In Life, The Universe, And Everything, the third instalment of the iconic Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy series, an alien visitor describes a powerful cloaking technology that he’s using to hide his extremely conspicuous spaceship. It’s called the “somebody else’s problem” field (SEP).
He says people are penalizing Brand with no evidence. I say people are lionizing Brand as an anti-establishment hero for no reason. Where are these penalties? He's getting 100 times more attention than normal.
Yeah, this whole anti-establishment thing is a bit of a joke. You'd think he was starting a revolution or effecting even the tiniest shred of political change/pressure. None of the people watching him on YouTube were ever going to do anything beyond calling a few people "sheep" on Twitter and convincing themselves they're victims of some devious conspiracy that only they were smart enough to see.
The idea that the global elite saw him as such a threat that they decided to take him down by making a documentary about his widely rumoured sexual assault is...well, let's be kind and say it's pretty shallow thinking.
One reason that is easy to point to, making the timing of the latest "outing" of Russell Brand suspect, is his recent attempts to out big pharma and those involved with the cancelling of voices that would try to expose what has been going on behind the backs of citizens in the US and across Europe for decades now.
"his recent attempts to out big pharma and those involved with the cancelling of voices that would try to expose what has been going"
Yep, this is basically the case that everybody questioning the "timing" has been making. But as I said to Paul:
a) there are hundreds, maybe thousands of people saying the same things as Brand.
b) it's not as if he was the leader of an activist movement that was changing things or rooting out corruption, all he was doing was riling up an existing echo chamber.
c) all of his "anti-establishment" videos are still up, available to view, he's just not making money from them.
d) this documentary was years in the making. How could it be related to things he's been saying recently?
Again, I'm not disputing that there's political bias in the world and in the media. I'm saying it doesn't make a lot of sense that he's the victim of it. Or that anybody was taking him, specifically, seriously enough to try to "take him down."
If you look into the groups that he is attacking, none of this is a surprise, anymore than the others who have spoken out and are getting slandered. If he is guilty of crimes, then he should be held accountable. I don't deny that. But then why were the claims against Joe Biden so quickly dismissed by those around him and the mainstream media? That was also assumed to be timing.
"anymore than the others who have spoken out and are getting slandered"
But who are we talking about here? Jimmy Savile? Bill Cosby? Harvey Weinstein? Jeffrey Epstein? R Kelly? Who did any of these guys "go after"? And if the groups that Brand was going after were so scared of what he was saying, why are all of his videos still up for everybody to see? This whole scandal has only driven more views to his content, no?
And what about the timing of Hillary Clinton's email investigation? Many people claim the timing of that investigation lost her the election. Given the margin, they might be right. Or what about the claims against Trump? Why has he not served any jail time despite countless claims against him? Many of which he paid off?
We can play this game all day, because, of course, there is corruption in politics. And rich people generally get away with crimes you and I wouldn't. But it takes hardly any thought to see that the claim the Brand was "taken down" because of his YouTube videos makes no sense.
Then we'll just have to agree to disagree on your last statement. I don't disagree with the points you make about the member of the hit parade you mentioned, but I wasn't referring to them. There are many who are probably as guilty as the day is long, and no, they were not standing for anything controversial. Likewise, I tend to agree with your assessment of the political sphere. There always seems to be an agenda if one digs deep enough.
I was thinking about others who seeming did nothing wrong except spoke out against big pharma, and government over-reach for instance. Many were de-platformed very soon after having the nerve to go against the narrative and the money/power junkies. Naomi Wolf as an example. RFK Jr. Doctors who spoke out about Covid misdeeds and the shots. They were silenced to whatever extent possible because they were accused of spreading mis- and/or disinformation. Brand has jumped on board to ask questions. Suddenly his past matters.
“They were silenced to whatever extent possible because they were accused of spreading mis- and/or disinformation”
Yep, happy to agree to disagree. I can’t resist addressing this point though. Does this mean that in your mind, any accusation of impropriety against someone who questions vaccine safety, and there are hundreds if not thousands of people doing so, is suspicious? What checking mechanism are you using to ensure that this doesn’t bias you against believing genuine accusations?
In response to your questions, the first is no. I don't think the people who question these things are saints, so people are free to challenge them. But they don't. They de-platform them. Where is the debate? Why not have real dialogue? What are they afraid of? As an example, all one has to do is study what viruses are for a little while to know there is something wrong with the idea that a virus desires to kill its host. At best, the experts didn't know what to do when the pandemic hit, and at worst they lied and are still lying. The shots don't work, yet they continue to say they do. Who is responsible for the messaging?
I think it's pretty much agreed that anyone who is guilty of the evils being attributed to the various people mentioned so far, should be held accountable for them, no matter who they are, or how powerful and influential they may be. Conversely, the accused should have their day in court to make their case. Right off, I would assert that we are not seeing that. We are seeing some get accused, and immediately found guilty by big tech and others of the crimes. Others are protected. Why is that?
Many in the medical/pharmaceutical field have been shown to be either wrong, or lying, or both. They continue to do so at the expense of those who believe them. They tell us to follow the science, but they don't do it themselves. Viruses are not new. They have been here, and will continue to mutate and be here until the end of time. Propaganda is sometimes hard to distinguish, but the general public seems ripe for the picking, and propagandist remain forever ready to exploit them.
I care about the truth, no matter where if comes from. I may not always recognize it, but I spend a lot of time pursuing it. I believe that good people are being harmed by those who are only interested in power and riches, and I believe that good people are trying to expose the others. They will be attacked for doing so. I believe we are seeing a lot that these days because these people are getting too close to breaking through the shroud of deceit. I'm not saying those pushing back are saints, but I will always question the timing of the decision to publicize their alleged misdeeds.
Thank you for the opportunity to actually discuss an issue. It's appreciated.
Politics tend to create bias filters and I am no more immune than others, even though I am perhaps less partisan than many. Did anyone but a Republicans care about Monica Lewinsky? Abuse of power, ho hum! Brett Kavanaugh vying to be a Supreme Court Justice. Did the concern about or belief in the story seem related to partisan politics?
A teaspoon of sewage added to a bottle of fine wine yields a bottle of sewage. She said, he said, accusations of sexual impropriety are the perfect teaspoon of sewage. If I tell you someone put sewage in your expensive bottle of fine wine, would you drink it? Doubt and/or belief is very powerful.
Timing that some consider to be suspect changes nothing about guilty or innocent, but when it is 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙘𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙙 as being used against a political tribe, it rises in importance in the political realm faster than in the justice for women realm. Sad but true, a threat to a political tribe is a greater concern for many in the highly politicized world that we live in than the rape of someone they don't know. They are unaffected personally about what happened to her but feel personally threatened politically.
Yep, your last paragraph absolutely nails it. This is the true horror of tribalism. Some people have completely abandoned principle and decency and moral consistency in favour of political tribalism. Or in other cases, identitarian tribalism.
The reactions expressed in the link were all about how it might affect the Democratic party politically. Some mention of morality. His lie, as if the overwhelming majority of men and women would not lie about infidelity.
The thing that was missing was concern that a young woman was a victim of his abuse of the asymmetry of power. Did she, as an intern have political hopes. Was there implicit or explicit promise of favor in that realm? That didn't seem to be much of an issue, but politics sure was.
Because the definition of "sexual assault" or what you sometimes call "sexual abuse" is fuzzy.
I'm not familiar with your sexuality or your past experience with assault or abuse on sexuality. You don't seem to want to reference it. I have been out as "gay" for almost 10 years. I was married to a woman and "str8" for 32. I spent many years understanding my sexuality in pray away the gay groups, take responsibility for your sexuality groups, and understand yourself groups. The last all being tied to the mankind project - something I believe is outstanding but at times a little too left leaning.
As part of my gay experience for the last 10 years, I'm now convinced that str8's need to get out of the closet on their sexuality more than any LGBTQ+ person. All people have many desires around sexuality. They all can move between a sexual experience being exciting versus being used easily. When that move happens, does a person decide they were personally responsible for getting themselves into a position of being used or do they say the person they were with was responsible for using/abusing them - playing the victim. Playing victim use to be considered de-powering, Now its consider em-powering. Its no wonder people are playing victim.
The problem with all the consent BS is that it takes away from those people who really are abused. Children being taken advantage of by priests or boy scout leaders. Handicapped people being taken advantage of by their caretakers. Those are clear cases of abuse - we can add sexual to it but its abuse in the same sense as my partner who use to get beaten on by his father when he did something wrong. Those are real problems.
The consent issue is a red herring. If a woman or man is too drunk to "consent", are they being abused if they are used by another woman or man? Maybe getting drunk was a bad idea. The Brock Turner case is that. She was passed out from drinking. He was also drunk and not thinking about his actions. Who was at fault? The answer is very obvious. They both were!
The incidents with Bill Cosby are more clear. He was drugging woman. The woman did not know he was doing it. He didn't have a reputation as an assaulter. They couldn't have known.
The incidents with Harvey Weinstein were clear. Every woman was aware of how Harvey wanted sex in return for career favors. Is requiring sex for career favors OK? Their are many woman who had no issue with it. The most famous being Lucille Ball. Hollywood was well known for that model. Why were woman meeting with Weinstein and then later accusing him? Likely because afterward they felt dirty and wanted to blame him for that. He should never have made the idea of sex for career favors an option. Hollywood has had to change because of #metoo. I know people who were part of that culture that believe it was the woman's own fault. What is the right answer? Society has absolutely shifted because of the #metoo movement. But the reality is that many in society don't have allot of respect for the #metoo movement. They are just too scared of cancel culture to talk about it.
You ignore the reality going on in society based on some grand standing principal that you believe is "truth". You beat on social media and media companies because you don't believe they represent the "truth" that you have an inside track on.
Who is worse? The media companies or your arrogance on the inside track to "truth"?
"You beat on social media and media companies because you don't believe they represent the "truth" that you have an inside track on"
I'm curious why you seem so desperate to argue with me when you're having so much fun arguing with your imagination. But I have to tell you, it's pretty dull from my side.
If you want to take issue with something I've actually said, feel free. Try quoting me. That way there's no room for confusion. If you want to just make silly accusations based on caricatures of my views, go ahead. But I won't play along.
Can’t resist adding Trevor Bauer. His US career was destroyed by “believe all woman”. Now he has proof they were just extorting him.
The “consent concept” has setup men to be extorted by woman. Woman consent but then later decide they didn’t. Brand s looks very suspiciously like that scenario.
I’m less interested in punishing Bill Cosby, Russell Brand, Harvey Weinstein, Johnny Depp, Al Franken, Kevin Spacy, Bill Clinton, Brock Turner, Andrew Tate, Jeffrey Epstein, Brett Kavanaugh et al. I’m a parent, focusing on perpetrators would have done nothing to protect my kids. In the list, as they have played out in court, it’s become clear some of them were accused by people leveraging the be a victim positioning of #metoo. Johnny Depp being the most infamous case but also Kevin Spacy and Al Franken. Many I have to wonder about “where were the parents?”
You represent what I view as the dysfunctional desire to focus on people you view as “sexual assaulters”. It’s no different than the conservative positioning of LGBTQ people grooming kids by saying they exist in schools.
I had a 6 month sexual relationship with a 25 yo male teacher when I was 15. It was a positive experience except for one thing. I can’t find the teacher today. He’s gone underground. Understandably.
When I started discussing it with others, the traditional str8 world worked hard to convince me he was a stalker and I was raped. Especially religious folks who thought the incident was the reason I was attracted to guys. For a while, I tried to adopt that thinking.
The trying to portray me as the victim exists today. It happen by one of the people commenting on my comments to you.
Now that I’m actively gay, the gay world says it was hot. How great I could have that experience! That jives much more with my remembrance.
You push hard to make woman victims of the men I listed. Or in the case of Kevin Spacy- the men. You have a “believe all victims until their proven wrong” view. You are doing that with Brand.
Given my experience of people trying to push me to believe I was a victim, I’m very skeptical. Especially since I’m a parent of two girls. Me focusing on hunting or bringing people like Russel Brand down helps zero in keeping them from being victimized.
The Brand case is a blatant example of that! What were these woman thinking by ever engaging Brand during the time he was publicly promoting being a sexual maniac? That question is the most relevant of all! You never focus on that question. Why?
Playing or wallowing in victimhood is now popular in the divided states. Protect the victims. What happened to teaching people to protect themselves from what has and always will exist-people who want to take advantage of them?
Parents taught their kids to not get in a car with a stranger. Are parents teaching their daughters to not play with a sexual maniac? It might not turn out the way you want!
I guess I should just not get your articles. You and I are an example that the country is very divided. From my perspective-much of that divide is because everyone wants to play victim!
“You have a “believe all victims until their proven wrong” view. You are doing that with Brand.”
Once again, you are unable to stop projecting long enough to see that I’ve never said anything like this.
In fact, I’ve said the opposite.
You’re so triggered that you’re turning me into an avatar for all the things you disagree with. You’ve spent most of this overly long reply claiming I believe things I don’t believe, you lie about things I’ve said, and you engage in ridiculous hyperbole about me wanting you to not exist. It’s childish.
Do you really not understand why I don’t want to engage with you while you do this?
You’ve read my work for long enough to know that I am very much against a victim mentality. I’m not going to bother defending myself against this silly accusation. But you’re taking it to a ridiculous level where you refuse to accept there’s ever any such thing as a victim.
One of Brand’s 16 year-old victims reports having to punch him in the stomach repeatedly to stop him forcing his penis down her throat. Another visited a rape crisis centre the same day she accused him of raping her and has text message evidence that he ignored her when she repeatedly said no. Your response to this is to say, “WeLl WhErE wErE tHe PaReNtS?” Or, “wHy DiD tHeY sPeNd TiMe WiTh HiM?” And never, not once, “Russell Brand shouldn’t have done those things.”
And this allows you to take responsibility off of abusers and rapists for abusing and raping, and place it on the people they rape and abuse. You focus exclusively on what the woman could/should have done to prevent her attack, or what the child’s parents should have done to be watching their kid at all times, and never on how the predator shouldn’t have raped them.
Again, I’m pretty sure I understand why you side with the abuser in this way. But I’m not sure what you hope to gain from this conversation. I disagree with you. The legal systems of every developed nation disagree with you. Almost everybody in Earth disagrees with you, in fact. Why can’t you leave it at that? Ranting at me and accusing me of nonsense won’t change anything for you.
One more thought that came to me. The idea that "believe all woman" even exists is demeaning to woman. It implies that woman are not smart enough to be malicious. Only men are. Its basically misogynistic. I'm glad I know my daughters are smart enough to be malicious. The comment about my youngest daughter using her looks is a case in point.
I'm going to unsubscribe from you "The commentary". You're not really interested in comments unless they support your thought line.
Read your comment again. You are ranting about me.
Its very possibly I have misinterpreted you. I believe that was your point about the original post that this thread is connected to. You believe that media misrepresents the facts and posts on social media are malicious misrepresentations.
Do I have a passion on the current culture around sex and consent. Absolutely. The concept of formal consent in a sexual encounter is very very very very very complicated especially now that people are much more adventurous about what exploring their sexual fantasies. I listen to Ben Shapiro's podcast everyday. Not because I agree with his conservative religious view of what morality in the country and world should be, but because he is a very smart guy that separates his conservative religious personal perspective from how he interprets what's going on in the world. Yesterday he talked about Trevor Bauer. I didn't know about Trevor Bauer before yesterday.
He and I agree on one thing, in today's morality around sex, consent is a very very very hard concept. His position is that the only way a man can be close safe in today's culture on having sex with woman is in marriage. At least in that relationship their is implied consent. But even their the woman can decide that at some point she not longer is consenting to sex.
Trevor Bauer is a man who was a victim of two woman trying to extort him using the culture of #metoo. Unfortunately both woman were not smart enough (similar to Jussie Smollett) to cover their tracks. In fact there exist texts of them saying their goal is to extort him. As a result of current society and MLBs need to cow-tow to current society on any woman making an accusation of sexual assault especially on a famous person, he can no longer play in the MLB. Have you studied what happened at all? The judicial system never believed the woman, yet the MLB still suspended him and still have to this day. Even though the hoax as been exposed.
You bring up the 16year old who was with Brand. Have you read the details on her. Here's one article describing "https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/crime/russell-brand-sent-car-to-take-16-year-old-lover-he-called-the-child-out-of-lessons-c-11926686" She had all the knowledge she need to not ever engage with Brand. Its especially interesting that the driver who Brand sent to pick her up told her not to meet with Brand. She and Brand conspired to mislead her parents. I'm supposed to believe she was a victim???????? Seriously dude. I'm a father. If she was my daughter and told me what happened to her, I wouldn't tell her to go to the police, I would understand why she didn't know better and what she has learned. I would get her counseling to help her work through why she met with him and tried to mislead me as her father. Going after Brand implies she's not responsible for what happened. She is fully responsible. I as father, I would make her take ownership of that.
My youngest daughter is a stunningly good looking woman. When she was in college, she never paid for drinks in a bar. She told me she was doing this. I warned her that it could turn out badly for her. Some guy might get pissed that he bought her a drink and you didn't deliver on what you know he wanted. Why do I tell you this. First, my daughter was comfortable enough with me as a parent to tell me what she was doing. Second, I was a responsible parent informing her that she was playing with fire.
Do I believe Brand was a good person? No way. As I have said, he was a sexual maniac and made his career being that. Do I believe woman got victimized by him. They played with fire and got burnt.
Your incessant focus on men being pigs - something I taught my daughters when they were in high school - and as a result causing woman to have sexual encounters they regret is not helping the woman or the men. You can give someone a fish or you can teach them to fish. You want to give woman an out by saying their justified in viewing they were victims. Just like the person that was trying to convince me that at 15 having sex with a 25 year old teacher made me a victim being stalked and raped. Society's pressure to push people to being victims of the obvious - humans are not all good - is the worse thing that has come out of #metoo. As a parent, I'm glad both my daughters believe most of #metoo (the Cosby one is clearly different) is just teaching woman to be victim's versus stand in their power.
You and I are so different on our thinking of how the world works and where to go with incidents like Brand. You and I are an example of why the divided states can never be united. You can't have a conversation with me and consider I may have some valid points. The FACTS seem to indicate I do. Including my personal experience of people in the last week trying to convince me I was a victim, I was stalked and raped. It should be clear why I have so much passion against your positioning. Its helping no-one. Especially woman. Its just satisfies your need to judge others as evil and lock them up. Brand was a sexual maniac. Is that evil - no. He was clear about what he was. End of story.
Your definition of conspiracy theory thinking is right on the money.
He says people are penalizing Brand with no evidence. I say people are lionizing Brand as an anti-establishment hero for no reason. Where are these penalties? He's getting 100 times more attention than normal.
Yeah, this whole anti-establishment thing is a bit of a joke. You'd think he was starting a revolution or effecting even the tiniest shred of political change/pressure. None of the people watching him on YouTube were ever going to do anything beyond calling a few people "sheep" on Twitter and convincing themselves they're victims of some devious conspiracy that only they were smart enough to see.
The idea that the global elite saw him as such a threat that they decided to take him down by making a documentary about his widely rumoured sexual assault is...well, let's be kind and say it's pretty shallow thinking.
One reason that is easy to point to, making the timing of the latest "outing" of Russell Brand suspect, is his recent attempts to out big pharma and those involved with the cancelling of voices that would try to expose what has been going on behind the backs of citizens in the US and across Europe for decades now.
"his recent attempts to out big pharma and those involved with the cancelling of voices that would try to expose what has been going"
Yep, this is basically the case that everybody questioning the "timing" has been making. But as I said to Paul:
a) there are hundreds, maybe thousands of people saying the same things as Brand.
b) it's not as if he was the leader of an activist movement that was changing things or rooting out corruption, all he was doing was riling up an existing echo chamber.
c) all of his "anti-establishment" videos are still up, available to view, he's just not making money from them.
d) this documentary was years in the making. How could it be related to things he's been saying recently?
Again, I'm not disputing that there's political bias in the world and in the media. I'm saying it doesn't make a lot of sense that he's the victim of it. Or that anybody was taking him, specifically, seriously enough to try to "take him down."
If you look into the groups that he is attacking, none of this is a surprise, anymore than the others who have spoken out and are getting slandered. If he is guilty of crimes, then he should be held accountable. I don't deny that. But then why were the claims against Joe Biden so quickly dismissed by those around him and the mainstream media? That was also assumed to be timing.
"anymore than the others who have spoken out and are getting slandered"
But who are we talking about here? Jimmy Savile? Bill Cosby? Harvey Weinstein? Jeffrey Epstein? R Kelly? Who did any of these guys "go after"? And if the groups that Brand was going after were so scared of what he was saying, why are all of his videos still up for everybody to see? This whole scandal has only driven more views to his content, no?
And what about the timing of Hillary Clinton's email investigation? Many people claim the timing of that investigation lost her the election. Given the margin, they might be right. Or what about the claims against Trump? Why has he not served any jail time despite countless claims against him? Many of which he paid off?
We can play this game all day, because, of course, there is corruption in politics. And rich people generally get away with crimes you and I wouldn't. But it takes hardly any thought to see that the claim the Brand was "taken down" because of his YouTube videos makes no sense.
Then we'll just have to agree to disagree on your last statement. I don't disagree with the points you make about the member of the hit parade you mentioned, but I wasn't referring to them. There are many who are probably as guilty as the day is long, and no, they were not standing for anything controversial. Likewise, I tend to agree with your assessment of the political sphere. There always seems to be an agenda if one digs deep enough.
I was thinking about others who seeming did nothing wrong except spoke out against big pharma, and government over-reach for instance. Many were de-platformed very soon after having the nerve to go against the narrative and the money/power junkies. Naomi Wolf as an example. RFK Jr. Doctors who spoke out about Covid misdeeds and the shots. They were silenced to whatever extent possible because they were accused of spreading mis- and/or disinformation. Brand has jumped on board to ask questions. Suddenly his past matters.
“They were silenced to whatever extent possible because they were accused of spreading mis- and/or disinformation”
Yep, happy to agree to disagree. I can’t resist addressing this point though. Does this mean that in your mind, any accusation of impropriety against someone who questions vaccine safety, and there are hundreds if not thousands of people doing so, is suspicious? What checking mechanism are you using to ensure that this doesn’t bias you against believing genuine accusations?
In response to your questions, the first is no. I don't think the people who question these things are saints, so people are free to challenge them. But they don't. They de-platform them. Where is the debate? Why not have real dialogue? What are they afraid of? As an example, all one has to do is study what viruses are for a little while to know there is something wrong with the idea that a virus desires to kill its host. At best, the experts didn't know what to do when the pandemic hit, and at worst they lied and are still lying. The shots don't work, yet they continue to say they do. Who is responsible for the messaging?
I think it's pretty much agreed that anyone who is guilty of the evils being attributed to the various people mentioned so far, should be held accountable for them, no matter who they are, or how powerful and influential they may be. Conversely, the accused should have their day in court to make their case. Right off, I would assert that we are not seeing that. We are seeing some get accused, and immediately found guilty by big tech and others of the crimes. Others are protected. Why is that?
Many in the medical/pharmaceutical field have been shown to be either wrong, or lying, or both. They continue to do so at the expense of those who believe them. They tell us to follow the science, but they don't do it themselves. Viruses are not new. They have been here, and will continue to mutate and be here until the end of time. Propaganda is sometimes hard to distinguish, but the general public seems ripe for the picking, and propagandist remain forever ready to exploit them.
I care about the truth, no matter where if comes from. I may not always recognize it, but I spend a lot of time pursuing it. I believe that good people are being harmed by those who are only interested in power and riches, and I believe that good people are trying to expose the others. They will be attacked for doing so. I believe we are seeing a lot that these days because these people are getting too close to breaking through the shroud of deceit. I'm not saying those pushing back are saints, but I will always question the timing of the decision to publicize their alleged misdeeds.
Thank you for the opportunity to actually discuss an issue. It's appreciated.
Politics tend to create bias filters and I am no more immune than others, even though I am perhaps less partisan than many. Did anyone but a Republicans care about Monica Lewinsky? Abuse of power, ho hum! Brett Kavanaugh vying to be a Supreme Court Justice. Did the concern about or belief in the story seem related to partisan politics?
A teaspoon of sewage added to a bottle of fine wine yields a bottle of sewage. She said, he said, accusations of sexual impropriety are the perfect teaspoon of sewage. If I tell you someone put sewage in your expensive bottle of fine wine, would you drink it? Doubt and/or belief is very powerful.
Timing that some consider to be suspect changes nothing about guilty or innocent, but when it is 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙘𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙙 as being used against a political tribe, it rises in importance in the political realm faster than in the justice for women realm. Sad but true, a threat to a political tribe is a greater concern for many in the highly politicized world that we live in than the rape of someone they don't know. They are unaffected personally about what happened to her but feel personally threatened politically.
Yep, your last paragraph absolutely nails it. This is the true horror of tribalism. Some people have completely abandoned principle and decency and moral consistency in favour of political tribalism. Or in other cases, identitarian tribalism.
Though, yes, plenty of Democrats cared about Monica Lewinsky (https://www.nytimes.com/1998/08/19/us/testing-president-reaction-scathing-sad-democrats-react-clinton-speech.html). It's hard to overstate how much more polarised things are today than in the past. The extremes of political tribalism are far greater today than they used to be.
The reactions expressed in the link were all about how it might affect the Democratic party politically. Some mention of morality. His lie, as if the overwhelming majority of men and women would not lie about infidelity.
The thing that was missing was concern that a young woman was a victim of his abuse of the asymmetry of power. Did she, as an intern have political hopes. Was there implicit or explicit promise of favor in that realm? That didn't seem to be much of an issue, but politics sure was.
Steve, we’re you ever “sexually assaulted?”
Why do you feel the need to put sexually assaulted in scare quotes? Is the whole concept of sexual assault somehow questionable to you?
Because the definition of "sexual assault" or what you sometimes call "sexual abuse" is fuzzy.
I'm not familiar with your sexuality or your past experience with assault or abuse on sexuality. You don't seem to want to reference it. I have been out as "gay" for almost 10 years. I was married to a woman and "str8" for 32. I spent many years understanding my sexuality in pray away the gay groups, take responsibility for your sexuality groups, and understand yourself groups. The last all being tied to the mankind project - something I believe is outstanding but at times a little too left leaning.
As part of my gay experience for the last 10 years, I'm now convinced that str8's need to get out of the closet on their sexuality more than any LGBTQ+ person. All people have many desires around sexuality. They all can move between a sexual experience being exciting versus being used easily. When that move happens, does a person decide they were personally responsible for getting themselves into a position of being used or do they say the person they were with was responsible for using/abusing them - playing the victim. Playing victim use to be considered de-powering, Now its consider em-powering. Its no wonder people are playing victim.
The problem with all the consent BS is that it takes away from those people who really are abused. Children being taken advantage of by priests or boy scout leaders. Handicapped people being taken advantage of by their caretakers. Those are clear cases of abuse - we can add sexual to it but its abuse in the same sense as my partner who use to get beaten on by his father when he did something wrong. Those are real problems.
The consent issue is a red herring. If a woman or man is too drunk to "consent", are they being abused if they are used by another woman or man? Maybe getting drunk was a bad idea. The Brock Turner case is that. She was passed out from drinking. He was also drunk and not thinking about his actions. Who was at fault? The answer is very obvious. They both were!
The incidents with Bill Cosby are more clear. He was drugging woman. The woman did not know he was doing it. He didn't have a reputation as an assaulter. They couldn't have known.
The incidents with Harvey Weinstein were clear. Every woman was aware of how Harvey wanted sex in return for career favors. Is requiring sex for career favors OK? Their are many woman who had no issue with it. The most famous being Lucille Ball. Hollywood was well known for that model. Why were woman meeting with Weinstein and then later accusing him? Likely because afterward they felt dirty and wanted to blame him for that. He should never have made the idea of sex for career favors an option. Hollywood has had to change because of #metoo. I know people who were part of that culture that believe it was the woman's own fault. What is the right answer? Society has absolutely shifted because of the #metoo movement. But the reality is that many in society don't have allot of respect for the #metoo movement. They are just too scared of cancel culture to talk about it.
You ignore the reality going on in society based on some grand standing principal that you believe is "truth". You beat on social media and media companies because you don't believe they represent the "truth" that you have an inside track on.
Who is worse? The media companies or your arrogance on the inside track to "truth"?
"You beat on social media and media companies because you don't believe they represent the "truth" that you have an inside track on"
I'm curious why you seem so desperate to argue with me when you're having so much fun arguing with your imagination. But I have to tell you, it's pretty dull from my side.
If you want to take issue with something I've actually said, feel free. Try quoting me. That way there's no room for confusion. If you want to just make silly accusations based on caricatures of my views, go ahead. But I won't play along.
Can’t resist adding Trevor Bauer. His US career was destroyed by “believe all woman”. Now he has proof they were just extorting him.
The “consent concept” has setup men to be extorted by woman. Woman consent but then later decide they didn’t. Brand s looks very suspiciously like that scenario.
You and I are on different pages in our thinking.
I’m less interested in punishing Bill Cosby, Russell Brand, Harvey Weinstein, Johnny Depp, Al Franken, Kevin Spacy, Bill Clinton, Brock Turner, Andrew Tate, Jeffrey Epstein, Brett Kavanaugh et al. I’m a parent, focusing on perpetrators would have done nothing to protect my kids. In the list, as they have played out in court, it’s become clear some of them were accused by people leveraging the be a victim positioning of #metoo. Johnny Depp being the most infamous case but also Kevin Spacy and Al Franken. Many I have to wonder about “where were the parents?”
You represent what I view as the dysfunctional desire to focus on people you view as “sexual assaulters”. It’s no different than the conservative positioning of LGBTQ people grooming kids by saying they exist in schools.
I had a 6 month sexual relationship with a 25 yo male teacher when I was 15. It was a positive experience except for one thing. I can’t find the teacher today. He’s gone underground. Understandably.
When I started discussing it with others, the traditional str8 world worked hard to convince me he was a stalker and I was raped. Especially religious folks who thought the incident was the reason I was attracted to guys. For a while, I tried to adopt that thinking.
The trying to portray me as the victim exists today. It happen by one of the people commenting on my comments to you.
Now that I’m actively gay, the gay world says it was hot. How great I could have that experience! That jives much more with my remembrance.
You push hard to make woman victims of the men I listed. Or in the case of Kevin Spacy- the men. You have a “believe all victims until their proven wrong” view. You are doing that with Brand.
Given my experience of people trying to push me to believe I was a victim, I’m very skeptical. Especially since I’m a parent of two girls. Me focusing on hunting or bringing people like Russel Brand down helps zero in keeping them from being victimized.
The Brand case is a blatant example of that! What were these woman thinking by ever engaging Brand during the time he was publicly promoting being a sexual maniac? That question is the most relevant of all! You never focus on that question. Why?
Playing or wallowing in victimhood is now popular in the divided states. Protect the victims. What happened to teaching people to protect themselves from what has and always will exist-people who want to take advantage of them?
Parents taught their kids to not get in a car with a stranger. Are parents teaching their daughters to not play with a sexual maniac? It might not turn out the way you want!
I guess I should just not get your articles. You and I are an example that the country is very divided. From my perspective-much of that divide is because everyone wants to play victim!
“You have a “believe all victims until their proven wrong” view. You are doing that with Brand.”
Once again, you are unable to stop projecting long enough to see that I’ve never said anything like this.
In fact, I’ve said the opposite.
You’re so triggered that you’re turning me into an avatar for all the things you disagree with. You’ve spent most of this overly long reply claiming I believe things I don’t believe, you lie about things I’ve said, and you engage in ridiculous hyperbole about me wanting you to not exist. It’s childish.
Do you really not understand why I don’t want to engage with you while you do this?
You’ve read my work for long enough to know that I am very much against a victim mentality. I’m not going to bother defending myself against this silly accusation. But you’re taking it to a ridiculous level where you refuse to accept there’s ever any such thing as a victim.
One of Brand’s 16 year-old victims reports having to punch him in the stomach repeatedly to stop him forcing his penis down her throat. Another visited a rape crisis centre the same day she accused him of raping her and has text message evidence that he ignored her when she repeatedly said no. Your response to this is to say, “WeLl WhErE wErE tHe PaReNtS?” Or, “wHy DiD tHeY sPeNd TiMe WiTh HiM?” And never, not once, “Russell Brand shouldn’t have done those things.”
And this allows you to take responsibility off of abusers and rapists for abusing and raping, and place it on the people they rape and abuse. You focus exclusively on what the woman could/should have done to prevent her attack, or what the child’s parents should have done to be watching their kid at all times, and never on how the predator shouldn’t have raped them.
Again, I’m pretty sure I understand why you side with the abuser in this way. But I’m not sure what you hope to gain from this conversation. I disagree with you. The legal systems of every developed nation disagree with you. Almost everybody in Earth disagrees with you, in fact. Why can’t you leave it at that? Ranting at me and accusing me of nonsense won’t change anything for you.
One more thought that came to me. The idea that "believe all woman" even exists is demeaning to woman. It implies that woman are not smart enough to be malicious. Only men are. Its basically misogynistic. I'm glad I know my daughters are smart enough to be malicious. The comment about my youngest daughter using her looks is a case in point.
I'm going to unsubscribe from you "The commentary". You're not really interested in comments unless they support your thought line.
Read your comment again. You are ranting about me.
Its very possibly I have misinterpreted you. I believe that was your point about the original post that this thread is connected to. You believe that media misrepresents the facts and posts on social media are malicious misrepresentations.
Do I have a passion on the current culture around sex and consent. Absolutely. The concept of formal consent in a sexual encounter is very very very very very complicated especially now that people are much more adventurous about what exploring their sexual fantasies. I listen to Ben Shapiro's podcast everyday. Not because I agree with his conservative religious view of what morality in the country and world should be, but because he is a very smart guy that separates his conservative religious personal perspective from how he interprets what's going on in the world. Yesterday he talked about Trevor Bauer. I didn't know about Trevor Bauer before yesterday.
He and I agree on one thing, in today's morality around sex, consent is a very very very hard concept. His position is that the only way a man can be close safe in today's culture on having sex with woman is in marriage. At least in that relationship their is implied consent. But even their the woman can decide that at some point she not longer is consenting to sex.
Trevor Bauer is a man who was a victim of two woman trying to extort him using the culture of #metoo. Unfortunately both woman were not smart enough (similar to Jussie Smollett) to cover their tracks. In fact there exist texts of them saying their goal is to extort him. As a result of current society and MLBs need to cow-tow to current society on any woman making an accusation of sexual assault especially on a famous person, he can no longer play in the MLB. Have you studied what happened at all? The judicial system never believed the woman, yet the MLB still suspended him and still have to this day. Even though the hoax as been exposed.
You bring up the 16year old who was with Brand. Have you read the details on her. Here's one article describing "https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/crime/russell-brand-sent-car-to-take-16-year-old-lover-he-called-the-child-out-of-lessons-c-11926686" She had all the knowledge she need to not ever engage with Brand. Its especially interesting that the driver who Brand sent to pick her up told her not to meet with Brand. She and Brand conspired to mislead her parents. I'm supposed to believe she was a victim???????? Seriously dude. I'm a father. If she was my daughter and told me what happened to her, I wouldn't tell her to go to the police, I would understand why she didn't know better and what she has learned. I would get her counseling to help her work through why she met with him and tried to mislead me as her father. Going after Brand implies she's not responsible for what happened. She is fully responsible. I as father, I would make her take ownership of that.
My youngest daughter is a stunningly good looking woman. When she was in college, she never paid for drinks in a bar. She told me she was doing this. I warned her that it could turn out badly for her. Some guy might get pissed that he bought her a drink and you didn't deliver on what you know he wanted. Why do I tell you this. First, my daughter was comfortable enough with me as a parent to tell me what she was doing. Second, I was a responsible parent informing her that she was playing with fire.
Do I believe Brand was a good person? No way. As I have said, he was a sexual maniac and made his career being that. Do I believe woman got victimized by him. They played with fire and got burnt.
Your incessant focus on men being pigs - something I taught my daughters when they were in high school - and as a result causing woman to have sexual encounters they regret is not helping the woman or the men. You can give someone a fish or you can teach them to fish. You want to give woman an out by saying their justified in viewing they were victims. Just like the person that was trying to convince me that at 15 having sex with a 25 year old teacher made me a victim being stalked and raped. Society's pressure to push people to being victims of the obvious - humans are not all good - is the worse thing that has come out of #metoo. As a parent, I'm glad both my daughters believe most of #metoo (the Cosby one is clearly different) is just teaching woman to be victim's versus stand in their power.
You and I are so different on our thinking of how the world works and where to go with incidents like Brand. You and I are an example of why the divided states can never be united. You can't have a conversation with me and consider I may have some valid points. The FACTS seem to indicate I do. Including my personal experience of people in the last week trying to convince me I was a victim, I was stalked and raped. It should be clear why I have so much passion against your positioning. Its helping no-one. Especially woman. Its just satisfies your need to judge others as evil and lock them up. Brand was a sexual maniac. Is that evil - no. He was clear about what he was. End of story.