How do you know that they're refusing to apologize because they're incapable of acknowledging wrong doing rather than the accuser reacting disproportionate to the level of act or after the fact changing their mind about the experience?

Louis CK: I didn't know that I was making them uncomfortable, I asked every woman before I did what I did and they all said yes. I didn't realize I was exploiting my status to do what I was doing.

Bill Murray: I did what I thought was going to be funny to lighten the tension, and it didn't go over the way I thought it would. I'm an old dog, but I'm still trying to learn.

One of those is heartfelt and honest to you and the other is not. They both exist with caveats to the act and yet you gloss over the caveat in the second apology. It has nothing to do with the sincerity of the apology.

Any more apology from CK and it's going to exacerbate the perception of guilt and more blood would have been in the water. CK didn't catch the career murder that he caught because of what he did, he caught it because of what his career was and when it came to light. Louis CK became Harvey Weinstein in the mob's eyes when his act was nowhere near the other's.


I'll also remind you that Bill Murray's comments came from an interview at a freaking Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting. That's not an apology. It's a PR move. I don't particularly care, he doesn't owe anyone an apology other than the woman, her family, and the people working on the movie.

That post is not that fiery.

You didn't just praise Bill Murray for apologizing, you said that other people that remain cancelled exist in that state, because they were unwilling to apologize. I said that's not an accurate depiction, you offered up Louis CK as an example of someone that didn't apologize profusely enough, which is how cancel culture happens.

For some people a simple apology is enough, for others the apology has to sink to groveling and even then it's not enough, because the more you apologize the more guilty you become. There wasn't an apology that CK could've given that would have changed the results.

It's not the praise of Bill Murray that got criticism, it was your criticism of people who didn't apologize/apologize enough that did.

The person is liked, the apology is accepted.
The person is not liked or the narrative of the act is distorted, they apologize, the apology is not good enough.

And the reality of Bill Murray is probably that he's a charming ******* that can have good momentary interactions, but over a longer exposure he acts like a jackass from time to time. He's an actor, he's prone to narcissism like most of them. That doesn't make him a monster, but he's not the universally fan friendly lovable guy that he gets portrayed as sometimes.

He's also extremely entertaining.

Get a room, bros.

If you didn't want a discussion about the realities of cancel culture then you shouldn't have even brought it up. You didn't just make a comment about apologizing and humility, you made a comment about the nature of cancel culture. If the intention was to praise Bill Murray's humility then praise his humility, but don't get all bent out of shape when someone tells you that you're wrong about a claim you made.

Now you're turning it into a whine fest about how you're being persecuted rather than a person just disagreeing with you.