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.
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!
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.
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!