Hot Take/ Musical Confession Thread!

[chrb98]

If its consensual then there's no problem, outside of your own preconceived beliefs regarding what's acceptable and unacceptable in the world of fetishes.

If she's uncomfortable yet stays for whatever reason it's weird but farrrrrr from rape. Louis is almost completely at fault for not noticing her discomfort and stopping, but the woman still has to realize that by staying when he says "I am going to jerk off. You can stay or you can leave", or by not telling him to not do that shit, she's agreeing to his terms. Regardless of how uncomfortable and powerless they may feel, they're an adult and must make decisions according to their wants and needs.

The situation never should have gotten to a point where the participant is uncomfortable and regretting their decision to stay, but if Louis isnt going to stop then their only option isnt to simply let it happen. They have an option to leave, tell him no, or do any other number of things.

In the event that the participant is a teenager, its understandable that the power dynamic would feel completely on Louis's side. But if the participant is a fully grown adult, then they ought to recognize their own power in the situation and make judgements accordingly.

The victim still deserves the sympathy, but it's disingenuous to act like you cannot be critical of their decisions in situations such as this, especially when the knowledge regarding what someone in their shoes should do in an event like that is highly important and potentially life-saving.

This are the simplest terms I can put this in so I hope you understand. I explain my points further down below, but your mind seems to be set.



Logically its sound that you should just walk out immediately if you dont want it to happen. I understand the emotional importance of how the victim would feel in the situation, but context is incredibly important in determining the severity of it and how much blame should be placed on either party.

I bring up the need for context because it's easy to visualize a scenario in your head far worse than what might have actually occurred, especially when the topic is of gross sexual shit. Context can completely revamp the apparent severity of every crime.

I understand some of you are quick to denounce the angle I take with this simply because I dont place all of the blame on Louis. I place almost all of the blame on him, because as an adult you should know not to willingly or unwillingly make someone uncomfortable. He deserves to get shit for that.

But, assuming the victim was also as an adult, they should know that they aren't powerless in situations like this, regardless of how they may feel.
Bringing awareness to what should've been done by both sides to prevent this from going even further, or happening to begin with, is, in my opinion, the second most important factor in this situation and others like it. Both sides need to know what to do for future reference.

I believe that the victim deserves the sympathy they get, but they shouldn't be talked about as if they are a defenseless child if they're a fully grown adult who was in control of the situation (you may disagree and say that Louis was the tyrant in this event, but just going off of what I've read about how embarrassed he got when his question was met with a "no", I believe he would've immediately stopped and apologized had she told him to stop or gotten up to leave.)

By acting like the power dynamic was completely skewed to the perpetrator's end, you both prevent people from learning what they ought to do when in uncomfortable situations like that, and you dehumanize the perpetrator far more than they may deserve (he is not Bill Cosby in the slightest.)

Dehumanization of people who are completely capable, if not already in the process of becoming better humans is easily the leading cause for cancel culture affecting people who even do as little as made edgy jokes on the internet a decade ago.
While being critical of their behavior is important, rehabilitation is also of importance By dehumanizing someone and making them far easier to build false narratives off of (for the third time, he's not Bill Cosby), you're making it way less likely that they'll actually repair themselves. In fact, they may even get sidetracked from their rehabilitation further thanks to worsening mental health from unwarranted or outright false attacks, and they may possibly even get pushed back into the awful mental state they were in before.

The negative side affects of cancel culture cannot wholly be attributed to cancel culture in every single case, in the same way that the blame cannot be on the victim of a bad sexual encounter in every case. In most cases, the blame lies wholly on the perpetrator, but not always. That's the point I'm really emphasizing.

I'm not blaming every single victim, nor am I encouraging a precedent to blame every single victim. I am, however, discouraging the notion that you cannot look critically at both sides in a scandalous situation like this. Doing so encourages one-sided discussion in a highly complex topic.

You'll also notice that my point in an earlier paragraph, about the difference between how children and adults react to uncomfortable complex situations, is why I originally brought up how the age is important. I was only half expecting to write an essay explaining myself, so I didn't go into detail in that post.
I only know what I've read, so my opinion is completely subject to change if it turned out to be an actual teenager and / or if more shit comes out about Louis being a creep.

The tl;dr is that he was (and maybe still is) a creep, but by exclusively placing the blame on him and denouncing even the slightest notion that the victim could've defused the situation, you're making it easier to dehumanize him and build false narratives about how he is in the same ring as a man who drugged and raped women.

Ok, this post is... really really bad, and I'm going to try to tell you why.

First off, your entire post is heavily buying into this idea that Louis CK was always politely asking these women whether or not he could masturbate in front of them, always got their consent, never put them in a position where they felt like they couldn't leave, etc. and this is so incredibly far from the truth that your entire perspective should really be re-adjusted. We know for a fact that this wasn't always the case. We know there was at LEAST one incident where Louis CK stood in front of the door, blocking the woman. We know there were multiple incidents of Louis CK beginning to masturbate without asking beforehand, he just started going at it in front of them. We know Louis CK once apologized to a woman for, in HIS OWN words, shoving her into a bathroom to masturbate in front of her, not realizing that the woman he called to apologize too was actually not the woman he did this to, and he was mixing up his incidents.

Now let's go on to the idea that these women should shoulder some of the blame because they could've said no, they could've stopped him, they could've ran away, etc. and why that's wrong. First off - while masturbating in front of somebody in a situation like this is not an immediately physically violent act, it's a STRONG indicator that the person in question does not care for the feelings or the safety of the person they're intending to harass or make feel uncomfortable. There are FAR too many stories out there of women getting catcalled/groped/harassed/etc, telling the guy off for doing it, and then being far more seriously assaulted (or even killed) for it. Do I think Louis CK would've raped one of those girls if they just said "fuck off, creep" and tried to push him away from the door he was blocking? I don't know, but when you're in that situation, you simply do not know, as I and many other sexual assault survivors (women and men!) can attest to. And given that we know that he, in his own words, shoved a woman into a bathroom to masturbate in front of her (his words!), it's FAR from a big leap to assume that he could turn violent, or at least that he poses a reasonable threat of doing so.

On top of that, sexual harassment and assault are an especially tricky issue to deal with in the workplace or in your industry due to the power balance. You seem to be under the impression that "power balance" is a thing that has to do with age or physical power, but let's look at the facts here: Louis CK, at least pre-accusations, is one of the most well-known comedians alive today. Top ten for damn sure. On the flip side, can you remember the name of any of the women who accused him? I'd guess not. Did any of them have any level of fame or notoriety that was comparable to him? Hell no. These were women who were getting their start in the comedy industry, who were trying to take their careers to the next level, who had an industry titan essentially coaxing them into letting him do what he wanted in front of him. When you're starting out in ANY industry, but especially one based in entertainment, connections are everything, and there is an incredibly well-documented history of people low on the totem pole not only fearing speaking out against those higher up on the totem pole in fear of being blackballed, having all their connections severed, etc. but those fears actually coming true. Louis CK knew this power balance was at play and took advantage of it. That is INCREDIBLY predatory, and blaming women for this because "what Louis CK did wasn't as bad as what Bill Cosby did" is a total mismanagement of blame, especially when its predicated on an outright false understanding of what Louis CK actually did to these women

 

[Aron]

Blaming credible victims, no matter their age, is never really the right take. At least in my book. I agree that there are varying degrees of assholery in all of these instances, but in the cases where the accusations are credible and numerous, the blame falls on the asshole, not the victim. It's really that simple.

Each individual ultimately indicates how forgiving they are to these assholes. My guess is that Louis CK will find an audience for his standup as time goes on, but that audience will never be as large as it was before. And while that smaller audience and the stigma that comes with having his assholery exposed on a global scale are tough...he's not the victim. Don't forget, he did that power trip, jerk off move with multiple women...it wasn't a one off thing (which would still be bad). There are consequences. His are of the professional variety.

 

[Dirtbag Auntie]

Also it isn’t the responsibility of other members to educate you and your bad takes. Before making any victim blaming posts of any kind, maybe research situations a little further?

Seriously, stuff like this becomes a safety issue as well. This board is supposed to be welcoming to all. Imagine hopping into this thread, reading everyone’s “takes” and them seeing this discussion and how dismissive and crummy it is.

Seriously, a big thank you to the folks to took the time to educate. Time spent doing this is valuable. I appreciate you!

 

[wokeupnew]

Also it isn’t the responsibility of other members to educate you and your bad takes. Before making any victim blaming posts of any kind, maybe research situations a little further?

Seriously, stuff like this becomes a safety issue as well. This board is supposed to be welcoming to all. Imagine hopping into this thread, reading everyone’s “takes” and them seeing this discussion and how dismissive and crummy it is.

Seriously, a big thank you to the folks to took the time to educate. Time spent doing this is valuable. I appreciate you!

Yeah, time and effort was needed on my part. It’s truly not helping if we say “this is wrong” or “this is a bad take” and nothing more. Comes off as very hostile. Thanks @chrb98 for educating and explaining the point of view. I was maybe surprised or shocked that the opposite point of view could be held here. But we all come from different backgrounds and perspectives which help form our views. So, controversies travel differently, viewed differently in different circles so filling in the gaps is key.

 

[KenKaniff]

Few quick things:

1) Cancel culture sucks. You can't cancel people.
2) I believe in forgiveness. I also believe in responsibility/accountability. We want people to forgive us for our mistakes, so why shouldn't we forgive others? I'm not saying forgiveness is easy; but it's important.

 

[kickerofelves]

Few quick things:

1) Cancel culture sucks. You can't cancel people.
2) I believe in forgiveness. I also believe in responsibility/accountability. We want people to forgive us for our mistakes, so why shouldn't we forgive others? I'm not saying forgiveness is easy; but it's important.

Years and decades of behavior aren't a whoopsie, and forgiveness isn't a requirement to be placed on the harmed.

 

[kickerofelves]

Years and decades of behavior aren't a whoopsie, and forgiveness isn't a requirement to be placed on the harmed.

Also how many "cancelled" folks have done anything close to accounting for their behavior, or owning up to it, or doing work on themselves to change themselves for the better or to benefit others?

This is a very frustrating way of centering the discussion and it happens so, so often. It makes me tired.

 

[BoilerRhapsody]

I think at this stage the Morrissey thread is more appropriate for this. But we're best off without the weird 'ethics of sexual harassment' discussion in general.

 

[KenKaniff]

Years and decades of behavior aren't a whoopsie, and forgiveness isn't a requirement to be placed on the harmed.

My post wasn't a specific reply to a certain post. I was scrolling and these were thoughts in general that came to me.

1) For sure. You can fuck up over and over and over again and forgiveness is still possible. It doesn't happen overnight and there's accountability/responsibility that should take place, among other things.
2). Forgiveness isn't a requirement and I'll never tell a victim of anything how they should feel or respond.

 

[Chucktshoes]

I feel like there’s a lot of nuance being left out of this discussion. It seems like the idea is that in these incidents there is one party who is 100% to blame and the other is 100% blameless.

That dog don’t hunt.

Everyone is 100% liable for their own actions. If someone uses their position to facilitate committing acts of violence, prosecute them. If they use their position to coerce others, tell others and call them our for it.

On the flip side, if you find yourself in a shitty situation with a shitty person doing shitty things and take no action to remove yourself from it, that’s on you. Does it absolve the other party for their wrongdoing, not at all. Still, don’t pretend like you lack any agency in the matter.

As an example, Harvey Weinstein’s undeniably a monster and faces credible allegations of rape. Hopefully he will get his due. That said, the idea that some of those women didn’t make a conscious decision to trade sex for opportunity is ridiculous. The casting couch isn’t an unknown quantity. While someone might not be expecting it at a particular moment, folks know it when they see it. If someone lays down on that couch for a job, everyone got what they wanted. The owners of the couches are still undeniably shitty people, but the folks who trade time on that couch for career advancement aren’t innocent angels either.

 

[Aron]

I feel like there’s a lot of nuance being left out of this discussion. It seems like the idea is that in these incidents there is one party who is 100% to blame and the other is 100% blameless.

That dog don’t hunt.

Everyone is 100% liable for their own actions. If someone uses their position to facilitate committing acts of violence, prosecute them. If they use their position to coerce others, tell others and call them our for it.

On the flip side, if you find yourself in a shitty situation with a shitty person doing shitty things and take no action to remove yourself from it, that’s on you. Does it absolve the other party for their wrongdoing, not at all. Still, don’t pretend like you lack any agency in the matter.

As an example, Harvey Weinstein’s undeniably a monster and faces credible allegations of rape. Hopefully he will get his due. That said, the idea that some of those women didn’t make a conscious decision to trade sex for opportunity is ridiculous. The casting couch isn’t an unknown quantity. While someone might not be expecting it at a particular moment, folks know it when they see it. If someone lays down on that couch for a job, everyone got what they wanted. The owners of the couches are still undeniably shitty people, but the folks who trade time on that couch for career advancement aren’t innocent angels either.

I'm sorry, but a lot of this argument you are making sounds like it is steering into "Did you see how she was dressed...she was asking for it" territory. A budding actress, or even an experienced one, might be fully aware that the casting couch exists, but still might find themselves in an uncomfortable or dangerous situation due to chance. I forgot which one, but I believe it was one of Weinstein's victims or potential victims that scheduled a meeting with an agent at a hotel. The agent was ordered to leave at some point behind the scenes, essentially forcing a meeting between the actress and Weinstein in his room. Harvey was a powerful man in Hollywood, even when it came to the careers of established actresses. So, yeah, I can see even smart, intelligent people still getting stuck in a bad situation, and having a hard time just leaving said situation out of basic shock or fear. He had the power to completely blackball an actor, and he used it to get what he wanted. I feel like you are oversimplifying the removing of oneself from a bad situation. Sometimes that kind of thing is easier said than done. This isn't an action movie, after all.

 

[Dtknuckles]

I think most people didn't care to begin with and still don't really care now. If you mean most fans of Louis C.K cancelled him, that's ultimately something that can't be judged but I doubt that as well.



Were there any specific stories of women freezing up and walking out like midway through or did they just freeze up and stay the whole game anyways? Context is highly important.
Also what were the ages? Cause the older you get, the more you should be able to get a grasp of yourself in uncomfortable situations and make a decision for yourself.

It is part of my job to counsel people. Some of the kids I have worked with have been victims of abuse and some have been perpetrators. It changes their lives forever. The first thing you learn in any counseling class is when you interact with a client you never use the word should if you are working with them in order to grow or heal. You are projecting you own experiences and emotions on them. All people are different and thus react differently.

 

[Dtknuckles]

I feel like there’s a lot of nuance being left out of this discussion. It seems like the idea is that in these incidents there is one party who is 100% to blame and the other is 100% blameless.

That dog don’t hunt.

Everyone is 100% liable for their own actions. If someone uses their position to facilitate committing acts of violence, prosecute them. If they use their position to coerce others, tell others and call them our for it.

On the flip side, if you find yourself in a shitty situation with a shitty person doing shitty things and take no action to remove yourself from it, that’s on you. Does it absolve the other party for their wrongdoing, not at all. Still, don’t pretend like you lack any agency in the matter.

I don’t see anyone taking the 100% blame vs the 100% blameless argument in here.

I also find your critique of the discussion lacks nuance contradictory to your stance that people are 100% responsible for the actions. That is a very simplistic view of humans and free will, whether we are evaluating a victims or perpetrators

 

[Chucktshoes]

I'm sorry, but a lot of this argument you are making sounds like it is steering into "Did you see how she was dressed...she was asking for it" territory. A budding actress, or even an experienced one, might be fully aware that the casting couch exists, but still might find themselves in an uncomfortable or dangerous situation due to chance. I forgot which one, but I believe it was one of Weinstein's victims or potential victims that scheduled a meeting with an agent at a hotel. The agent was ordered to leave at some point behind the scenes, essentially forcing a meeting between the actress and Weinstein in his room. Harvey was a powerful man in Hollywood, even when it came to the careers of established actresses. So, yeah, I can see even smart, intelligent people still getting stuck in a bad situation, and having a hard time just leaving said situation out of basic shock or fear. He had the power to completely blackball an actor, and he used it to get what he wanted. I feel like you are oversimplifying the removing of oneself from a bad situation. Sometimes that kind of thing is easier said than done. This isn't an action movie, after all.

A more accurate summation of my position instead of “did you see what she was wearing - she was asking for it” would be “why did she climb over the railing into the tiger’s pen? That tiger eating her was horrible, but entirely predictable.”

Yes, he had the ability to blackball an actor. Yes I bet everyone of his victims was aware of that. If the choice was between debasing oneself for an acting career or leaving, it was still a choice they made. Just because one is faced with two shitty options doesn’t mean they still didn’t make a choice between them.

In fact I’ll take it one step further and say that if someone trying to make it in Hollywood doesn’t have a plan in advance to deal with that moment when they face the couch, they’re an idiot. Walking out the door or securing yourself away to call the police aren’t action movie fantasies, they’re reasonable courses of action to have planned out in advance when faced with disgusting or possibly dangerous situations like these. We can all agree that it shouldn’t be like this and that hopefully the culture is changing. Still, not planning and acting in accordance to how the world really is instead of what you think it should be is not a recipe for success.

That’s one of the most important lessons I can teach my daughter to prepare her for the world. The world doesn’t care what you think it should be, you need to understand what it actually is and prepare accordingly.

I don’t see anyone taking the 100% blame vs the 100% blameless argument in here.

I also find your critique of the discussion lacks nuance contradictory to your stance that people are 100% responsible for the actions. That is a very simplistic view of humans and free will, whether we are evaluating a victims or perpetrators

That’s exactly the position being taken with regards to critique of the actions (or lack thereof) taken by the victims. “The men were powerful and the victims didn’t have any choice.” That’s frankly a load of bullshit. It removes any and all agency from the targets of these assholes.

You can call my position simplistic, but I don’t care. You, me, and every other non-mentally deficient adult are 100% morally responsible and liable for the consequences of our choices. I don’t care if you had a shitty childhood (I did). I don’t care if you were molested (I was). I don’t care if you had substance abuse issues (I did). I don’t care if you are broke and homeless (been there too). I don’t give a damn what is wrong with your life, you are 100% responsible for the choices you make and things you do. The sooner folks realize that, the better off their life will be.

The biggest thing we can do to fuck up kids and set them on the path to destruction is to tell them the lie that they are a victim of their circumstances. Folks who do that should not only not be allowed around children, they should be strung up like pedos because they’re no less harmful to them.

A universal and constant truth is that life is shitty, but how you deal with that fact is entirely up to you.

 

[Woob_woob]

The hot take thread is fun when the hot takes are harmless. These last few pages are anything but.

 

[mcherry]

I’m not normally an advocate for stopping/redirecting organic conversational tangents, but perhaps this is the thread to ask that people do so? People have mentioned the lack of a Your fave is problematic thread. Someone start one, no one’s stopping you.

 

[NathanRicaud]

@Joe Mac - What your five favourite David Bowie albums? I want you to rank your five favourite David Bowie albums!

After you named PJ Harvey's "Is This Desire?" your second favourite album of hers, I was impressed!

I purchased David Bowie's "Let's Dance" recently and I really like it! I love Nile Rodgers contribution to that album! I have never been so ready to get into David Bowie and I know you are a David Bowie expert! I have immersed myself into The Smiths and own three of their records on vinyl and I love spinning them!

I think I remember you really liking Low, Hunky Dory and Heroes. Wasn't "Low" your favourite Bowie album? David Bowie is quite avant-garde/experimental/ahead of his time, so I am sure I will enjoy his best-regarded albums!

 

[Joe Mac]

@Joe Mac - What your five favourite David Bowie albums? I want you to rank your five favourite David Bowie albums!

I think after you named PJ Harvey's "Is This Desire?" your second favourite album of hers, I was impressed!

I purchased David Bowie's "Let's Dance" recently and I really like it! I love Nile Rodgers contribution to that album! I have never been so ready to get into David Bowie and I know you are a David Bowie expert! I have immersed myself into The Smiths and own three of their records on vinyl and I love spinning them!

I think I remember you really liking Low, Hunky Dory and Heroes. Wasn't "Low" your favourite Bowie album? David Bowie is quite avant-garde/experimental/ahead of his time, so I am sure I will enjoy his best-regarded albums!

Top 5 is hard.... also I’m going to redirect this from here to the Bowie thread because I now actually hate this thread, despite being drawn back into it like a moth to the flame...

 

[NathanRicaud]

Top 5 is hard.... also I’m going to redirect this from here to the Bowie thread because I now actually hate this thread, despite being drawn back into it like a moth to the flame...

ok, let's go to the Bowie thread! I typed' David Bowie' in the search engine but didn't see the thread. Happy to know there is a dedicated thread!

 

[Joe Mac]

ok, let's go to the Bowie thread! I typed' David Bowie' in the search engine but didn't see the thread. Happy to know there is a dedicated thread!

That’s ok, it’s not on you, it’s on the shitty views above! I think I tagged you in a post there so let that direct you