Suddenly, people were talking about the Louis CK problem yesterday. Why would anyone talk about this erstwhile woke comedian, a beloved ally to the cause, until his bizarre sexual peccadilloes were revealed? Apparently, he showed up at a comedy club and did a 15 minute set. The audience gave him a standing ovation.
So what’s the problem? If people don’t want to see Louis CK, they don’t have to. No one can make them go see him. If he simply appears, they can walk out. No one can make them watch. If people don’t want to watch Louis CK, he won’t get a stage, he won’t get an audience, he won’t get applause. He got all three. Clearly, people wanted to see him. So what’s the problem?
The scolds before whom Louis CK committed no offense went nuts. How dare this toxic male return from exile without their permission? But even worse, how dare this audience sit there, watch him, applaud? Did they not realize that he was horrible? Did they not realize that he had not been punished sufficiently to sate the scolds? What about justice?
When I raised the obvious point, that people will vote with their feet and pocketbooks as to whether this jerk was ready for prime time, I got a ever-shifting word salad response from one brave twitterer. It was the best anyone could do, there being no rational argument possible.
So the New York Times sought out the one person shameless enough, incoherent enough, disingenuous enough, to make the case. And she didn’t let them down.
“Should a man pay for his misdeeds for the rest of his life?” This is always the question raised when we talk about justice in the case of harassment and rape allegations against public figures. How long should a man who has faced no legal and few financial consequences for such actions pay the price?
There is an old saying: how long should a man’s legs be? Long enough to reach the ground. Put aside Roxane Gay’s avoidance of the unpleasant stuff, like the fact that he faced no legal consequences because nobody did anything legal about his actions.
We spend so little energy thinking about justice for victims and so much energy thinking about the men who perpetrate sexual harassment and violence. We worry about what will become of them in the wake of their mistakes. We don’t worry as much about those who have suffered at their hands. It is easier, for far too many people, to empathize with predators than it is to empathize with prey.
Is Gay saying she spends no energy thinking about justice for victims? I have no clue who her “we” refers to, but it seems pretty unlikely she hangs around with anyone who spends all their energy empathizing with predators. It seems far more likely that she invents strawmen, without which she would find it really hard to explain her elevation to Chief Executioner.
Take Louis C.K. Not only did he expose himself to and masturbate in front of female comics; the actions of people in his employ reportedly worked to impede his victims’ careers. Still, he has remained in control of the narrative. He gets to break the rules, and then he gets to establish rules of his own when he must answer for his misdeeds.
In GayLand, Louis CK has a superpower to force his rules down other people’s throats. He forces his way onto a stage. He forces people to stay and watch him. He forces them to laugh and applaud. He is the embodiment of comic omnipotence, using his mad powers to force an unwilling audience to endure his narrative.
How long should a man like Louis C.K. pay for what he did? At least as long as he worked to silence the women he assaulted and at least as long as he allowed them to doubt themselves and suffer in the wake of his predation and at least as long as the comedy world protected him even though there were very loud whispers about his behavior for decades.
Or as long as people don’t wish to watch him. Gay’s problem isn’t with Louis CK. Gay’s problem is with people not doing as she and her sister scolds command, to hate him, to punish him, to force him to perform acts of contrition that they would impose. How dare people sit there and laugh at this man whom Gay commands be shunned and hated?
We need to figure out what justice looks like in the court of public opinion, not for the sake of the offenders, but for the sake of victims. It is painful to know Louis C.K. simply strolled into a comedy club and did a set as if he hadn’t admitted to masturbating in front of women, as if for sport.
To the extent there is any actual thought in her words, “we” did exactly that. The “we” in this instance was the audience, the petit jury in the court of public opinion. Much as scolds like Gay have anointed themselves the keepers of the faith, the verdict was in. And Gay can’t stand it that the “we” won’t abide her fury, won’t do as she commands them to do.
It is painful to witness the familiar narrative of transgressions coming to light, the perpetrator maybe facing opprobrium and before long, plotting a “comeback” where all is seemingly forgiven. It is painful that these men think they are so vital to the culture that the public wants them to come back. Whatever private acts of contrition these men, and a few women, might make to their victims demands a corresponding public act of contrition, one offered genuinely, rather than to save face or appease the crowd. Until then, they don’t deserve restorative justice or redemption. That is the price they must pay for the wrong they have done.
The audience at that comedy club sat in judgment of Louis CK. Gay got what she pretends to ask for, the judgment of people outside the mob that follows her lead, and they rendered their verdict: Louis CK paid the price for the wrong he did, and now they’re laughing at his jokes again. And they’re laughing at scolds like Gay, who can’t figure out why people won’t always do as she commands.
I won’t go see Louis CK. I wouldn’t before. I won’t now. But not because some scold tells me I can’t. If Louis CK never played another room, I wouldn’t lose a minute’s sleep. But if you agree with Gay, that he hasn’t suffered to her satisfaction, then don’t see him either. But you can’t command other people that they can’t see him if they want to. The court of public opinion has no judge, and Roxane Gay is no more entitled to impose sentence than anyone else, or hold you in contempt for refusing to abide her sentence.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Does the problem really sit with the NYT, where they deem it appropriate to seek out Roxanne Gay for her apparent newsworthy take on this?
And Face The Opprobrium would make a great name for a alt-rock band.
There are always irrational nutjobs who will hate on anything, but that doesn’t mean the NY Times needs to give them real estate to serve up their word salad. In Gay, they’ve got their Scold in Residence, invariably reliable to string together word that almost create the appearance of cogent thought no matter how many facts it ignores or logical fallacies it contains.
If there was a remotely credible argument, that would be fine. But instead the Times gives real estate to Gay. So yes, it’s the Times’ fault.
NPR has a similarly incoherent piece about this: an interview between Ailsa Chang and Melinda Hill.
And NPR had to go out and find a scold, since apparently they didn’t have a go-to.
Did reddit send you back here? Bastards. Gay isn’t the only scold out there, fighting for shrewish hegemony. If NPR wants to compete, they’ll need to keep some scolds in their stable just in case.
Huh? The NYT shouldn’t ” give them real estate,” but comedy clubs should give Louis “real estate”? Where is the logic there?
By the way, interesting technique you and the author have of belittling and diminishing critics by referring to them as “scolds”…
In fairness, me and author have very similar thoughts on the subject, but being an astute observer, you probably already figured that out.
Le’s see, completely irrational word salad of bullshit by a raving nutjob scold whose only purpose is to dictate to others what they may or may not do based on her deluded notion that she’s the Queen of Angry Righteousness gets real estate in a supposedly thoughtful newspaper v. comedian gets a stage to do comedy in a comedy club.
I see your point.
When you put it that way, it makes SC look kinda logic-challenged.
Someone needs to tell ‘ole Roxy that…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0g3Vb0ewg8
PS: Good morning Scott, and thanks for the “diet incentive”
Whenever I see an old Ludwig drum set, I remember mine back in the old days. I loved that drum set. Some guys kept a centerfold on the wall. I kept a pic of Buddy Rich.
!?!!…a drummer?…guess i shoulda’ known…always talking about “..a blunt instrument…”
Us guys who actually play melodic notes used to have a ton of jokes about you guys…but I’ll refrain.
…let me guess..blue sparkle? Agreed, Buddy was The BEST.
My first set was gold sparkle. I never really like the color, but it was the best one I could afford. My next one was pure black. The color was perfect.
The women always hung out with the drummer. I felt bad for the strings, so lonely and celibate.
Saa-lamm!…..so how the hell else are we to write all those songs about broken hearts and unrequited love?….if it wasn’t for us “losers in love” making songs you drummers would’ve never left the fire pit. ( or IOW, be careful not to cut off the coat tails one rides upon) So there!…(Bronx cheer)
I played Timpani for realsies, and in a rock band for fun and profit. That’s how I learned as a drummer, I’d make a good lawyer (my conductor told me that).
Robert Heinlein.
“I’ve found out why people laugh. They laugh because it hurts… because its the only thing that’ll make it stop hurting.
But find me something that makes you laugh, a joke, anything–but something that gave you a belly laugh, not a smile. Then we’ll see if there isn’t wrongness somewhere and whether you would laugh if the wrongness wasn’t there.”
The #MeToo movement took advantage of the fickle nature of the mob when it started naming names, and I’m sure people like Gay enjoyed the feeling of power they got from being able to cast targets out of society with a viral tweet. Well, it turns out the same lack of memory, perspective, and proportion make the mob incapable of carrying out the sentence imposed to completion. Easy come, easy go.
Focus is not the mob’s strength.
“I have no clue who her “we” refers to”
I’m pretty sure it was a royal ‘We’.
Could also be the schizophrenic “we.”
I thought that was “the multiple personality we preferred by psychotics worldwide.”
I forgot what number that was on the list of SHGisms
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
…nah….shes got a mouse in her pocket. Apparently, a really big one… in each pocket….
Was going respond with “fried?” but that would be needlessly rude, so I won’t.
Self-censoring is the first indication that the kool-aids working….
You have no idea. This is restrained me.
But intersectionality bruh…
Whatever that’s supposed to mean.
If you go to a club and there’s a surprise performance by Roxanne Gay of her poetry about why all white men are bad, would that be so traumatic that you were in shock and unable to make your limbs move to get you out the door?
Back to LCK, if someone did leave, exercising the option you suggest, would they get a refund of their admission and/or have the two-drink minimum charge waived?
I suppose that’s rhetorical, since I’m not seeking free legal advice!
No because the foul-ball-to-the-face rule applies to comedy clubs as well.
Get your hand stamped on the way out. Have a smoke. Come back in. Have your second drink.
Have a smoke??? People have been tarred and feathered for less! Indeed, you are unawoke.
As if. Pops is so woke he knows the hippie speedball is the best breaksfast. Black coffee and a joint. Yum. Now where’d I put the keys again?
PK.
A good friend of mine owns the club where Louis C.K. did his recent set. He would likely agree with you. He said that only one person in the audience complained. He gave an extensive and thoughtful interview to the Hollywood Reporter that touches on the trajectory of #Metoo thing that are troubling.
There seems to be three possible answers:
1. Ask the Scolds for their approval.
2. Hide in fear of the mob and do nothing until the coast is clear.
3. Let the audience vote with their hands and feet.
He made the only rational and responsible decision, which unfortunately doesn’t mean he won’t get slammed by the shrews for it. Some of us will applaud his decision.
Maybe the audience was too stupid to be woke. Maybe they weren’t woke enough to be smart. Either way, how dare someone enjoy something.
I think the actual question is, “Should a bunch of batshit crazy asshats try to force the entire world to make someone pay for his perceived misdeeds for the rest of his life?” It’s up to the asshats, but they should be ready to live with disappointment if they try to keep pushing it.
#SHGism- Not everything that hurts your feelings requires either punishment or compensation.
Just a suggestion:
Just as no one can be forced to watch/listen to Louis, likewise no one can be forced to read the NYT. A waste of time and energy in both cases.
Fairly easy solution to both dilemmas.
The multiple daily doses of SJW outrage has reached the habituation stage.
If I didn’t read the Times, how would I know what’s going on in the world?
I just received a news alert from the Gray Lady purporting to advise whether “It is OK to be a football fan in 2018?”
Please stand by and take no action until she can provide further insight.
See? This is important information. Which I shall completely disregard if necessary.
“. . . if necessary” ?
Don’t they still have tall buildings in NYC? You could look out the window (and probably learn more reliable news).
It is easier, for far too many people, to empathize with predators than it is to empathize with prey.
Beyond Louis CK himself, there is probably some truth here, not that Gay and her cohort would ever acknowledge why: It is far easier to empathize with someone you know than someone you don’t. There is a benefit to anonymous charges, that they can be made without risk of censure or opprobrium, whether true or not. However, the downside is clear too: The accused is a concrete individual, identifiable and identifiable with, while the accuser remains in the realm of the abstract.
However much Gay and her partisans might prefer otherwise, once you start eating cake, at some point you’re going to run out.
You fell for the scam. Is it “easier”? Says who? What does “far too many people” mean? One? Ten? 99%? Just because something appeals to your bias doesn’t make it real. It makes you the fool who fell for her scam.
Well, our eyes are oriented forward, and some of us eat meat.