I’m going to pile on because you deserve this. Who knows, it may come out that LCK did indeed do some unforgivable shit. Problem is, there is zero credible information behind this and you look like just the latest GMG asshole trying to turn this into a thing. If a credible source ever emerges, I’ll be the first with a…

agreed. this is really shitty.

weaker than weak.

“We could have chosen Roman Polanski, but we chose to keep going in on Louis CK anyway.”

“Wow. That is some weak shit” was literally my first thought when I saw this. Thanks for making me feel less alone and more disposable.

I hope this Louis CK shit is getting you laid or something. All of those quotes are from his act. You guys really haven’t learned anything have you? You should take your own advice.

The only thing in that list that isn’t taken out of context as part of a larger comedy bit is “He defended Daniel Tosh after his rape jokes” - which he didn’t actually do. Almost everything else on the page is not some random hateful statements, but intentionally controversial things selectively taken from his standup…

My mileage didn’t vary, it was weak as shit.

I hope Louis hits you with his car so maybe then people will think he’s the bad person you all want the world to think he is. The man has done nothing to Gawker yet this entire network has done nothing but defame his name. I look forward to the day someone decides to compile all these articles and then sues the shit…

It’s super gross and pretty shameful ethically that you’d lump LCK in with these shitbags based on some anon Tumblr bitching over comedy routines. Seriously, wtf were you thinking with that? ESPECIALLY if “your mileage may vary?” Sounds like you aren’t too sure of it yourself Nick!

The whole Kinja network seems to have a certain agenda and don’t give a fuck about facts. They want to be the first ones out with crap whether it is true or not. Seems like that got them in trouble before but all the other blogs took over Gawker articles which have no place on there. Oh like this one...on Lifehacker.

Neat, you’re still throwing Louis CK into the ‘sexual harassers’ category when you still have literally no proof and the only proof you did have was entirely discounted by the person who supposedly said it. That’s...problematic at best...

Yes, but an actual woman that has a name and we can interview came forward to accuse Weinstein. Thus far Louis CK’s example has been nothing but conjecture and innuendo with no actual people coming forward.

I understand that you have to sell advertisement but you don’t have to sell your soul and ruin lives while you are at it.

You cannot just put someone’s photo next to a pedophile without an explanation. This is a poopy move. And when I say, “poopy”, I mean “shitty”. @Nick Douglas, imagine if someone did this to you?

Don’t you think it’s irresponsible to include Louis CK in the lead image?

Probably nothing. He was (incorrectly, it appears) looked at as the subject of a blind item, but the accuser in question has specifically said it wasn’t him. There was another (also blind) second rumor tied to him on the strength of the first, but since the first turned out not to be him, there’s nothing to tie the…

Hey Nick,

And Safelite’s tweet defending their techs was part of the plan all along.

Courtesy of Glassdoor: