Movies: Hollywood sexual harassment ( Russell Brand facing multiple allegations)

[#37]

...but wait, there's more!

MPs ask if Elon Musk ‘personally intervened’ on Russell Brand’s status on X

Various social media platforms have been asked about Brand being able to monetise his content.

www.independent.co.uk

In the communication to X chief executive Linda Yaccarino, Dame Caroline said: “We would be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr Brand monetises his content and, if so, we would like to know whether X intends to join YouTube in suspending Mr Brand’s ability to earn money on the platform.

So much for Article 6 of the Human Rights ACT 1998.

 

[Mike C]

Brand is a conspiracy theorist. That doesn't necessarily neatly track to American partisanship in and of itself, but the issues he's talking about a lot recently do track pretty well to the views of a rather large faction of a major American political party (as well as a British political movement that is technically cross-party but identified largely with one of the major parties), and the people who are making a big deal out of defending him tend to affiliate with said major parties.

Basically, there absolutely is a partisan component to the defense of Brand, and there may be a partisan component to people who are experiencing a degree of schadenfreude towards Brand.

i vote for turning him into a eunuch. then have piers morgan ask him what his views are

 

[Cas]

So much for Article 6 of the Human Rights ACT 1998.

That article does apply in any way, shape, or form.

If you want to die on this hill, I guess that's your prerogative, but it's a pretty embarrassing hill.

 

[#37]

That article does apply in any way, shape, or form.

If you want to die on this hill, I guess that's your prerogative, but it's a pretty embarrassing hill.

And I am embarrassed for you... because this is about Civil Liberties and the abuse of power and that is a hill I will gladly die on.

 

[Troy McClure]

And I am embarrassed for you... because this is about Civil Liberties and the abuse of power and that is a hill I will gladly die on.

Russel Brand’s ability to post videos on YouTube and get paid ad money get ad money has nothing to do with civil liberties.

Also, this is funny.

 

[Troy McClure]

That time the UK govt. tried to deprive someone of their lively-hood because of 'allegations'.

To me, when you put the word allegations in quotes, it looks like you’re saying they’re facts.

 

[johnjm22]

Don't know much about Masterson, but I think Brand has been a bit of a 'darling' lately among people who consider the mainstream media and the (US) government being leftist/woke. There are e.g. a number of YT videos where Brand is supposedly "destroying" people who are seen to be part of the establishment or whatever. Commentators like Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, Matt Walsh and that bozo (just my opinion!) Tucker Carlson have been fairly vocal during recent days about the case and have casted doubts about the authenticity of the accusations. Which is fair enough also, I guess.

It doesn't mean that Brand is right wing himself; I don't know what he is exactly.

As I recall, Brand used to be very much left wing. At least economically. He was often highly critical of capitalism.

But he's changed in recent years. I agree with your assessment of his current political leanings. If anything it's populous right wing stuff with some pseudo-contrarianism and soft conspiracy theory mixed in. IMO, it doesn't seem genuine at all. I think he was just trying to find in audience and that's where he landed.

 

[VMBM]

Brand is a truth seeker.

Fixed it for you.

I'm speaking only generally here, but sometimes the so called conspiracy theorists get it right also.

 

[Lshap]

Fixed it for you.

I'm speaking only generally here, but sometimes the so called conspiracy theorists get it right also.

True, conspiracists have occasionally gotten it right... but very rarely. 99% of the time they're not seeking truth; they're seeking a story that makes them feel special and smarter than the rest of us.

Today's conspiracies are not based on information – conspiracists conveniently ignore 95% of it – they're based on social media validation and self-image.

 

[VMBM]

True, conspiracists have occasionally gotten it right... but very rarely. 99% of the time they're not seeking truth; they're seeking a story that validates how much smarter they are than the rest of us.

Today's conspiracies are not based on information – conspiracists conveniently ignore 95% of it – they're based on social media validation and self-image.

I haven't followed Russell Brand much at all, but my general impression is that he has never went totally cuckoo à la "the Earth is flat" or "there are lizard people". Criticizing/questioning big pharmaceutical companies and their connections/influence doesn't sound all that wacky to me, although once again since I haven't watched Brand much, I don't know how 'out there' he has been with his takes.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

Don't know much about Masterson, but I think Brand has been a bit of a 'darling' lately among people who consider the mainstream media and the (US) government being leftist/woke. There are e.g. a number of YT videos where Brand is supposedly "destroying" people who are seen to be part of the establishment or whatever. Commentators like Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, Matt Walsh and that bozo (just my opinion!) Tucker Carlson have been fairly vocal during recent days about the case and have casted doubts about the authenticity of the accusations. Which is fair enough also, I guess.

It doesn't mean that Brand is right wing himself; I don't know what he is exactly.

All of these idiots also defended Andrew Tate.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Folks, this isn't that hard to follow ...

Accused people I don't like are rapists and pedophiles.

Accused people I do like are truth tellers being railroaded by deep state conspiracy for their truthful truthiness.

Makes perfect sense.

 

[PK Cronin]

I haven't followed Russell Brand much at all, but my general impression is that he has never went totally cuckoo à la "the Earth is flat" or "there are lizard people". Criticizing/questioning big pharmaceutical companies and their connections/influence doesn't sound all that wacky to me, although once again since I haven't watched Brand much, I don't know how 'out there' he has been with his takes.

Also not the biggest Brand fan/follower but he's really just his own thing. His opinions do not fit nicely into a political box like many people would like.

I don't think we should spend much time trying to decipher his politics though because it's pretty much irrelevant to the allegations.

 

[NyQuil]

I haven't followed Russell Brand much at all, but my general impression is that he has never went totally cuckoo à la "the Earth is flat" or "there are lizard people". Criticizing/questioning big pharmaceutical companies and their connections/influence doesn't sound all that wacky to me, although once again since I haven't watched Brand much, I don't know how 'out there' he has been with his takes.

The issue with so-called social media "truth seekers" is that they neither have the time, the inclination or the skill set to pursue these issues with any modicum of discipline or serious engagement.

I get it - it's fun to be the contrarian.

People like to believe that they are privy to secret knowledge, or are being gifted a paradigm of thinking that they alone (or as part of a minority) are seeing the world for what it "really" is.

The damage is that you take the word of some whack job guest or internet personality over individuals who have pursued these issues with decades of applied research and study because their answers are more palatable to you ideologically or simply more thrilling.

True, conspiracists have occasionally gotten it right... but very rarely. 99% of the time they're not seeking truth; they're seeking a story that makes them feel special and smarter than the rest of us.

Today's conspiracies are not based on information – conspiracists conveniently ignore 95% of it – they're based on social media validation and self-image.

Basically this.

Not to mention, they often try to uncover the secret agendas of various stakeholders while remaining virtually unchallenged themselves in terms of where their own financial support and viewer base is coming from.

 

[Peasy]

Majority of Russell Brand's youtube vid titles look like they were taken directly from r/conspiracy.

 

[VMBM]

I don't think we should spend much time trying to decipher his politics though because it's pretty much irrelevant to the allegations.

Yup yup.

Just playing the Devil's advocate a little bit. A lot of wackos both on the left and the right as far as I'm concerned.

It's fairly hard to see Brand bounce back from this, even if he is not criminally convicted (or even charged). Kevin Spacey (100 times bigger talent) was acquitted, but is there much future for him either? Since I'm not a RB fan, I don't care that much, but at the same time a little voice in my head asks; if it happened to turn out that his biggest sin was being a 'promiscuous' jerk who banged a 16-year old, is it all fair? Idk.

 

[NyQuil]

It's fairly hard to see Brand bounce back from this, even if he is not criminally convicted (or even charged). Kevin Spacey (100 times bigger talent) was acquitted, but is there much future for him either? Since I'm not a RB fan, I don't care that much, but at the same time a little voice in my head asks; if it happened to turn out that his biggest sin was being a 'promiscuous' jerk who banged a 16-year old, is it all fair? Idk.

I think he'll be fine.

The self-reinforcing delusions of the conspiracy set will simply ascribe these incidents as evidence that the mainstream is attempting to silence him from speaking truth to power.

Ideologically speaking, I would certainly rather cozy up to the right-wing who are as quick to unconditionally defend their heroes as the left is to cancelling theirs, especially if I had a few skeletons in my closet.

 

[x Tame Impala]

These Brand and Peterson types would be much better off just staying in their lane instead of branching out to whatever these careers in counter-culture YouTubing they’re always chasing after.

Lots and lots of money making leverage to exploit on the internet though so I get why people do it. These guys get huge followings and sponge up their content sometimes hours a day.

 

[Fantomas]

The issue with so-called social media "truth seekers" is that they neither have the time, the inclination or the skill set to pursue these issues with any modicum of discipline or serious engagement.

I get it - it's fun to be the contrarian.

What do you mean by "social media truth seekers?" Seems like a very broad label to paint critics of mainstream media narratives.

We all need critics of mainstream media narratives. On social media and in other platforms. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but seems you're just dismissing social media critics with views outside of the mainstream entirely? Don't think this is wise.

Not going to comment on Brand specifically, as I haven't seen enough of his content.

 

[NyQuil]

What do you mean by "social media truth seekers?" Seems like a very broad label to paint critics of mainstream media narratives.

We all need critics of mainstream media narratives. On social media and in other platforms. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but seems you're just dismissing social media critics with views outside of the mainstream entirely? Don't think this is wise.

Not going to comment on Brand specifically, as I haven't seen enough of his content.

If you are trying to monetize your views via social media platforms, yes, I'm going to be suspicious of your overall objectivity, methodology and commitment to informed criticism.

It may be a shock, but the critics who get the most views (and therefore the most money) are not known for their nuanced and even-handed views on issues. It's about hyperbole and/or volume.

Even Tucker Carlson doesn't believe what Tucker Carlson actually says. We saw that when his text messages came to light.

We're not talking about Noam Chomsky here.

 

[Fantomas]

If you are trying to monetize your views via social media platforms, yes, I'm going to be suspicious of your overall objectivity, methodology and commitment to informed criticism.

It may be a shock, but the critics who get the most views (and therefore the most money) are not known for their nuanced and even-handed views on issues. It's about hyperbole and/or volume.

Even Tucker Carlson doesn't believe what Tucker Carlson actually says. We saw that when his text messages came to light.

We're not talking about Noam Chomsky here.

It's alright to be suspicious of course, but let's keep in mind that we're getting to a point now, especially in the West, where people's trust in their institutions (including mainstream media, government and academia) is waning. And with good reason too, because even mainstream academia is becoming corporatized. We're also disenchanted with experts and fact checkers who are often in the pockets of big business and big government, and many of whom - I would add - are extremely disciplined in their work (but not impartial). So what to do?

Any person with critical thinking skills knows that the above is happening, and they will engage with alternate perspectives to some extent. We all seek a worldview that helps us make sense of a crazy world and none of us can be nourished with skepticism alone (well, there are some who think they can be, but I digress). We need to believe in something. Our traditional institutions aren't giving us enough of that.

I would suggest, and you probably would too, that everyone should read widely and not just from the New York Times bestseller list. Doesn't have to be Tucker (who's part of the mainstream too I think) or Chomsky (who hasn't had useful advice to give to the American left, probably ever), or Brand (who seems like a big mouth). But I'm not ready to give up on truth-tellers yet. There are many good people spreading the truth out there on many topics and they're not all Ivy League professional class. I'm just sayin'.

 

[Kiwi]

These are nothing but allegations, he hasn't been charged with anything and the people accusing him of wrongdoing never even went to the authorities with these accusations

These rumours were around while he was a left wing darling working for the likes of the BBC but it's only after his political transformation that the likes of the sun and channel 4 decided they were interested in his potential wrongdoing

Combine that with the British Government going full authoritarian and trying to get social media companies to stop paying him, a person who hasn't even been charged with anything mind due and it's hardly surprising people are starting to wonder what the hell is going on

He's innocent until proven guilty, as of now he isn't even charged with a crime so the politics can get ****** and so can the British Government and the company's that complied with there request

 

[Peasy]

It's alright to be suspicious of course, but let's keep in mind that we're getting to a point now, especially in the West, where people's trust in their institutions (including mainstream media, government and academia) is waning. And with good reason too, because even mainstream academia is becoming corporatized. We're also disenchanted with experts and fact checkers who are often in the pockets of big business and big government, and many of whom - I would add - are extremely disciplined in their work (but not impartial). So what to do?

Any person with critical thinking skills knows that the above is happening, and they will engage with alternate perspectives to some extent. We all seek a worldview that helps us make sense of a crazy world and none of us can be nourished with skepticism alone (well, there are some who think they can be, but I digress). We need to believe in something. Our traditional institutions aren't giving us enough of that.

I would suggest, and you probably would too, that everyone should read widely and not just from the New York Times bestseller list. Doesn't have to be Tucker (who's part of the mainstream too I think) or Chomsky (who hasn't had useful advice to give to the American left, probably ever), or Brand (who seems like a big mouth). But I'm not ready to give up on truth-tellers yet. There are many good people spreading the truth out there on many topics and they're not all Ivy League professional class. I'm just sayin'.

Is Joe Rogan a truth teller?

Hella ironic imo to be saying to use critical thinking and in the same breath go on about these truth tellers actually telling us the truth.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

It's alright to be suspicious of course, but let's keep in mind that we're getting to a point now, especially in the West, where people's trust in their institutions (including mainstream media, government and academia) is waning. And with good reason too, because even mainstream academia is becoming corporatized. We're also disenchanted with experts and fact checkers who are often in the pockets of big business and big government, and many of whom - I would add - are extremely disciplined in their work (but not impartial). So what to do?

Any person with critical thinking skills knows that the above is happening, and they will engage with alternate perspectives to some extent. We all seek a worldview that helps us make sense of a crazy world and none of us can be nourished with skepticism alone (well, there are some who think they can be, but I digress). We need to believe in something. Our traditional institutions aren't giving us enough of that.

I would suggest, and you probably would too, that everyone should read widely and not just from the New York Times bestseller list. Doesn't have to be Tucker (who's part of the mainstream too I think) or Chomsky (who hasn't had useful advice to give to the American left, probably ever), or Brand (who seems like a big mouth). But I'm not ready to give up on truth-tellers yet. There are many good people spreading the truth out there on many topics and they're not all Ivy League professional class. I'm just sayin'.

I was mostly with you until that. Being critical of the elite is one thing, encouraging bullshit artists to spread their uninformed crap is another.

Guys like Carlson and Peterson have no interest in informing anyone of anything, they are in this game for the money. They exploit the naivety of people who have very justified doubts/anger and turn them into paranoid conspiracy theorist.

So, in a nutshell, yes to critical thinking, no to fear-mongering and lie-spreading.

 

[NyQuil]

I think a lot of people have difficulty distinguishing between truth telling and telling people exactly what they want to hear.

They are being preyed on by an entire class of amateur philosophers and con people.

The solution to waning institutions is better institutions. Part of the reason why trust in them is failing is because they are accountable, to the public and for their mistakes.

This emerging class of “truth seekers” are accountable to no one and can pretty much say whatever they like because anyone who finds fault with what they are saying are simply “sheeple” who are “corrupted by mainstream thinking”.

I’m sure there are honest people out there with genuine voices of dissent but they are largely invisible against the wall of loud disinformation peddled by pedagogues who are in it for the fame, the clicks and the cash.