Louis CK apologizes to everyone

[zoltani]

I reject soundly that an unbalanced power dynamic automatically qualifies as coercion.  And I fear for the world where that idea is allowed to be real.  Because by any rational definition of imbalance or power, it sets the stage for every man living in a state where more than 50% of alimony/child support is paid by men to women to claim that they were forced to stay in a marriage and to continue sexual relations with their wives out of coercion caused by the power dynamic.  They had real fear of losing their children, of the impact to their social standing and economic outcomes if they left the marriage, and so were forced to stay.  The wives are therefore guilty of sexual harassment and sexual assault.  The husbands had to endure whatever physical and verbal abuse, including rape, because of the power dynamic.  That is absurd, clearly.  I just don't know how to reconcile the two.  I don't understand why one party to a transaction is absolved of all responsibility just because of a difference in power.  When the police come to arrest you, you aren't excused from your behavior during the arrest just because there's a power imbalance.

In no way am i defending Matt Lauer, he's a piece of work for sure, but this quote jumped out at me:

"There were a lot of consensual relationships, but that’s still a problem because of the power he held,” says a former producer who knew first-hand of these encounters.
 
If we read into that quote then they are saying that in the case of an unbalanced power dynamic even a consensual relationship is a problem.

[I'm a red panda]

If we read into that quote then they are saying that in the case of an unbalanced power dynamic even a consensual relationship is a problem.

Isn't this why most universities don't allow professors to date their students? Or 18-year old high schoolers their teachers? Both are consenting adult, but there is a power dynamic that makes the relationship a problem.

[charis]

If we read into that quote then they are saying that in the case of an unbalanced power dynamic even a consensual relationship is a problem.

Isn't this why most universities don't allow professors to date their students? Or 18-year old high schoolers their teachers? Both are consenting adult, but there is a power dynamic that makes the relationship a problem.

And institutions and companies are entitled to go beyond this standard rule in their policies.  There are many that have a policy against supervisors dating subordinates and interns, particularly if the relationship involves cross over into work hours, work place, or work-related events.  People can and do get terminated pursuant to these policies, and it typically comes down to how they conduct themselves, ie, whether they have embarrassed anyone upstairs.

Therefore, a lot of this chatter weighing the allegations and apologies in these high profile cases is dubious and not all that useful.  Whether a company policy has been violated or not is not some the general public is informed enough to judge and the question of whether the conduct was actually harassment, by whatever standard, may not even be very relevant to the firing.

[Davnasty]

If we read into that quote then they are saying that in the case of an unbalanced power dynamic even a consensual relationship is a problem.

Isn't this why most universities don't allow professors to date their students? Or 18-year old high schoolers their teachers? Both are consenting adult, but there is a power dynamic that makes the relationship a problem.

There's a big difference between putting a policy in place to not allow it and punishing someone for dating a subordinate after the fact with no policy in place.

I always assumed age was a part of this since we're primarily talking about 18-23 year olds with older adults, and also how easy it would be to boost someone's grade with no one knowing. Should this extend to the workplace so that no boss can date a subordinate? And how would family come into play? Can someone hire their child or niece/nephew? If they did there is incentive for the employee to do right or the whole family will know. The Employer would have incentive to give special treatment.

I feel like you could apply the power dynamic argument to so many situations in life that going down that road would be dangerous. In the workplace I would agree that it's something that should be on our radar but suggesting that the person with more power is guilty simply because they are in a consensual relationship with a lower ranking employee is too far. It may in fact be a case where the subordinate did not want to date but said they did out of fear of repercussions but how is the person with more power to know that? This would be a case with two innocent people, where one is being hurt, so who do you blame? Who do you punish? Policy and laws can't fix all of the flaws in our social structure.

[maizefolk]

If we read into that quote then they are saying that in the case of an unbalanced power dynamic even a consensual relationship is a problem.

Isn't this why most universities don't allow professors to date their students? Or 18-year old high schoolers their teachers? Both are consenting adult, but there is a power dynamic that makes the relationship a problem.

Indeed. But now we're back to the question of where the line is where a power dynamic becomes unbalanced enough that consensual relationships are off the table.

I'm lucky to work in a field where the rules, while unwritten, are widely agreed upon. As a prof, basically any relationship with an undergraduate at the school would cross a moral line, as would a relationship with graduate students in my department, or postdocs in my own lab. Postdocs in the labs of other professors, grad students in other departments, and undergraduates at other schools are generally going to be seen as acceptable partners for consensual romantic relationships (although ew ew ew to the last one).

My reading of TYOM's recent posts are that it doesn't seem like we're doing a good job of defining where those same lines should be in other realms of life and work, instead we're just telling people "you should just know what's right and wrong" without defining a clear set of rules for what is and isn't okay. For some people who are gifted at reading social cues, that's fine. But a lot of people just plain suck at interpreting social cues, so either we need environments where people will speak up if we're making a mistake in judgement before it crosses the line, and/or clear and unambiguous guidelines for where the line is between "acceptable" and "exploitative" consensual relationships are.

Having less power than someone else shouldn't mean you can be coerced into consenting to a relationship you do not desire.
Being bad (or even just imperfect) at reading social cues shouldn't mean you are condemned to avoid all romantic relationships or risk being branded as an abused abuser.

Fortunately, I have confidence that as a society we can find solutions that solve both problems. Clear and logically defined lines between acceptable and unacceptable behavior is a part of that solution.

Edit: fixed one typo I caught on a re-read.

[zoltani]

If a person can make an anonymous claim against someone in a position of power and take them down, who really has the power?

[sol]

If a person can make an anonymous claim against someone in a position of power and take them down, who really has the power?

 

No one has been taken down by an anonymous claim in this current round of sexual assault allegations.  It's a fake argument.  Don't amplify it.

By contrast, there are approximately 15 (named, not anonymous) women who have accused the president.  With no consequences (to him) at all.

So who really has the power?

[TheOldestYoungMan]

I did some more reading today on the "current round" and holy shit.  I hadn't been paying attention but holy shit.

My whole life, to the extent I was aware of anything, it was sort of an unspoken truth that there was a lot of quid pro quo creepy sex stuff going on in show-business.  So much so that when my cousin went down the path of actress headed for broadway I was very concerned for her, hoping it was more joke than substance (the reputation of showbiz not her aspirations).  She reported after a few years doing it that there were casting directors that had a reputation and you just didn't try out for their productions and I was shocked!  Why don't you turn them in?!!!!!

Apparently you just don't do that.

I remember reading some comments from Jessica Alba about doing the Into the Blue movie, where it was sold to her as she'd be playing a marine biologist or some such, wearing a wetsuit the whole time, and then she showed up and she's the girlfriend wearing a bikini, and she had to choose between going forward and being a team player and putting food on everyone's table or potentially being labelled as difficult to work with or a diva.  The producers probably realized it was a lame story and were hopeful she'd agree to sexy it up for them, we'll never know if she could have said no.  We'll also never know if that was the plan all along, but I think there's a subtle difference in how wrong it is.

I can see how that particular dynamic, that ethical dilemma, can be nefariously used to corrupt.  I won't go naked in a movie for a thousand dollars.  Nor ten thousand.  Nor fifty.  But I can't truly say I don't have a price, not now, not while money still means something to me.  And you're young, and the future is uncertain, and looking back you realize it probably wouldn't have been as bad as you feared.

I never whored my body out for money, but I did work stupid hours for no overtime out of fear for my job.  Also nobody ever offered.

It's a very interesting question, looking at it from an industry-wide problem, without focusing on the individuals, without identifying victims, how do you reconcile:

1.  Sex sells.
2.  Young people are beautiful (in an objective work of art sense, I wouldn't want to take a 24 year old to bed or have a relationship at this point because of the maturity, but they are decent to look at).
3.  It's a highly competitive industry.
4.  Productions are actually a high-risk endeavor.  It's easy to lose money, and alot of it, making a movie people don't like.
5.  The co-conspirators in quid-pro-quo both have a huge incentive to stay quiet.  And every industry inherently is going to rely on experienced older personnel to recruit new/unknown talent.

It's easy to see how that creates a culture where it is possible for people to think quid-pro-quo is just a part of the process, and you avoid those casting directors.  I can't even begin to wrap my brain around how you fix that.

Maybe you do just make it a rule and shout it from the rooftops and make it clear that under no circumstances is it ever acceptable to trade sex for advancement, to extort sex for advancement, or to have any sort of relationship between the casting folks and the people who are cast.

Thanks for all of the responses, I really learn a lot from you people.

[shelivesthedream]

I did some more reading today on the "current round" and holy shit.  I hadn't been paying attention but holy shit.

My whole life, to the extent I was aware of anything, it was sort of an unspoken truth that there was a lot of quid pro quo creepy sex stuff going on in show-business.  So much so that when my cousin went down the path of actress headed for broadway I was very concerned for her, hoping it was more joke than substance (the reputation of showbiz not her aspirations).  She reported after a few years doing it that there were casting directors that had a reputation and you just didn't try out for their productions and I was shocked!  Why don't you turn them in?!!!!!

Apparently you just don't do that.

Again, not a performer but work freelance in the arts. Can confirm that this is true. Because when you say "Why don't you turn them in?!?!" ...to who? You have no boss. You have no HR. If you're a performer maybe you have an agent, but they can't DO anything other than not submit their clients for auditions with skeezballs. The options are:
1. Stay silent and quietly avoid.
2. Talk to other people and get a rep for being fussy or difficult. And what are they going to do anyway?
3. Go to the police.

But you can only go to the police if a crime has been committed, not just if someone is inappropriate (in a way that a short sharp talk with HR would sort out in a company). And even then, you're committing to giving evidence, hopefully going through a trial...and then the one thing everyone knows your name for is being the one who reported so-and-so. So honestly, who would you have them turn them in to?

I have worked with two mega assholes. Nothing sexual, but seriously unreasonable workplace behaviour. Both times I just gritted my teeth, finished the job and was "so busy, sorry" the next time they called. Because who do I tell about the assholery? The Grand Boss, who hired them (and know about their assholery but darling they're an artistic genius you can't expect them to be like normal people)? My peers, who are in the same position I am? The police, when the only crime they have committed is being an asshole?

Seriously, the arts/entertainment industry is not a normal workplace. There is no structure. There are no policies. Imho, drama and art schools should teach modules on workplace behaviour and how to deal with assholes and sexual predators. How to tell when something is unreasonable and how to assert yourself. Because otherwise every individual has to reinvent the wheel on the spot every time, which is really hard!

[sol]

I never whored my body out for money, but I did work stupid hours for no overtime out of fear for my job. 

We ALL whore our bodies out for money.  They pay me to sit my body in a cubicle and wiggle my fingers on a keyboard.  It's not that different.

[zoltani]

If a person can make an anonymous claim against someone in a position of power and take them down, who really has the power?

 

No one has been taken down by an anonymous claim in this current round of sexual assault allegations.  It's a fake argument.  Don't amplify it.

By contrast, there are approximately 15 (named, not anonymous) women who have accused the president.  With no consequences (to him) at all.

So who really has the power?

Keillor comes to mind as someone who was outed due to allegations that remain anonymous. The only thing we know about the allegations is from him.

We have seen this happen in the past too, with the mattress girl and the rolling stone rape article.

[Freedom2016]

Keillor comes to mind as someone who was outed due to allegations that remain anonymous. The only thing we know about the allegations is from him.

Did I miss something? What I have read about is a specific interaction with a specific coworker, whom he knows. What's anonymous in his situation?

[sol]

Keillor comes to mind as someone who was outed due to allegations that remain anonymous. The only thing we know about the allegations is from him.

Garrison Keillor's accuser may be anonymous to you, but not to the people who fired him.  She came forward, to his bosses, with a credible story.  Whether or not she also goes to the press is entirely besides the point.  You are not entitled to know the identify of every sexual assault survivor in the country.

We have seen this happen in the past too, with the mattress girl and the rolling stone rape article.

Wow, that's low.

Both of those women were sexually assaulted in the midst of what had previously been consensual sexual relations.  They are the posterchildren for "continuous enthusiastic consent" rules.  Using them to discredit sexual assault victims is pretty disgusting.

Here's the cliffnotes version for you in case you're still unclear on whether or not you're a rapist: just because a women wants to have sex with you does not mean you get to do whatever you want with her.  Sex has to be consensual.  She doesn't necessarily want unlubed anal just because she gave you a hj.  She gets to say no at ANY point she wants to, and if you don't stop at that point it's rape. 

[shelivesthedream]

Keillor comes to mind as someone who was outed due to allegations that remain anonymous. The only thing we know about the allegations is from him.

Garrison Keillor's accuser may be anonymous to you, but not to the people who fired him.  She came forward, to his bosses, with a credible story.  Whether or not she also goes to the press is entirely besides the point.  You are not entitled to know the identify of every sexual assault survivor in the country.

I am very very keen for sexual assault/rape accusers to remain publicly anonymous. If the media stopped drooling all over them, maybe more women would come forward sooner because reporting rape wouldn't also come with the baggage of a huge media circus and massive drama. Who else needs to know who they are, other than the accused, the person they report to, and the police?

[Kris]

Keillor comes to mind as someone who was outed due to allegations that remain anonymous. The only thing we know about the allegations is from him.

Garrison Keillor's accuser may be anonymous to you, but not to the people who fired him.  She came forward, to his bosses, with a credible story.  Whether or not she also goes to the press is entirely besides the point.  You are not entitled to know the identify of every sexual assault survivor in the country.

I am very very keen for sexual assault/rape accusers to remain publicly anonymous. If the media stopped drooling all over them, maybe more women would come forward sooner because reporting rape wouldn't also come with the baggage of a huge media circus and massive drama. Who else needs to know who they are, other than the accused, the person they report to, and the police?

Not to mention, these days, the almost inevitable death threats.

[TheOldestYoungMan]

But you can only go to the police if a crime has been committed, not just if someone is inappropriate (in a way that a short sharp talk with HR would sort out in a company). And even then, you're committing to giving evidence, hopefully going through a trial...and then the one thing everyone knows your name for is being the one who reported so-and-so. So honestly, who would you have them turn them in to?

That's an excellent point.  Maybe we could set up arts/entertainment as a profession requiring a license similar to engineering, where a professional board exists to oversee certain ethical standards, and complaints could be handled professionally, with at least the loss of the professional designation being a tangible punishment that protects others.  Most such credentials are effectively non-governmental, alot of the infrastructure probably exists with the guilds, maybe have the guilds step up and actually do something instead of just taking dues and making silly credits rules. 

Over time you'd get to a point where you just don't work for anyone without that credential, and everyone actively reports violators to maintain the public trust in the credential and because you can also lose the credential for failure to report violations.  That might also address or at least help mitigate concerns over hiring/casting decisions as well, did that show have fewer women because fewer women showed up to casting or did it have fewer women because of discriminatory casting practices?  Current legislation has to exempt the industry because it's just too complex for an inelastic law to cover it, but an industry specific group ought to be able to develop at least guidelines/best practices.

Could even be a tag line at the end, similar to the animals thing.  "No animals were harmed in the making of this production."  Followed by "No women were sexually harassed/assaulted in the making of this production."  And then you can just not watch if the movie fails to achieve that tagline.

[Hula Hoop]

Could even be a tag line at the end, similar to the animals thing.  "No animals were harmed in the making of this production."  Followed by "No women were sexually harassed/assaulted in the making of this production."  And then you can just not watch if the movie fails to achieve that tagline.

Or men - keep in mind that while the majority of sexual assault and harassment victims we've been learning about lately have been women, there are many male victims too.  Kevin Spacey comes to mind.

[sol]

Followed by "No women were sexually harassed/assaulted in the making of this production."  And then you can just not watch if the movie fails to achieve that tagline.

Like all of the people who choose not to watch a Louis CK performance?  It's harder with casual entertainment, where the barrier to "buying" is much lower. 

His comedy was always about awkward social situations, masturbation, and sexual malfeasance, so it probably shouldn't come as a surprise that his real life mirrored his jokes.  Now I'm waiting for all of the accusations against Bill Burr, who has made a career out of jokes about sexism, misogyny, and violence against women.

Louis CK follows the pattern of other entertainers who make art about their real life crimes.  Think of Woody Allen, for example. 

[Just Joe]

Keillor comes to mind as someone who was outed due to allegations that remain anonymous. The only thing we know about the allegations is from him.

Garrison Keillor's accuser may be anonymous to you, but not to the people who fired him.  She came forward, to his bosses, with a credible story.  Whether or not she also goes to the press is entirely besides the point.  You are not entitled to know the identify of every sexual assault survivor in the country.

I am very very keen for sexual assault/rape accusers to remain publicly anonymous. If the media stopped drooling all over them, maybe more women would come forward sooner because reporting rape wouldn't also come with the baggage of a huge media circus and massive drama. Who else needs to know who they are, other than the accused, the person they report to, and the police?

Not to mention, these days, the almost inevitable death threats.

Which are apparently a very common thing in 2017 USA. People who survive a mass shooting (Vegas) apparently get death threats. Perhaps mental illness is a far larger problem than I ever guessed?

[Kris]

Keillor comes to mind as someone who was outed due to allegations that remain anonymous. The only thing we know about the allegations is from him.

Garrison Keillor's accuser may be anonymous to you, but not to the people who fired him.  She came forward, to his bosses, with a credible story.  Whether or not she also goes to the press is entirely besides the point.  You are not entitled to know the identify of every sexual assault survivor in the country.

I am very very keen for sexual assault/rape accusers to remain publicly anonymous. If the media stopped drooling all over them, maybe more women would come forward sooner because reporting rape wouldn't also come with the baggage of a huge media circus and massive drama. Who else needs to know who they are, other than the accused, the person they report to, and the police?

Not to mention, these days, the almost inevitable death threats.

Which are apparently a very common thing in 2017 USA. People who survive a mass shooting (Vegas) apparently get death threats. Perhaps mental illness is a far larger problem than I ever guessed?

Yup. Many of the parents of the Sandy Hook victims are getting death threats to this day.

[sol]

Yup. Many of the parents of the Sandy Hook victims are getting death threats to this day.

For those who don't follow the news, let's clarify this statement.  Parents of the Sandy Hook shooting victims get death threats from gun activists who believe Sandy Hook was false flag operation perpetuated by liberals in order to confiscate their guns.  They alternately argue that there was no shooting at all, or sometimes that that it happened but was faked and the kids are still alive.  The parents are being harassed because some conservatives believe they are complicit in a cover up.

It's a particularly ugly example of just how polarized US media has become.  There are Breitbart readers who take this conspiracy theory as factual evidence of liberals out to destroy America, instead of evidence that crazy people should not have access to firearms.

[Spiritual_Lobotomy]

Love Louis C.K.

Hope he can make a comeback when this all blows over

[shelivesthedream]

But you can only go to the police if a crime has been committed, not just if someone is inappropriate (in a way that a short sharp talk with HR would sort out in a company). And even then, you're committing to giving evidence, hopefully going through a trial...and then the one thing everyone knows your name for is being the one who reported so-and-so. So honestly, who would you have them turn them in to?

That's an excellent point.  Maybe we could set up arts/entertainment as a profession requiring a license similar to engineering, where a professional board exists to oversee certain ethical standards, and complaints could be handled professionally, with at least the loss of the professional designation being a tangible punishment that protects others.  Most such credentials are effectively non-governmental, alot of the infrastructure probably exists with the guilds, maybe have the guilds step up and actually do something instead of just taking dues and making silly credits rules. 

Over time you'd get to a point where you just don't work for anyone without that credential, and everyone actively reports violators to maintain the public trust in the credential and because you can also lose the credential for failure to report violations.  That might also address or at least help mitigate concerns over hiring/casting decisions as well, did that show have fewer women because fewer women showed up to casting or did it have fewer women because of discriminatory casting practices?  Current legislation has to exempt the industry because it's just too complex for an inelastic law to cover it, but an industry specific group ought to be able to develop at least guidelines/best practices.

Could even be a tag line at the end, similar to the animals thing.  "No animals were harmed in the making of this production."  Followed by "No women were sexually harassed/assaulted in the making of this production."  And then you can just not watch if the movie fails to achieve that tagline.

That's just not going to happen. Again, because there is no one "in charge" to do it.

That said, my understanding is that in America, the arts/entertainment unions (eg. Equity) are in a strong position with regard to people either being "in" or "out". Genuinely, you should shoot them an email and ask if they've considered being a cornerstone in the fight against routine sexual harassment. In the UK, the unions as gatekeepers collapsed a few decades ago. There is a growing solidarity movement which may well result in a resurgence of union membership, but the different roles/departments tend to view each other as the problem so I think it would be hard in the current climate to get that industry-wide level of "policing" as there just isn't the widespread membership that there used to be. I've just joined the union this month to give it a year's trial, but I've been working for three years without having any contact with them and not being in the union has not put me at a perceptible disadvantage.

I am saddest about the Kevin Spacey accusations. He was working in one of the rare places in the arts/entertainment where there is a workplace structure with employees and this shit still happened and people felt they couldn't come forward. But then, most of those employees will have come from a freelancing background and not be used to having HR-type people around. It is just such a fragmented, individual industry where people move on frequently that you get used to feeling like you're on your own.

[DarkandStormy]

https://jezebel.com/a-running-list-of-alleged-predators-facing-accusations-1819980057

^The full list.

[TheOldestYoungMan]

Yup. Many of the parents of the Sandy Hook victims are getting death threats to this day.

For those who don't follow the news, let's clarify this statement.  Parents of the Sandy Hook shooting victims get death threats from gun activists who believe Sandy Hook was false flag operation perpetuated by liberals in order to confiscate their guns.  They alternately argue that there was no shooting at all, or sometimes that that it happened but was faked and the kids are still alive.  The parents are being harassed because some conservatives believe they are complicit in a cover up.

It's a particularly ugly example of just how polarized US media has become.  There are Breitbart readers who take this conspiracy theory as factual evidence of liberals out to destroy America, instead of evidence that crazy people should not have access to firearms.

"Bush did 911" folks are solidly in the same camp as "Sandy Hook was a false flag operation" and are batshit crazy.  You can hate them.  And you can hate conservatives.  But having you hate them doesn't make them one and the same.  Not everyone that disgusts you is part of some grand conspiracy to disgust you.

"You can hate Bob Madden...but you should hate him for the right reasons..." - that comedian what does the madden impressions and I can't remember his name...

[Davnasty]

Yup. Many of the parents of the Sandy Hook victims are getting death threats to this day.

For those who don't follow the news, let's clarify this statement.  Parents of the Sandy Hook shooting victims get death threats from gun activists who believe Sandy Hook was false flag operation perpetuated by liberals in order to confiscate their guns.  They alternately argue that there was no shooting at all, or sometimes that that it happened but was faked and the kids are still alive.  The parents are being harassed because some conservatives believe they are complicit in a cover up.

It's a particularly ugly example of just how polarized US media has become.  There are Breitbart readers who take this conspiracy theory as factual evidence of liberals out to destroy America, instead of evidence that crazy people should not have access to firearms.

"Bush did 911" folks are solidly in the same camp as "Sandy Hook was a false flag operation" and are batshit crazy.  You can hate them.  And you can hate conservatives.  But having you hate them doesn't make them one and the same.  Not everyone that disgusts you is part of some grand conspiracy to disgust you.

"You can hate Bob Madden...but you should hate him for the right reasons..." - that comedian what does the madden impressions and I can't remember his name...

I don't think anyone claimed they were one in the same. They may feel that way but based on what's been written, you're making assumptions.

What I've read are suggestions that these people are truly mentally ill and/or are at the extreme end of Breitbart readers.

[zoltani]

Keillor comes to mind as someone who was outed due to allegations that remain anonymous. The only thing we know about the allegations is from him.

Garrison Keillor's accuser may be anonymous to you, but not to the people who fired him.  She came forward, to his bosses, with a credible story.  Whether or not she also goes to the press is entirely besides the point.  You are not entitled to know the identify of every sexual assault survivor in the country.

We have seen this happen in the past too, with the mattress girl and the rolling stone rape article.

Wow, that's low.

Both of those women were sexually assaulted in the midst of what had previously been consensual sexual relations.  They are the posterchildren for "continuous enthusiastic consent" rules.  Using them to discredit sexual assault victims is pretty disgusting.

Here's the cliffnotes version for you in case you're still unclear on whether or not you're a rapist: just because a women wants to have sex with you does not mean you get to do whatever you want with her.  Sex has to be consensual.  She doesn't necessarily want unlubed anal just because she gave you a hj.  She gets to say no at ANY point she wants to, and if you don't stop at that point it's rape.

You know what's really low, capitalizing on your supposed victimization thought performance art, that you get college credit for, and then making a sex tape about it. You do know that the university and police found no wrong doing, and the university paid the accused for allowing the little art project to continue even after he was found not guilty of any wrong doing.

The rolling stone article was found to be a complete fabrication and the magazine just paid out $1.6 million to the frat that was accused.

Poster children, yeah.

[TheOldestYoungMan]

https://jezebel.com/a-running-list-of-alleged-predators-facing-accusations-1819980057

^The full list.

That list man, first name: 300 women accuse you and you respond with "pathetic lies."  I can't imagine any scenario, any, where I respond to an accusation like that, guilty or innocent, with anything but running away.  "Whelp, I'm definitely done on this planet, I'll try the next one over."  300!  That's, wow.

Andy Dick was licking people!  I mean...hmm...that's actually not surprising, that's sort of his whole thing isn't it...

Fuck me I've got to go take a walk.  Humans are garbage.

[Just Joe]

Wouldn't that be a proud legacy for yourself?