horrendous?

horrendous? Weird, odd....horrendous? I guess it depends on your range of what horrendous is. Showing your willie to someone, of age, sounds weird and odd to me... but again, horrendous and blackballed seems extreme.

This is creepy. What CK did was horrendous, and I’m all for firing him from future projects, but this 1984 rewriting of history is fucked up. This thing happened. For better or for worse, it’s weird to want to deny that fact.

Yeah as much as I can’t stand Louis CK in light of what he’s done and think his career should be over; I find rewriting history troubling. It feels a little like Stalin removing Trotsky from photos. The past is the past good or bad and shouldn’t be altered. I understand the intention in removing him from re-runs, but…

Ugh, this creates such a weird quandary. I mean on the one hand you’re like “Man that’s fucked up what he did,” but on the other, you’re changing the work from its original creation. It’s nice that it was the creator who made the decision, but it does raise a question of “Where do you draw the line?”

So the alternative is to say “forget specific circumstances, all of these men are equally terrible, and should never be heard from again?” I’m so sick of people getting flamed specifically for giving a thoughtful, careful answer instead of the “correct” quick, thoughtless one that paints with a broad brush.

Well, the interviewer is asking him questions about things and people are reading his answers, so clearly people do indeed what to know his opinion on things.

Please stop referring to westerns as oaters.

Jesus Christ, woman. Run and don’t look back. What a prick.

Wow, is LW #2's husband ever an asshole. Trying to coerce a woman (or man) into a variety of sex that lots of people are never going to be into is less the behavior of a man in a healthy relationship and more the behavior of one of the sleazier pimps from the most nihilistic corners of 70s cinema.

“Hoyt and Ruth Ann Moorehouse headed to Hawaii, but while there Moorehouse laced Hoyt’s burger with a shit-ton of LSD and left her to die.”

Err, no. They didn’t do that to Sharon Tate. Her murder was horrific enough, you don’t need to invent grisly details (which is much worse taste than this article).

It may be small consolation, but her death did not involve removal of the fetus as you described. According to her autopsy she died from stab wounds to the chest, and it was a rope that had been tied around her neck.

If that woman had asked Ford about “Star Wars”, he would have gotten back in his car and left her to die.

She defended her friend, whom she believes innocent of the heinous crime he was accused of. But when her shrieking fan base went after her for defending him, she retracted her defense with some boilerplate horseshit about how ALL women accusers should be believed. She sounds like the world’s shittiest friend, and also…

Wow! This is major major major news!

Was Silverman supposed to risk the possibility that he might whip it out and start jacking it in response to her confrontation?

I mean, I’m essentially saying judge not lest ye be judged, and you’re saying we should judge literally everybody based on who they associate with. “Your friend was a rapist, so then you must be one too!” You’re essentially advocating a return to McCarthyism. Reactionary bullshit like that always works out so well!

Then have fun living on an island. Alone. Everyone has demons. Some just haven’t surfaced yet. This will get MUCH worse before it gets better. There are many degrees of shitty. Yes rapists are horrible and there is no excuse, but there is always rehabilitation. So are drunk drivers, murderers, thief’s drug dealers…

It depends on the severity of what they did, of course. I wouldn’t be able to forgive a rapist in my family but imagine that you found out that your father or your brother or your uncle had exposed himself to someone. You’re telling me that you’d tell them that you don’t love them anymore and never speak to them…