3 ms·

So should a person's mistakes be held against them for the rest of their life? Especially given what he did, which seemed very mild compared to the reaction.

foobiter 6y ago
you think serially ejaculating in front of people without consent is mild? are you serious?
boringg 6y ago
I think OPs comment is accurate. He does lose his ability to be used as a moral compass. He might still be funny and have interesting insights but he is not a moral compass.
- Karsteski 6y ago
  Hmm I heavily disagree. I think that just because someone did something fucked up in the past doesn't mean they can no longer be trusted or their moral compass/judgement is somehow permanently broken. Perhaps this is the case for me because what he did wasn't really messed up from what I know about the story, just weird. I will concede that in some situations, and from my perspective these would almost entire involve sexual assault, I'd consider a person unredeemable.
  - boringg 6y ago
    In a situation where someone has indeed done some fucked up stuff - they need to prove that their moral compass has been fixed in order for them to be trusted again. I don't think you get a pass because you've been quiet for a couple years. So I disagree with you. You should probably go read up on what he did - pretty messed up power dynamics. (https://www.thecut.com/2018/08/what-about-the-careers-of-louis-ck-victims.html https://www.thecut.com/2018/08/what-about-the-careers-of-lou...)
    - Karsteski 6y ago
      Sigh, idk how far I want to go with this but I'll ask this: How is this an abuse of power dynamics? To me, if someone asked me "Can I masturbate in front of you?", them being the CEO of my company wouldn't pressure me to comply because I'd be afraid of what people said, or what have you. Even this article just brushes past the fact that he did ask. Now, I do think what he did was weird and creepy, but I try not to judge people too much on what they get off to. Lastly, this article just seems written to be purposely inflammatory and is missing quite a lot of context... "C.K. didn’t just subject these women to sexual harassment and the personal struggles that come with that, he subjected them to threats from strangers, to alienation from their colleagues and peers, to lost professional opportunities. " Really? He purposely subjected them to threats and alienation? If anything, the colleagues and peers are pieces of shit, which has nothing to do with Louis C.K.

foobiter 6y ago

you think serially ejaculating in front of people without consent is mild? are you serious?

boringg 6y ago

I think OPs comment is accurate. He does lose his ability to be used as a moral compass. He might still be funny and have interesting insights but he is not a moral compass.

Karsteski 6y ago
Hmm I heavily disagree. I think that just because someone did something fucked up in the past doesn't mean they can no longer be trusted or their moral compass/judgement is somehow permanently broken. Perhaps this is the case for me because what he did wasn't really messed up from what I know about the story, just weird. I will concede that in some situations, and from my perspective these would almost entire involve sexual assault, I'd consider a person unredeemable.
- boringg 6y ago
  In a situation where someone has indeed done some fucked up stuff - they need to prove that their moral compass has been fixed in order for them to be trusted again. I don't think you get a pass because you've been quiet for a couple years. So I disagree with you. You should probably go read up on what he did - pretty messed up power dynamics. (https://www.thecut.com/2018/08/what-about-the-careers-of-louis-ck-victims.html https://www.thecut.com/2018/08/what-about-the-careers-of-lou...)
  - Karsteski 6y ago
    Sigh, idk how far I want to go with this but I'll ask this: How is this an abuse of power dynamics? To me, if someone asked me "Can I masturbate in front of you?", them being the CEO of my company wouldn't pressure me to comply because I'd be afraid of what people said, or what have you. Even this article just brushes past the fact that he did ask. Now, I do think what he did was weird and creepy, but I try not to judge people too much on what they get off to. Lastly, this article just seems written to be purposely inflammatory and is missing quite a lot of context... "C.K. didn’t just subject these women to sexual harassment and the personal struggles that come with that, he subjected them to threats from strangers, to alienation from their colleagues and peers, to lost professional opportunities. " Really? He purposely subjected them to threats and alienation? If anything, the colleagues and peers are pieces of shit, which has nothing to do with Louis C.K.