Reflection: Let’s welcome back Louis C.K., just not quite yet.
A few days ago, I posted the following question to my Facebook friends “Is it ok to like Louis C.K. again?” At the time, I thought that it might very well be, and I had my reasons. What followed was a dialogue between myself and two of my friends. In sharing my thoughts with my friends, hearing their views on the matter, and then reflecting back on all of it, I’m not sure I still hold that view.
The biggest quandary for me was nicely reflected in a question one of my friend’s posted “If the window of time for boycotting him is over, how does what he’s lost compare to what the actual victims did?” This is really two questions of which I can only speak to one, as the second part is more a question of moral legal philosophy better suited for a separate discussion.
“Is the window for boycotting/blacklisting him (i.e. his punishment) over?” As my other friend commented “there are probably some people for whom no amount of remorse and apology and other form of atonement will suffice. Those people are wrong. But I’m not convinced that it’s time to readmit Louis CK back into our lives.” I agree with him on both the first two points, but still wasn’t sure about the third.
To me, the loss of his stand-up, television, and movie deals, the (assumed) guilt of letting down his colleagues who were part of those deals, the year-plus exile from the public eye, and becoming linked to the criminal activities of other male celebrities swept up by the #metoo movement (Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Matt Lauer, Bill Cosby, etc.) seemed fairly sufficient punishment enough to me for what he had actually done. To be clear, I’m not suggesting that just because what he did wasn’t legally criminal absolves him; it doesn’t. What I am saying however is that what he did (both in action and intent) simply doesn’t compare to what those he was being linked to did; not even remotely because for what they did, they should never be welcomed back.
So the question seemed to transform into “was his ‘time out’ and associated consequences impactful in any way?” Having read his statement acknowledging his misconduct and Sarah Silverman’s corroboration of his ignorance of the power dynamic he now wielded, I was perhaps too quick to conclude that it was. However, after further reflection of his recent performance where he addressed his misconduct, he responded “what can I say, I enjoy jacking off and I like company” it is clear that he didn’t think that what he did or the impact it had was really wrong. Now I would be lying if I said that punchline didn’t make me (or everyone else in the club) laugh.
What sets this apart from many of the dark stories of comedian counterparts like Anthony Jeselnik is that the subjects of this story were not fictitious; existing for the sole purpose of facilitating an unexpected punchline. Nor does he address the situation and its effect on a group of people with any level of severity whatsoever, which he easily could have done as Dave Chappelle and Kevin Hart did after taking flak for their comments about the LGBTQ community that whether they intended to or not, had adverse effects on people in that community.
So is this window for boycotting him over? It seems the answer is “no”. Louis C.K. is easily one of the greatest minds in the game since George Carlin and I don’t want him to be banished from comedy, but he needs to hold himself accountable for his actions to make things right (or at least better). As my friend said “He’s got to do better” and as a society, so do we.
