was suggesting that they should be self-aware enough to realize they weren’t cut out for it, or that audiences should be, or both.