Jon Stewart dismissing Louis CK abuse allegations

[Anonymous]

The elephant in the room on everyone of these conversations is Bill Clinton.

Either you Believe Women or you don't.

[Anonymous]

No, tig absolutely did not name names: http://gawker.com/5894527/which-beloved-comedian-likes-to-force-female-comics-to-watch-him-jerk-off?comment=48089921#comments

I'm also have asked you to prove your point based on the tape you posted and you've called me names. The question was asked as the last question and the moderator interrupted as well. I've quoted what Stewart actually said. He wasn't smiling and gave a serious answer based on his experience. What you want him to say or do differently is based completely on what we know now. Your outrage doesn't prove a point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Add to the existing thread.

I'm not talking about Louis CK- that's irrelevant. I'm talking about Jon Stewart who I watched for years

Yes you are talking about Louis CK. Add to existing thread and stop trolling.

No, this thread is about Jon Stewart. Not trolling (why would someone "troll" on this incredibly serious topic?), and I'm not sure you know what the word means.

Trolling means to be deliberately provocative. Jon Stewart said, "I didn't know about the sexual assault but it's important..."

So yes, you are trolling by putting up a purposefully misleading title to your thread.

So no, I'm not being deliberately provocative by pointing out his statement which many, many people found objectionable.

He dismissed the sexual assaults out of hand. Even after they had emerged and when confronted.

You seriously need to recalibrate your compass of what you get outraged about.

m

Where was it exactly that he dismissed anything out of hand? He didn't.

Conservatives despise Jon Stewart, so this seems more like an effort to tarnish him by association. Trolls prey on people's emotions and try to start arguments. You need to calibrate your language and actually base things on fact. What you are doing is making a false accusation about someone over the internet. This isn't proof of anything.

So you're basing your arguments off of your political beliefs and loyalty to Jon Stewart. Guess what? I'm liberal too. That does not excuse his behaviors.
.

No. He didn't dismiss anything. That's your subjective interpretation. My point is based on what Stewart actually said, " I didn't know about the sexual assault but it's important..."

NP. He dismissed it and mocked the guy who asked it. People have the EQ to see what was happening.

No, he didn't. He dismissed the guy's sources, but went on to say he personally has not heard of any of these allegations and said it was important. God!!! This is why women today can't be taken seriously.

STOP BEING HYSTERICAL and listen to what he is ACTUALLY saying.

Signed,

A survivor or sexual assault who finds LCK abhorrable

I DID LISTEN TO WHAT HE SAID, WHICH IS WHY I AM OUTRAGED.

He dismissed it and laughed. Not acceptable.

Signed,

A survivor or sexual assault who finds Jon Stewart abhorrent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Add to the existing thread.

I'm not talking about Louis CK- that's irrelevant. I'm talking about Jon Stewart who I watched for years

Yes you are talking about Louis CK. Add to existing thread and stop trolling.

No, this thread is about Jon Stewart. Not trolling (why would someone "troll" on this incredibly serious topic?), and I'm not sure you know what the word means.

Trolling means to be deliberately provocative. Jon Stewart said, "I didn't know about the sexual assault but it's important..."

So yes, you are trolling by putting up a purposefully misleading title to your thread.

So no, I'm not being deliberately provocative by pointing out his statement which many, many people found objectionable.

He dismissed the sexual assaults out of hand. Even after they had emerged and when confronted.

You seriously need to recalibrate your compass of what you get outraged about.

m

Where was it exactly that he dismissed anything out of hand? He didn't.

Conservatives despise Jon Stewart, so this seems more like an effort to tarnish him by association. Trolls prey on people's emotions and try to start arguments. You need to calibrate your language and actually base things on fact. What you are doing is making a false accusation about someone over the internet. This isn't proof of anything.

So you're basing your arguments off of your political beliefs and loyalty to Jon Stewart. Guess what? I'm liberal too. That does not excuse his behaviors.
.

No. He didn't dismiss anything. That's your subjective interpretation. My point is based on what Stewart actually said, " I didn't know about the sexual assault but it's important..."

NP. He dismissed it and mocked the guy who asked it. People have the EQ to see what was happening.

No, he didn't. He dismissed the guy's sources, but went on to say he personally has not heard of any of these allegations and said it was important. God!!! This is why women today can't be taken seriously.

STOP BEING HYSTERICAL and listen to what he is ACTUALLY saying.

Signed,

A survivor or sexual assault who finds LCK abhorrable

This. Another survivor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm also have asked you to prove your point based on the tape you posted and you've called me names. The question was asked as the last question and the moderator interrupted as well. I've quoted what Stewart actually said. He wasn't smiling and gave a serious answer based on his experience. What you want him to say or do differently is based completely on what we know now. Your outrage doesn't prove a point.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, tig absolutely did not name names: http://gawker.com/5894527/which-beloved-comedian-likes-to-force-female-comics-to-watch-him-jerk-off?comment=48089921#comments

I'm also have asked you to prove your point based on the tape you posted and you've called me names. The question was asked as the last question and the moderator interrupted as well. I've quoted what Stewart actually said. He wasn't smiling and gave a serious answer based on his experience. What you want him to say or do differently is based completely on what we know now. Your outrage doesn't prove a point.

Everyone can watch the video themselves. Which is why people are outraged. Sorry lady- it's obvious you have a real loyalty to Stewart, but it's not convincing when there's VIDEO EVIDENCE of the scene in question. Anyone who thinks he wasn't dismissing the question and mocking the dude who asked it either has spectacularly low social perception or is willfully deluding themselves.

As for Tig naming names, here you go: http://www.newsweek.com/louis-ck-louis-ck-masturbate-masturbation-i-love-you-daddy-movie-comedy-707159

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The elephant in the room on everyone of these conversations is Bill Clinton.

Either you Believe Women or you don't.

I believed the Clinton accusers. I worked in state politics in an adjacent southern state. I know his type. They hit on me as hard as they could all the while thumping their bibles. Vile disgusting men without integrity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, tig absolutely did not name names: http://gawker.com/5894527/which-beloved-comedian-likes-to-force-female-comics-to-watch-him-jerk-off?comment=48089921#comments

I'm also have asked you to prove your point based on the tape you posted and you've called me names. The question was asked as the last question and the moderator interrupted as well. I've quoted what Stewart actually said. He wasn't smiling and gave a serious answer based on his experience. What you want him to say or do differently is based completely on what we know now. Your outrage doesn't prove a point.

Everyone can watch the video themselves. Which is why people are outraged. Sorry lady- it's obvious you have a real loyalty to Stewart, but it's not convincing when there's VIDEO EVIDENCE of the scene in question. Anyone who thinks he wasn't dismissing the question and mocking the dude who asked it either has spectacularly low social perception or is willfully deluding themselves.

As for Tig naming names, here you go: http://www.newsweek.com/louis-ck-louis-ck-masturbate-masturbation-i-love-you-daddy-movie-comedy-707159

She did NOW. Not at in the Gawker blurb from years ago. Time machines are great but not admissible in court even the court of public opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, tig absolutely did not name names: http://gawker.com/5894527/which-beloved-comedian-likes-to-force-female-comics-to-watch-him-jerk-off?comment=48089921#comments

I'm also have asked you to prove your point based on the tape you posted and you've called me names. The question was asked as the last question and the moderator interrupted as well. I've quoted what Stewart actually said. He wasn't smiling and gave a serious answer based on his experience. What you want him to say or do differently is based completely on what we know now. Your outrage doesn't prove a point.

Everyone can watch the video themselves. Which is why people are outraged. Sorry lady- it's obvious you have a real loyalty to Stewart, but it's not convincing when there's VIDEO EVIDENCE of the scene in question. Anyone who thinks he wasn't dismissing the question and mocking the dude who asked it either has spectacularly low social perception or is willfully deluding themselves.

As for Tig naming names, here you go: http://www.newsweek.com/louis-ck-louis-ck-masturbate-masturbation-i-love-you-daddy-movie-comedy-707159

She did NOW. Not at in the Gawker blurb from years ago. Time machines are great but not admissible in court even the court of public opinion.

She named it well before the NYT article came out, when it was incredibly risky to her career. How telling that you are trying to hold a woman who publicly condemned to a higher standard than a man who laughed off the accusations. I think that says it all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, tig absolutely did not name names: http://gawker.com/5894527/which-beloved-comedian-likes-to-force-female-comics-to-watch-him-jerk-off?comment=48089921#comments

I'm also have asked you to prove your point based on the tape you posted and you've called me names. The question was asked as the last question and the moderator interrupted as well. I've quoted what Stewart actually said. He wasn't smiling and gave a serious answer based on his experience. What you want him to say or do differently is based completely on what we know now. Your outrage doesn't prove a point.

Everyone can watch the video themselves. Which is why people are outraged. Sorry lady- it's obvious you have a real loyalty to Stewart, but it's not convincing when there's VIDEO EVIDENCE of the scene in question. Anyone who thinks he wasn't dismissing the question and mocking the dude who asked it either has spectacularly low social perception or is willfully deluding themselves.

As for Tig naming names, here you go: http://www.newsweek.com/louis-ck-louis-ck-masturbate-masturbation-i-love-you-daddy-movie-comedy-707159

She did NOW. Not at in the Gawker blurb from years ago. Time machines are great but not admissible in court even the court of public opinion.

She named it well before the NYT article came out, when it was incredibly risky to her career. How telling that you are trying to hold a woman who publicly condemned to a higher standard than a man who laughed off the accusations. I think that says it all.

No, she didn't: she went from not naming names to being "more vocal"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/television/2017/08/23/tig-notaro-more-vocal-about-her-rift-with-louis/XnvrvDR0BOHSVb4EH8NQbJ/story.html

Again I believe her. This is not victim blaming.

What Stewart actually said was "I didn't know about the sexual assault but it's important..." he wasn't smiling and not laughing. So put blame where it belongs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m so sick of smug men who think they get to decide what’s worthy of discussion.

THIS x100000000000000000000000000000

Yes. I feel slightly better about this knowing it is from 2016 and not like today, but still. Oh because someone saw it on social media it's not a thing Jon? Okie dokie.

His smugness is pretty insufferable. Hopefully he feels dumb about this now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The elephant in the room on everyone of these conversations is Bill Clinton.

Either you Believe Women or you don't.

I believed the Clinton accusers. I worked in state politics in an adjacent southern state. I know his type. They hit on me as hard as they could all the while thumping their bibles. Vile disgusting men without integrity.

I truly believe that if Hillary had won, the need to continue to protect Bill would have kept Harvey and Louie and all the others safe. Now that he’s irrelevant we can finally call out this behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The elephant in the room on everyone of these conversations is Bill Clinton.

Either you Believe Women or you don't.

And yet Clarence Thomas is on the highest court in the land because Anita Hill was lying, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The elephant in the room on everyone of these conversations is Bill Clinton.

Either you Believe Women or you don't.

I believed the Clinton accusers. I worked in state politics in an adjacent southern state. I know his type. They hit on me as hard as they could all the while thumping their bibles. Vile disgusting men without integrity.

I truly believe that if Hillary had won, the need to continue to protect Bill would have kept Harvey and Louie and all the others safe. Now that he’s irrelevant we can finally call out this behavior.

Totally agree. Sexual harassment would be a topic we wouldn’t want to focus on with Bill in the WH again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m so sick of smug men who think they get to decide what’s worthy of discussion.

THIS x100000000000000000000000000000

Yes. I feel slightly better about this knowing it is from 2016 and not like today, but still. Oh because someone saw it on social media it's not a thing Jon? Okie dokie.

His smugness is pretty insufferable. Hopefully he feels dumb about this now.

Well said.