[Reply]

I hope not. Carlin stopped being funny years before he died.
[Reply]

Very true
[Reply]

Nah that wasnt as good
[Reply]

Watched it. Was pretty funny. 8/10. Would watch again.

Not as good as alot of today's comics though, but I do appreciate what he was trying to do.
[Reply]

I love offensive humor if it has a fun angle on it, and Chappelle again knocks it out of the park on this, except in a couple places.

The angle that Louis CK's abuse wasn't that bad is just misogynistic bullshit. And I expect misogyny in comedy but that's so damn ridiculous I'm shocked Dave was that lazy to argue it.

I'm also not interested in re-litigating Michael Jackson's accusers potentially lying, because the fact that Michael Jackson treated them well aside from sexual exploitation is a joke that's been made on SNL since Norm McDonald.

The LGBT sharing a car bit was inspired. Most of the special was, and it has the odd perspectives and hilarious angles that you expect from him.

But those are two lazy-ass jokes that are so asinine, I'm irked they even graced his special.
[Reply]

Man, I love Chapelle. He's the best at making you laugh and making you think just by telling stories. The best thing is that he does it without being judgmental. He makes you think about it while being able to laugh out loud at both sides of the issues. Hands down the best around in my book. Also love Norm McDonald.
[Reply]

I dunno on the CK thing. You are pressing a pretty fine edge when the narrative is that someone asks you to do something and you participate out of a vague sense of comparative power in your industry, particularly when it's as lone-wolf an industry as a travelling comic.

And the 'prosecution' of the matter is simply a change in the social currency of the individual in question.

This isn't a matter of coercion or quid pro quo, and we never got a forum where we actually delved into the specifics of what possible implicit or soft power CK may have exerted.

The whole thing stinks of excessive narrative construction after the fact.

Some see a powerful comic 'imposing' his good graces in order to engage in 'perverted' acts.

It is just as plausible to see a lonely schlub away from home reaching out to compatible colleagues for potential mutual release.
[Reply]

Think it was baby Lee who showed the rotten tomatoes critic rating vs general public. That tells you everything you need to know. the extreme outrage is generally a small but extremely vocal few. But overall most still have a good sense of humor. Thankfully. Even better twist that Chapelle is pretty liberal and yet has pissed off the triggered few.
[Reply]

Louis CKs stuff sounds creepy as hell and it sounds like it wasn't exactly a one time thing. The better example is aziz. How the fuck that guy needs to apologize for anything is embarrassing. Even feminists are appalled. And true victims of sexual assault are extremely appalled because it marginalizes what they went through.
[Reply]

Creepy and One-Time aren't markers for violative conduct.

Some people like creepy. And FTR if there are more accounts out there I haven't heard them, but he; jacked off while on the phone and jacked off while someone watched. Not my cup of tea, but different strokes [npi] for different folks.

And repeated conduct, if anything, obviates evidence of a violation.

For instance, CK has done similar stuff with Sarah Silverman. Sometimes she indulged him, sometimes she told him to cut it out. No evidence he balked at either situation. the only differences there are, again this nebulous concept of relative power in the industry, and personal assertiveness. Neither of which has anyone established was on CK's mind at the time of the interactions.
[Reply]

It's not an official marker, but it just seems where there's smoke there's fire But this feels like a cosby thing... When lots of strangers tell a LOT of the same stories, there's something going on there. I don't think his career should end over it. But I get if some people wouldn't want to support him. Aziz, on the other hand... Classic example of SJW outrage (and I use that word sparingly)
[Reply]

What's the 'smoke'

With Cosby, it was multiple reporting LOSING CONSCIOUSNESS after consuming something Cosby supplied, and waking having been violated.

With CK, it was multiple people where he ASKED THEM 'hey, you mind if I do this?'

Whatever your personal proclivities, 'hey, mind if I do this' is part of how IT'S SUPPOSED to happen, not 'smoke.'
[Reply]

Again, didn't say it was illegal or that he should be banned. Just creepy. Hollywood is a place where consent is sometimes people afraid to say no. It's not sex where you can debate about which party wanted it and how much. This feels pretty one sided about who wanted it. Many women have said it happened and they agreed but didn't want it to happen. That sounds plenty believable
[Reply]

'feels like a Cosby thing' is pretty strong language for debateable conduct that shouldn't be illegal or banworthy.
[Reply]