@Eaglebauer Said
I happen to care because the two are related. And I enjoyed his career quite a bit...and I don't think he deserved to lose it. Had he knowingly coerced or intimidated someone into a sexual situation, then yes, it would have been warranted, but I don't think it was. And anyone who "cares quite a bit about the topic of how sexual harassment has affected our understanding of our surroundings and the question of what is 'fair' to hold people accountable for" should see how that is directly related in a very topical and real way.
So yes, I care about what happens to Louis CK based on the same things you claim to care about. Do you only care about these things in a purely intellectual, theoretical way, or do care about them in a practical way involving how they affect actual people's lives in real situations? Because that is what I'm talking about.
You can't say something like "I care about the topic of sexual harassment and how it affects us" and then blatantly say that you don't care how it affects people it's actually affecting. That makes no sense.
There is a difference between being intellectually curious and interested in a topic and being emotionally invested in that topic. I am not emotionally invested in Louis CK. I am intellectually interested in his situation.
I am intellectually interested in evolution, but I am not emotionally attached to evolution. I am intellectually curious about Trump's Russian allegations, but I am not emotionally attached to Trump as a person. This is the same thing.
Quote:
Why does it matter to you enough to try to pick an argument over it, whether or not I care about that particular incident? That's what has me a bit baffled. You don't care about Louis CK but you care just enough to comment a few times about him when I bring him up?
Him and his situation are interesting as case studies. The back and forth between those who believe he should be exonerated and those who believe he got what he deserved falls on a backdrop of questions about what is fair and what matters. I don't care what people believe because what they believe is a pointless discussion. All discussions about what people believe ultimately end up devolving into 'this is what I believe and it doesn't matter that you think differently, this is my belief'. That may be a perfectly valid response, but it is not an interesting one, nor does it move any sort of meaningful conversation forward. Why people believe what they do is the topic I'm interested in.
This isn't about winning arguments, it's about accumulating knowledge. And currently I don't understand how this situation is any different from the countless other boycotts that have taken place in the past. Someone does something others don't agree with, and so they decide to raise a stink about it and/or stop patronizing them. If the person in question is part of an organization, that organization then has to decide if keeping them on is worth the negative press and the drop in revenue.