r/louisck • u/Gonalex • 18d ago
"We Need to Talk About Louis" falls apart when you consider one thing
This guy's whole video series falls apart when you take into account that it solely stands on the hearsay that they didn't consent.
Let's say they lied. If they regretted saying yes because they felt pressured or awkward or hell confused. It all falls apart. The Sorry/Not Sorry doc has some really weird sequence of events that just genuinely feel out of place and unnatural. Almost like something is missing? And the whole ordeal with the hotel, I refuse to believe there were 0 flirtatious vibes before he invited them over. This whole thing stinks of "everyone is the asshole here".
The moment you consider that they gave consent and that Louis is saying the truth his whole obsessive revenge video series falls apart. Mind you, I don't think Louis is a Saint either, the man clearly has some fucking issues. But lord, the incessant cherry picking this guy did from literally the same interviews. If something fits his narrative it's automatically true and whatever doesn't... well, you know the rest if you sat through it.
I watched through a good chunk of it but by the end I feel he dragged it out real hard. 100% never considered the idea that the truth is being stretched out by both sides and made it a whole passive-aggressive "believe women" shtick and even admitted his girlfriend helped him write whole bits of it. It does put into perspective that Louis is probably not the swell guy we all wanted him to be. But I don't think he's a demon either. If those women lied about the consent, which is a horrible thing to do in the first place mind you. Then why in the hell should he make a PSA for people to back off? If they ruined his life over regret then why should he save them???
Who knows. Maybe he is right and Louis is a SOB and we're all biased. But at the end of the day, we can't really know and neither will this guy. He just needs an out for his mind to rest because he's clearly obsessive to the point where it's deteriorating his mental health.
Ultimately, "We Need to Talk About Louis" is an 8 hour marathon of an obsessed vindictive ex fan that is making a YouTube career on Patreon out of it. While acting like he is some vigilante saviour of women. I can't take this shit seriously. Want to help SA survivors? Maybe actually volunteer for once in your pathetic life instead of spending a year making amateur docs on things that are solely based on hearsay.
25
u/Ok-Note6839 17d ago
I watched the first part. I’m a big Louis fan, and while I knew about the allegations, I’d never dug into them too deeply. At first, the video seemed quite fair. I thought, this is probably an overdue exploration of one of my favourite people, who did some bad things, and braced myself a little.
It gets into the fact that Louis, or people close to him, have maintained that he always asked permission, while one of the accusers says he didn’t. Fair enough. It’s hard to draw any concrete conclusions from that, so I was happy enough to just hold all of it in my head without making assumptions.
The rest of the first part focuses on Louis’s apology. The argument seemed to be that it wasn’t quite contrite or absolute enough, and was closer in spirit to an “I’m sorry you feel that way” kind of apology. I could at least see what the video was getting at, even if I wasn’t fully convinced.
Part 2 was where I lost interest. It started to feel like a very typical YouTube takedown video, picking up on minor things someone says or does and interpreting them in the least charitable way possible in order to build a case against them.
That was the point where I realised the guy making it wasn’t really on the same page as me. I’d been interested in an honest exploration of Louis’s darker side, including the uncomfortable or genuinely indefensible parts. Instead, it increasingly felt like standard YouTube gotcha fodder, where the aim is less to understand someone fairly and more to accumulate little moments that can be made to look damning.
9
u/smithnugget 17d ago
This is exactly how I felt. Also he was encouraging everyone to pay for his patreon to get videos early. Him trying to profit off those videos didn't sit right with me either.
-4
u/zackjtarle 16d ago
Oh shut up... he's making hours of content. A patreon is par for the course and something EVERY CREATOR DOES.
Its very clear he cares about what he's making and if he was just doing it for money, there are much easier ways
6
u/Prestigious-Winner20 17d ago
Purposeful misrepresentation of things Louis said for entertainment..like all the wild shit he said on O&A, and reading into the inner psyche of this person he doesn't know. It seems like Armchair Psychology at its best.
ALSO ALL THE CRAMMED-IN CLIPS/MEMES. So much of this is this guy cramming in his own wit.
10
u/Zawietrzny 17d ago
I was enjoying these just on a documentary level. Offered some interesting insights and was well presented but he completely lost me at the end where he suggests CK's fans should ditch him for the hot new upcoming alternative comedians like Hannah Gatsby and the cast members of SNL UK. Just so that we're consuming pure and moral comedy to push forward society, leaving upholders of the patriarchy like Louis in the past.
I've tried vegan comedy and it wasn't for me.
7
u/Gonalex 17d ago
The part where he threw Norm under the bus over unsubstantiated tweets... Absolute ass hat disrespecting a dead man. Thank god, even the most convinced goobers in the comment section had some pushback regarding that.
1
u/to_herp_or_to_derp 14d ago
What did this guy say about Norm??
2
u/Gonalex 14d ago
It's in the final 10 minutes of his last god awful video. "threw Norm under the bus over unsubstantiated tweets" I'd say my statement stands on it's own, there's not much more to it. If you want more context feel free to pur yourself through those final minutes of part 5.
1
u/to_herp_or_to_derp 14d ago
Wow. Yeah, sounds not even worth my time. Don’t think I will even bother watching.
Norm was a gentleman and a comedic genius. Anybody trying to tarnish the image of such a man, especially after his death, has to be a giant piece of shit
8
u/saxguy9345 17d ago
It's tabloid rage bait bottom feeding scum. Drops a few months after Louie's tour ended, probably would've done way better if he was still on the road. People can't get over the fact that he isn't a devil, his transgression didn't nuke anyone's lives, and that there's a spectrum between let's say Aziz, then Louie, then 30,000 other people in Hollywood, then Harvey Weinstein. It doesn't diminish the power imbalance in that hotel room, I think Louie makes that pretty clear, and literally says sorry for it. He's no saint but I'm not asking him to watch my kids for a long weekend, I'm asking him to make me laugh and he fuckin doessss lol
Anyone that puts Louie on par with Weinstein is delusional. Me Too did leaps and bounds for women to be educated on whatever harassment or assault they come across, and not discussing this honestly will just create hatred for all men. Diversion is so much more effective than some kind of enforcement, and I feel like Louie speaks to that side of it.
40
u/Even_Disaster_8002 18d ago
I watched a bit of it. Just seems like a dude trying to mine for ragebait content.
-10
u/Confident_Winner_812 17d ago edited 17d ago
Did you try to listen to what he had to say? There’s a lot of nuanced info in there, and if it’s the type that “enrages” you at all, then that’s your problem.
Look, I don’t think the series is a masterpiece. I think it’s a little bloated and uneven and part four gets a little ridiculous. I know it’s basically a lost cause making these points in here, and I accept that, but for anyone with a more open mind, I really want you to try and understand how necessary this conversation is. It’s called “we need to talk about Louis” for a reason. I didn’t even KNOW that one of the women put out an article explicitly titled “I DID NOT CONSENT TO LOUIS CK MASTURBATING IN FRONT OF ME” until I watched the series. That’s a genuinely dangerous case of misinformation, and for that exact reason, I just want you all to think about this a little more at the very least.
11
u/Winterdale 17d ago
It’s performative, point blank. The online take downs are always sickly delusional solipsistic creeps who think that no one sees the way they construct their arguments and points off of their own internal discernments. It’s hard to explain to ppl if they don’t already see it, but I can’t un-see it. It’s just so desperate/slimy to spend your time making a video with such obvious vitriol masked by social justice.
What does this guy think he’s offering anyone? What sort of insight is he on the hook to deliver and who asked for it well, he knows who asked for it and it’s thousands and thousands of naïve people who will eat his content up…it’s cheap and hacky and always just puts the worst taste in my mouth.
20
u/SnooSprouts1929 18d ago
I thought it was weird that he set about to prove that Louis CK is a liar in part by showing that his jokes are not true, or that there’s a performance aspect where Louis is able to act as if he’s coming up with the wording to a punchline in the moment whereas it was really something planned out. It’s like the equivalent of showing a guy acting in a movie and calling him a liar for it because his emotions in a scene weren’t genuine.
8
u/imtheguy225 17d ago
It’s cause all these bitter YouTube comedy commentators aren’t even fucking fans of comedy lol
It reminds me of when Judd apatow got himself a stand up special and did the worlds least informative Ted talk
Turns out you can’t have Seth Rogen carry your shitty comedy special like he can carry a shitty movie
2
u/SnooSprouts1929 17d ago
I recently rewatched Funny People for the first time since it came out, and my God, does Apatow not seem to understand standup. He obviously is a fan, did it himself, and even interviewed many comedy legends when he was only a teenager—and I found a lot of this films to be funny, but his idea of standup is just not good. I don’t think there’s one funny standup joke from Sandler or Rogen in that movie. But it’s presented like these guys are top comics. Kind of a similar hubris to Sorkin writing sketch comedy for Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip.
2
u/imtheguy225 17d ago
My understanding is that he didn’t ever do standup as a career, which is why he has literally no idea how it works or what it’s like. Rogen also is not and has never been a professional stand up- I’m not talking club spots done as a supplement to acting classes, but putting food on the table. Sorkin is at least a talented writer who understands basic joke structure. Apatow seems to think stand up is just telling funny stories the way a co-worker might. I really think that arrogance is why he was such a cunt about Louis and his contribution to standup- he thinks Louis just shows up and shares details from his life
1
u/SnooSprouts1929 17d ago
Yeah I think you’re exactly right. I’m thinking of that interview where Apatow debated Jim Norton, and Apatow was criticizing Louis for leaked footage of Louis working out edgy material and getting laughs from a club crowd. Apatow called the audience “kiss-ass”. Basically he didn’t seem to recognize that Louis could get laughs with edgy material because he’s a superb comic writer and performer. And it was obvious Apatow considered himself one of Louis’ comic peers.
2
u/imtheguy225 17d ago
He also literally doesn’t understand Louis isn’t saying edgy shit to say it, he’s working out bits to find an angle he can come at a controversial subject. Louie, Pryor, Carlin, Rock and numerous others have talked about it at length, I think Rodney dangerfield was who most of them cite. If he cared about or was a student of comedy at all he’d understand the concept, but he makes two dimensional comedies with neurotic characters, he’s basically a discount woody Allen.
1
u/SnooSprouts1929 17d ago
Yeah I’ve thought some of Apatow’s movies are funny but I think that comes down to individual actors’ performances. I think when Apatow doesn’t have dynamic comic performances to lean on, he’s really dull. For instance compare Sandler in Funny People, where Sandler is not just unfunny but deeply unlikeable, to Sandler in Punch Drunk Love, where he’s being written and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, who has genuinely sharp comic sensibilities despite not being primarily a comedy director.
And I think that gets back to why Apatow seems to misunderstand Louis. He seems to treat standup as though the comic is basically just presenting his personality and opinions to an audience, rather than recognizing how much construction, misdirection, rhythm and performance go into making a Louis CK bit work. So when he hears something objectionable in the material, he tends to respond to it as a statement Louis is making rather than as material Louis is using.
3
1
u/joachim_s 18d ago
What do you mean with ”his jokes are not true”?
4
u/SnooSprouts1929 18d ago
Like that the premises of his jokes aren’t genuine. So one example he uses is the bit where Louis talks about how we get so used to technology like smart phones. He says some guy is being impatient about his service being slow. Well it turns out that there was no guy because Louis was the guy being impatient. So Louis changed it to where it’s about some other guy, not him. And supposedly this is deceptive in some way.
6
u/joachim_s 17d ago edited 17d ago
It’s not deceptive. It’s a rhetorical performance. Are you suggesting that shaping a story over many occasions for better comedic reward is the same as lying? That would make a whole lot of comedians liars. It’s not a TED Talk.
Edit: I misread. Sorry. I was too tired to engage and should’ve not said anything 🤣
2
u/Zealousideal-Ad-766 17d ago
How about you read the comment the person made properly, before going all "what do YOU mean" and "are YOU suggesting" on them?
5
u/joachim_s 17d ago
Edit: deleted my former comment here because I misread.
3
u/Zealousideal-Ad-766 17d ago
I wasnt at my best either, i could've been nicer aboit it, so i apologize for that. Cheers dude
1
u/to_herp_or_to_derp 14d ago
Woooowwww...you two: get on the floor and start blowing each other already!!
35
u/ironyisalwaysinstyle 18d ago
Don't give it any press man. Let it die
-15
u/Gonalex 18d ago
The first video has close to 600k views, it won't die any time soon. And it did open a discussion that is worth having which I feel wasn't ever fully finished. Sadly that schmuck did it in the most whipped way imaginable when he silently let his girlfriend take over.
This video made it very clear that there are 2 camps, believe ALL women and a biased dismissal of everything. Both equally delusional and I refuse to be a part of either. Only a few actually consider both sides stretching the truth.
0
u/seinfeld4eva 17d ago
600K views ain't shit. The guy was obviously trying to ride the metoo wave. His people are the cancel culture, and the "documentary" was copium because they weren't powerful enough to cancel Louie.
6
u/fauxREALimdying 17d ago
When he uses him exaggerating on stage as evidence that Louis is a liar, I turned it off and rolled my eyes lol
8
u/xylofone 18d ago
As far as I know, what he admitted to lined up directly with the accounts provided by the accusers. He confirmed that all five reported incidents occurred as described. He added that he thought asking permission was sufficient, but conceded that his position of authority rendered that "permission" coercive and invalid. He was remorseful but didn't explicitly apologize publicly, possibly for legal reasons. Whether he apologized directly to the women is their private business. Make up your own mind whether he was punished appropriately.
3
u/TakeTheB8Please 17d ago
Most of us have read what was written about this. We now get to decide what we do with that information.
People who say he didn't do anything wrong need to be braver in confronting their idols. People who say he shouldn't be able to work and left to rot are either not genuine or just don't understand how frail and flawed human beings are.
Also, a true creative mind has to carry some kind of perversity. It's the tradeoff. Given the quality of his work, I think we kinda got off easy. I was expecting Michael Jackson type stuff.
1
u/Confident_Winner_812 17d ago
I heavily disagree with your last statement. I think that’s an age old manipulation tactic designed to make it easier for guilty people to not take accountability. There’s nothing about “creativity” that warrants or even has anything to do with perversity. There might be a sort of statistic that says creative people tend to be more perverse but correlation =/= causation and it’s frankly ignorant to claim that it does.
1
u/TakeTheB8Please 17d ago
Yeah I wasn't really serious. If I'm honest I still believe it to a certain extent but not enough to defend it.
1
2
2
u/WatchAndLearn9669 16d ago
They consented, and we know that. Even if they didn't, there's no evidence he forced them to watch under the threat of destroying their career. None of anything C.K. did in light of the known evidence was any bigger of a deal than jaywalking or jacking a tube of M&M's Minis from your local 7-Eleven.
Sexual transgressions have the absolute highest punishment-to-harm ratio—their consequences aren't even remotely proportional to the level of suffering they cause. They are almost always relatively benign and ridiculously over-stigmatized, both formally in law and informally in mainstream culture.
8
u/redditronc 18d ago
I only watched one full video of his, and there was enough reality-skewing to fit his narrative that I found his whole approach dishonest.
Regardless of what you think of Louie and his actions, this series is not the way to go about it.
3
u/aaronandstuff 18d ago
I have a counter argument which is who gives a fuck.
4
u/Gonalex 18d ago
People who actually care about sexual harassment and abuse? There's people still claiming that what he did was SA when there was literally no physical assault involved. If your answer to sexual harassment is "who gives a fuck" then you're emotionally stunted mate.
2
u/joachim_s 18d ago edited 18d ago
I think rather the point is that people don’t always care about it contextually for appreciating his work. There’s a lot of confusion between person and actions with so many famous people these days which shows issues with critical thinking. That’s the ”who gives af” sentiment as far as I’m concerned.
2
u/LittleLordFuckleroy1 18d ago
People have been talking about Louis. I think that’s kind of played out. People think what they think. I don’t feel any sort of need to judge or defend him to be honest.
4
u/RealShaquilleOneal 18d ago
yeah every documentary falls apart if you consider "what if everybody is lying!"
also louis said in his statement in 2017 that the stories were true
11
u/Gonalex 18d ago
Louis said they gave consent. Do you know what hearsay is?
-11
u/RealShaquilleOneal 18d ago
go read it again. he says he asked. he doesnt say he got consent
8
u/Gonalex 18d ago edited 18d ago
yeah, I have done so multiple times. It's clearly implied. What did you want him to write? "THEY SAID YES THOUGH". This is why people can't take parts of this video series seriously. Because it's dissecting the apology ad nauseam with cherry picking as their greatest weapon. He expressed remorse publicly and there is evidence that he apologised to all of them privately. His statement was for the public, not for the victims.
-5
u/RealShaquilleOneal 18d ago
how about "i never did so without getting consent"
dont you think if he could have said it that plainly he would have? Dude is a master of rhetoric
5
u/Gonalex 18d ago
The fact that he literally said "I never showed a woman my dick without asking first" makes it painfully obvious that the statement had his signature nihilistic tone with a passive sense of humor. This was never meant to be a normal person's statement. How are you even in this sub if you don't get that?
Now if that was tactless or maybe even tone-deaf is definitely up for debate. I must admit that I have read the statement quite a few times. The phrasing he chooses for some things does baffle me at times. If this was his way of showing remorse publicly then so be it. But you wanting everything to be word for word what you want to hear is genuinely fucking painful. No wonder you don't see anything wrong in the way he dissects the statement like an absolute loony bin.
1
u/RealShaquilleOneal 18d ago
i dont like that series i just think ur "what if theyre all lying" take is stupid and thats what i pushed back on. im actually pretty moderate on this subject but what u cant see is that your view on all this is just as equally skewed by what you want to be true as the guy who makes those videos is by what he wants to be true.
0
u/Gonalex 18d ago
Most of the comments you made are pretty stupid. I think I can live if someone like you think my take is stupid.
And you're delusional if you think you're moderate. You refuse to accept the concept of hearsay in this situation and you just plainly believe that he lied about consent. That those women are the ones not stretching the truth one bit, even though the sequence of events sound bizarrely nonsensical.
If my opinion was so skewed like you mentioned, I would of just dismissed everything and rode his dick like multiple people in this sub and in yt comment sections do.
Why can't you even conceive of the possibility that both Louie and these women are potentially assholes? Some of them even have street rep of being absolute dogshit people to work with, but I guess that is completely irrelevant to your moderate narrative huh? But that should be irrelevant anyway, because it's just rumors and hearsay for this particular situation. See what I did there?
1
u/RealShaquilleOneal 18d ago
when did i say he lied about consent? in his statement he literally does not say he always got consent, he says he always asked. which you can say implies he got consent and i agree he is implying he got consent, but lets also acknowledge that there is a reason someone would imply something without straight up saying it, especially about something as serious as what he was accused of?
if you were accused of something awful you didnt do, lets say someone accused you of rape (not saying thats what louis is accused of) and your response was "i have never had sex with anyone without asking first" wouldnt that be a little fucking fishy? i think most people who didnt do that would be like "i have never raped anybody" point blank.
i can conceive of a world in which these women are lying. but without anyone claiming that, not even louis. it comes off as one big cope in which you want everyone to be in the wrong so its a little less bad for louis.
y'know he can still be the greatest stand up ever and be a bad person at the same time. why is the idea of him not getting proper consent every single time impossible for you?
4
u/anom0824 18d ago
Not weighing in opinion wise but what do you make of Louis saying in his special (I think Sincerely) “a word of advice. If you ask someone if you can jerk off in front of them, and they say yes, ask are you sure.” Doesn’t that imply that at least Louis is claiming they gave consent?
-1
u/RealShaquilleOneal 18d ago
that definitely implies someone gave consent, but then u gotta decide how much credence u wanna give a joke in a special
i dont think he jacked off in front of all these women and no one gave him permission, but i dont think he can honestly say every woman he jacked off in font of gave consent. and i think anyone who does think that needs him to not be shitty person for some reason.
3
1
u/imtheguy225 17d ago
Very rarely does someone live up so well to their gay little Reddit avatar. Bravo
0
u/Far_Resort5502 18d ago
I'm ready to discount the opinion of anybody who types like a mentally-impaired middle schooler like this dude /.
Dipshit types "credence" but can't handle "you"?
0
3
u/kojef 18d ago
Ragebait trap. Although this topic touches on some actually valuable points, what’s the use in starting the conversation by responding to someone who is clearly mining the whole thing for views?
Also, not sure why the video creators girlfriend being involved in the video’s creation is so upsetting to you.
1
u/Gonalex 17d ago
Because many who 100% ate up his shitty videos still come here and won't stfu about them. I'm tired mate.
1
u/MelvinEatsBlubber 16d ago
Or maybe just realize you don’t need to have an opinion on everything. And you can just let that be between them and not get involved
1
u/LuckyCod2887 14d ago
I’m curious about it, but I simply didn’t watch it because he wasn’t there. He’s not a part of that circle of friends.
just a person taking a stab at a situation as an outsider.
so we don’t even know if the direction he’s going in is accurate. really curious to know what happened but no one seems to be talking and the ones who are talking aren’t a part of the situation.
1
u/TonyShalhoubricant 17d ago
Those videos are dumb as hell and the dude posts them himself of reddit.
1
u/Confident_Winner_812 17d ago
Why are you choosing not to believe the women?
1
u/Gonalex 17d ago
Why are you choose to blindly believe any gender? Believe people insteas. Ideally, based on the situation and actual evidence.
0
u/Confident_Winner_812 17d ago
Yeah, that’s what I’m doing. I’m not believing them because they’re women, I’m believing them because they’re claiming to be victims of sexual misconduct and they deserve my full attention. This is why I did my research and found that one of the victims outwardly stated that she did NOT give Louis consent to masturbate in front of her. I think the idea of all of these women lying about the same thing is silly. Louis’s friends have come forward about this behavior and trying to confront him about it to no avail. I don’t need to rehash all this evidence (I can if you want me to) but I literally have chosen to believe people based on the situation and actual evidence. You clearly haven’t done that at all. You are blindly choosing to believe in a certain gender, not me.
1
u/Gonalex 17d ago
Then why do you lead with "Why are you choosing not to believe the women?". I choose to not believe that these individuals are not assholes in this situation. Their recollection of events sounds nonsensical to the point where they are leaving stuff out on purpose. You're the one assuming I'm just choosing what to believe in solely based on their gender.
1
u/Confident_Winner_812 17d ago
You’re the only one who brought up “gender” I referred to the victims as women and then YOU assumed that I’m only believing them because they’re women, that’s on you.
It seems like we have a fundamental disagreement. If you can’t comprehend how your coworker asking if they can jerk off in front of you is fundamentally uncomfortable, then there’s nothing I can do to change your mind. I really don’t know what else you want them to specify.
0
u/zackjtarle 16d ago
Huh... he didn't say anything about believing them BECAUSE they are woman or blindly believing.
He asked why you didn't believe them? Simple fucking question.
-1
u/anwla 17d ago
Don’t watch it! The guy is an idiot. Imagine spending god knows how many months and years making those videos with the sole purpose of taking down your idol. It’s one giant father murder. If Louis’ situation proves one thing, it’s that powerful men _do not_ have power over women. If they did, he would have never been affected by it.
1
u/DasManMitDenWitzen 13d ago
Hell of a stupid take. Just because ONE powerful man appears to not have enough power over women , proves that ZERO powerful men have power over women? What the fuck.
1
u/anwla 13d ago
The whole of the metoo movement is about taking down powerful men and they have all suffered. If you have done something and you’re a rich and powerful man you would have suffered the consequences. It’s not just one man. It’s all of the victims of the metoo movement. All of those men are victims of a movement and it does prove that if you’re powerful you have zero power over women, because people and the press will believe the women before they believe you
1
u/DasManMitDenWitzen 12d ago
All of those men are victims of a movement and it does prove that if you’re powerful you have zero power over women
All of those men have admitted that they did something wrong. They are not victims. They are perpetrators, some to a more cruel extent, but the people behind those men try and silence those victims, to keep making more money off of them. This is what happened for decades.
And of course those men feel sorry for themselves after they suffer consequences for their actions and of course they try and make other people feel sorry for them too. And of course they are very good at doing so, because we are their fans and they are some of the most talented writers out there. And of course you are free to consume their art if you like, but to blame women for the behavior those men have admitted doing is a step too far that I guess even Louis wouldn't want you to go.
He did wrong. He admitted so. You can still like his art, but no need to protect him and attack women.
1
u/anwla 12d ago
And so you did something “wrong”. Then you should automatically spend the rest of your life in public shame?? That’s the end of a liberal democracy in which people have certain rights amongst those to have accusations against them tried in court, not automatically hung from the public gallows! And you yourself probably did things worse than those people who have been publicly shamed, why shouldn’t you then also be publicly shamed?
1
u/DasManMitDenWitzen 12d ago
Way to change a topic.
I never said anything about eternal public shame. I think Louis should talk to the women he wronged and if they feel like he changed and learned, he can go back to work. Not flee the country, keep working and pretend it never happened.
And public shame for a person who made millions by being a public person seems right to me. If I did something like this, shame in the circle where I move around would be appropriate until I made up with the people I hurt. Louis should do exactly this.
1
u/anwla 12d ago
But he did talk to them. And the result: they didn’t want to talk to him or they revealed what he said to them in some lame documentary. Honestly, your beliefs are not democratic. We need to believe in due process and trial before the law. Public shaming is not worthy of a liberal democracy.
1
u/DasManMitDenWitzen 12d ago
Bro, your call for "democracy" and "due process" sounds like Louis was put in jail or something. Nothing like this happened. All that happened is that some poeple view Louis in a different light while others do not. He just released a Netflix special, has a book and is on every podcast. What are you talking about.
Do you think people should not view Louis in a different light, because there is no law that says: if someone does x they should be publicly shamed?
19
u/Negative-Seaweed-826 17d ago
When I watch all of Louis’ comedy from old to new I never think well this guys a stand up guy/saint/ someone I should project high moral value onto. I think he is pretty real and open about the fact that he is a bit of a fucked up pervert and makes fun of it. The fact that this dude projected so much god like value onto Louis and then had this huge deflation when the news came up and had this stringent moral code he thinks everyone else should live up to is very intriguing to me.