Found it. The original video:

YES! It must have been reported there as well — because of the sensation it caused! I saw it on a video, initially, so not a podcast (though very happy it was covered there as well). Now, I will find it. You are inspiring me! 💫

Narcissist’s Creed ‘apologies’ -

“As far as apologies go, that’s as good as it gets”

Uh, also can you call it an apology if he never, not once said he was sorry but did find a way to talk about how admired he is twice?

I don’t get the PRAISE for this apology that I am seeing here, there and everywhere on social media. CK issued a good apology because he was already outed, after years of gaslighting the public about these “ridiculous!!!!” claims and maybe blacklisting a woman comedian who said they were true? Fuck all that noise.…

Except he never uses the word sorry. Remorseful, yes, but not “I’m sorry.”

Nah, man; it’s a breath of fresh air, to hear an admission, but “I’m sorry that I was so famous and popular, and they wanted it” is not much of an apology. It’s the best we’ve seen, still not good enough.

A hefty FU to the multitudes of Gawker/Jezebel readers who flooded my comment a year or two ago angry because I said this guy’s brand of anti-sexist anti-racist comedy was itself sexist, racist and not particularly funny. I believed the rumors from the start. Also, as a man myself, believe me when i say C.K. is a…

The power I had over these women is that they admired me.

In fairness to Page, appearing in that movie may not have been her choice. She may have signed a multi-movie contract.

I like the feigned disbelief of the Jezebel writers at her reaction. Jezebel, whose founding entity Gawker has already been sued out of existence for libel and slander and if it wasn’t the Theil/Hogan tag team match they lost, it just as well would have been that blackmail blog post about the male prostitute that…

He screwed up which of the usual two major papers broke the story. How can you criticize that after this much bigger correction?

About the “our communications confirmed the rumors,” thing, thanks for picking that up. I hoped I’d read it wrong. I really hoped (and still do) that the writers, obviously working through justifiable frustration and under time pressure to put up their version of the story, simply worded it wrong. I hope they didn’t…

I get that you had good intentions. I don’t want to discourage you from covering this type of story.

She’s mad because Jezebel didn’t listen when she said, “No.” Shouldn’t be hard to understand.

This. THIS.

For me, the issue was always with how Gawker/Jezebel handled the Kirkman story rather than the need to believe that Louis was innocent. I don’t know if it was intentional or not, but I’ve read several articles on these sites where that Kirkman comment was contributed to being about Louis even after she denied that who…

Yeah, but that’s not how journalism ethics works. The story had credibility but the reporting.... didn’t. No real sources, no real facts to report. I get that was incredibly frustrating for Jezebel (and the other ex-gawker sites), but that doesn’t give them a license to just keep stirring the pot publicly on the hopes…

Here’s the simple fact: The Washington Post did journalism the right way, and Jezebel did not.