Actually, a few people in this thread have been saying exactly that. I don’t give a crap if this guy ever makes another penny from comedy, but there should be no official action preventing him from trying.
Unless said action was criminal prosecution for his actions.
Which, since that has not occurred…
Can you point them out?
Heh, my thoughts exactly.
Some of the moral complexity of this debate hinges on art vs. commerce and I just wanted to point out how heavily the discussion is skewed towards commerce.
We’ve hashed out the issue of separating the art from the artist plenty of times and it always comes down to a personal decision. Weighing the crimes against that which the artist provides. I laid out a variety of reasons upthread for why I still want Louis’ comedy but I certainly wouldn’t begrudge anyone who disagrees. I just hope folks can move past the notion that fans of Louis don’t care about the victims. It’s not a binary choice.
We’ll see what the future holds for Louis publicly dealing with this. It makes sense to me that the Comedy Cellar wouldn’t be the right venue for it.
I don’t say you don’t care, but it seems obvious you care more about Louis’s comedy than you do the victims or their pain. Given a choice, you’d choose the former over the latter. Right?
“This is really complicated. It’s not a binary choice.”
“Make a binary choice!”
Yes, I see you saying it isn’t a binary choice. I just don’t agree with that assessment. It looks to me like special pleading.
What is special pleading?
Special pleading is the argument that a particular circumstance is somehow different and therefore different rules apply. For example, arguing that because we’re talking about art, not commerce, then different standards of behavior should apply to Louis. You’re saying his comedy is so special that we have to make allowances. Why?
Why not, Scott? It’s my personal choice. For reasons articulated in detail earlier in this discussion. And others are free to make their own personal choice as I noted. I don’t understand why you’re using the words “we” and “have to” near the end of your post. Because that’s not what I’m saying.
Sure, but you’re trying to persuade people that it’s a reasonable choice. You’re making an argument, and it looks to me like a fallacy. As I recall, somewhere upthread you said or implied that if Louis weren’t an important artist, you’d feel differently about it. So if you want that argument to be convincing, you have to defend your premises: First, that some art has to change the rules, and second, that Louis is a practitioner of that kind of art. If you don’t want to make the argument at all, that’s cool too. But you’re doing it 😉
Well when someone equates to the guy not being able to get on stage without a pat on the back as some how wanting him dead, we get to a certain part of the argument that is beyond ridiculous.
I care more about the victims and their careers and the lives he had no problem ruining for his own sick pleasure than I do whether or not he can make his way back onto stage as quickly as possible. Forcing someone to watch you masturbate; it’s not normal. There is zero reason to believe he’s changed.
No, just talking with friends. Try disengaging your debate team kill-destroy AI subroutine and touch base with your human side. People are flawed and sometimes illogical. Both Louis and good ol’ Mort.
My objection is that the twat is too cowardly to actually have a show at a club. He’s sneaking into other people’s shows in order to see how his appearance is received. And no, let’s not rehash the whole “comedians do this all the time” crap because there’s a vast difference in a comedian making an unannounced set vs. Louis CK doing the same thing.
He should have a show, which would probably sell out, and face the music when the press and protesters show up.
Sure, and if they host guys like Louis CK as an announced performer, and people don’t show, they will not have him again.
Here in St. Louis Jeremy Piven, also accused of bad behavior by eight women, is doing three nights of standup at a local comedy club. We were intrigued by it but ultimately decided not to go due to the allegations.
Or if lots of people walk out, then they won’t have him.
He’s under absolutely no obligation to do this.
Sure, he’s under no obligation but it makes him a huge asshole in my eyes, and in a decent amount of others as well I would guess. I used to enjoy his specials and shows but have zero interest in ever watching anything he puts out in the future.
You think that he should go out of his way to give you an opportunity to go out of your way to protest him.
Come on. That’s silly.
I just think he should be open about his performances. It’s utter cowardice to slink into a venue and just appear, given his circumstances. If he can’t do that then maybe he shouldn’t be performing yet. I’m sure there are enough supporters out there to give him the comeback he wants so any protests would ultimately fail to achieve anything. This is a world where we’re about to put a wannabe rapist on the Supreme Court so the odds are likely with good old Louis.
But that’s how comedians work up new material. They don’t announce sets ahead of time because it’s a sub-standard, incomplete routine that they’re building into a longer, better set. It’s test material, not ready for bigger audiences. And, hey, I totally get how this looks suspicious to you in the aftermath of his gross behavior and public reckoning, but that’s still how the creative process works. Comedians need the energy of the crowd to find out what works and what doesn’t work.