Dispatches/Sunday Times investigation: Russell Brand accused of rape and sexual assault

meltonblue said:
The BBC isn’t just one person or department, to be fair. They’ve only just started their investigations, we’ve no idea yet who enabled him or what they knew.
Click to expand...
Spot on. The BBC employs over 21,000 staff. They're a huge organisation and they've justifiably received criticism in the past about their handling of matters of a similar ilk, but that doesn't mean every aspect of the BBC or everyone who works for them is rotten. For example, us City fans are generally not too impressed with their sporting department when reporting on our club, but then you have things like the BBC World Service which has a fantastic reputation across the world.
 
west didsblue said:
Bernard Manning and Chubby Brown would be unacceptable today but they had the redeeming feature that they were funny, Manning especially. Agree it’s subjective but I’ve never heard anything remotely amusing from Brand whereas I can understand why people could like pretty much anyone else even if I don’t like them much.
Click to expand...

Again, subjective, many people find Brand funny . His stand up shows have always sold well.

I don’t personally, or care. But obviously he’s a ‘good’ stand up in general.
 
SebastianBlue said:
No one has ever really been “cancelled”. Some have lost their following after either being exposed as a wrongun or after having done something monumentally stupid.

And sometimes the backlash to the stupid things people have done is OTT and I think each one of us have called that out at some point.

But, generally, the vast majority of famous people that go around complaining about being cancelled are doing so on podcasts, tv shows, major blogs, media interviews, and YouTube videos.

Most of those that have been “cancelled” have an infinitely bigger platform than you and I will ever have.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid my point is social media has a poor record in my view as a vehicle for change. It takes the least desirable aspects of other media and amplifies them, the benefit of our "work" here is very illusory indeed. I mean, any number of people can tell you that's the whole idea, that this is us ignoring our greater "real" self, and investing very heavily in a transient false self that always ends up more and more aligned to the needs of social media business models that need questioning and understanding if we are to be effective. And the more you invest, the less likely we are to drop that temporary self, as we should, the more it consumes us. There's an inbuilt unease around that, and that drives us back to the coal face again to defend it, try and make it real. And that's the business model.
 
BlueHammer85 said:
Again, subjective, many people find Brand funny . His stand up shows have always sold well.

I don’t personally, or care. But obviously he’s a ‘good’ stand up in general.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree. What I’m saying is that there’s plenty of comedians I don’t find funny but can understand why others do, whereas it’s beyond my comprehension why anyone would think he’s anything but a weird ****. Maybe someone could explain why he appeals to so many people?
 
Summerbuzz said:
I'm afraid my point is social media has a poor record in my view as a vehicle for change. It takes the least desirable aspects of other media and amplifies them, the benefit of our "work" here is very illusory indeed. I mean, any number of people can tell you that's the whole idea, that this is us ignoring our greater "real" self, and investing very heavily in a transient false self that always ends up more and more aligned to the needs of social media business models that need questioning and understanding if we are to be effective. And the more you invest, the less likely we are to drop that temporary self, as we should, the more it consumes us. There's an inbuilt unease around that, and that drives us back to the coal face again to defend it, try and make it real. And that's the business model.
Click to expand...


Social media can be championed if you agree with the particular cause on the docket at any given day, people only say it's bad when it's something they don't particularly support that's getting a good airing.

In every eventuality IMHO it's a curse, populated by the hive mind folk who love to live in echo chambers.
 
west didsblue said:
I don’t disagree. What I’m saying is that there’s plenty of comedians I don’t find funny but can understand why others do, whereas it’s beyond my comprehension why anyone would think he’s anything but a weird ****. Maybe someone could explain why he appeals to so many people?
Click to expand...
Because there are so many other weird cunts about mate.
 
mexico1970 said:
Social media can be championed if you agree with the particular cause on the docket at any given day, people only say it's bad when it's something they don't particularly support that's getting a good airing.

In every eventuality IMHO it's a curse, populated by the hive mind folk who love to live in echo chambers.
Click to expand...
You do realise you’re on a social media platform?
 
Coatigan said:
I think @domalino probably made the point you were trying to make since, with less implicative wording. And I think I mostly get what you might have wanted to mean.
Click to expand...

It's a really interesting and uncomfortable point that @SebastianBlue raises. Obviously it would be wrong to demonise, let alone accuse everyone defending or taking Russell Brand's side of having something to hide (although I genuinely have no idea why anyone would feel the need to defend him)

However, 97% of women in the Uk have been sexually harrassed. 1 in 5 American women (and 1 in 71 men) will be the victim of rape or attempted rape in their lifetime.


So in a very male dominated forum like Bluemoon with hundreds if not thousands of dedicated regular users, it's statistically likely that some of the people discussing this have sexually assaulted someone, and it does stand to reason that those people would feel defensive.

Similarly there's a decent chance some of the people commenting and reading this thread have been victims of sexual violence and that will shape their comments too. Something that we should probably all bear in mind when discussing it.
 
Last edited:
Summerbuzz said:
I'm afraid my point is social media has a poor record in my view as a vehicle for change. It takes the least desirable aspects of other media and amplifies them, the benefit of our "work" here is very illusory indeed. I mean, any number of people can tell you that's the whole idea, that this is us ignoring our greater "real" self, and investing very heavily in a transient false self that always ends up more and more aligned to the needs of social media business models that need questioning and understanding if we are to be effective. And the more you invest, the less likely we are to drop that temporary self, as we should, the more it consumes us. There's an inbuilt unease around that, and that drives us back to the coal face again to defend it, try and make it real. And that's the business model.
Click to expand...
I agree, that is a problem with social media (among others). It was also said—more or less—about books, newspapers, and television. They all have their drawbacks and their benefits.

For what it’s worth, I deleted my Facebook account long before it become popular to do so, I left Twitter as soon as Musk took over, and at this point I am only on several forums spanning a few main topics (here, econ, analytics, and a gaming forum). And I actually know at least a few people outside of the virtual world on all of them.

But I also understand that is a great privilege to choose not to use them, as some people have to use them for business, for communication with their loved ones, or to organise in nations controlled by oppressive regimes.

I see the bad—and it can be very bad. But I also see the good, which can also be very good (like people like me that can’t get out and socialise in person still being able to find community and support).

But, really, my main point was that being “cancelled” is a mostly fake thing made up largely by people that want to push back on a response to their behaviour, usually of the bad sort.

And Brand isn’t being “cancelled”. If anything he’ll probably pick up more followers from his recently adopted nutter brigade.

mexico1970 said:
Social media can be championed if you agree with the particular cause on the docket at any given day, people only say it's bad when it's something they don't particularly support that's getting a good airing.

In every eventuality IMHO it's a curse, populated by the hive mind folk who love to live in echo chambers.
Click to expand...

I think my situation (and the situation of those like me) can pretty clearly disprove the assertion that it is a curse in every eventuality.

There is at least one where it is beneficial. :-)
 
Last edited:
mexico1970 said:
Yup, it's fairly obvious isn't it?

However it's not an echo chamber thankfully, maybe you'd like it to be?

Twitter and Facebook in general should be taken round the back and shot.
Click to expand...

This place is 100% an echo chamber.

In fact, it's not only an echo chamber, but I would imagine if we did a demographic survey of the users, 35-55 year old white working class men from the North West of England would be the dominant group, and the consensus tends to follow that. Not everyone falls into that obviously, but certainly very overrepresented compared to the country or world as a whole.

In fact because the whole community revolves around the football club, which obviously has a specific location which influences it's followers, a proper analysis would probably narrow it down even more.
 
Last edited:
domalino said:
This place is 100% an echo chamber.
Click to expand...

Nope, we are both posting on it.

That shows it isn't, an echo chamber is a place... let's put a description up ehh?

In news media and social media, an echo chamber is an environment or ecosystem in which participants encounter beliefs that amplify or reinforce their preexisting beliefs by communication and repetition inside a closed system and insulated from rebuttal
Click to expand...

So by the very definition it is not an echo chamber.
 
domalino said:
It's a really interesting and uncomfortable point that @SebastianBlue raises. Obviously it would be wrong to demonise, let alone accuse everyone defending or taking Russell Brand's side of having something to hide (although I genuinely have no idea why anyone would feel the need to defend him)

However, 97% of women in the Uk have been sexually assaulted. 1 in 5 American women (and 1 in 71 men) will be the victim of rape or attempted rape in their lifetime.


So in a very male dominated forum like Bluemoon with hundreds if not thousands of dedicated regular users, it's statistically likely that some of the people discussing this have sexually assaulted someone, and it does stand to reason that those people would feel defensive.

Similarly there's a decent chance some of the people commenting and reading this thread have been victims of sexual violence and that will shape their comments too. Something that we should probably all bear in mind when discussing it.
Click to expand...
Absolutely and as I replied to Seb, I’m quite certain of his intentions in my own mind.
I thought his wording was very lose and dangerous and we’ve quite respectfully worked out any misunderstandings, which is the way I feel debate in here should be.

After all you could quite as easily throw out a lose statement with an opposing view that it’s always the holier than thou brigade that are found to be guilty of what they protest against.
Catholic Church, anyone?
 
mexico1970 said:
Christ you've thrown it all in the air ;)
Click to expand...

overwhelming-overwhelmed.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top