3 ms·

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/

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.

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.