Trying to understand Brand supporters

[mids2019]

I am trying to understand why some people are actually trying to support Russell Brand.

I think a lot of it is down to disappointment that a figure they may have once liked has brought himself into disgrqce. My partner liked Michael Jackson and the accusations by the two men about him at the time really did disillusion them about her youthful admirations; Brand is not Jackson but there may be a similar thought process.

I think it also makes people feel 'who's next' and realise that the media has been adept at covering the behaviour of big star names (Schofiled, Spacey, etc.). Possibly people would rather have

the idea of Brand being innocent than let go of cherished views that we a celebrity circuit of people who are 'the good guys'.

I have noticed that a lot of the celeb circuit in radio and television are a little reluctant to speak about the subjects Brand has brought up. A few programs have touched upon the topic tangentially and it obviously makes the main news but a lot of the morning DJs such as Chris Evans.etc haven't mentioned it all on their shows which I feel is quite strange. It all lends itself to a view that the celebs who we all invest in are fallible and we could be waking up one morning to find another has a strong of allegations against them.

Possibly there is part of human nature that allows the elite to have led way iin their behaviour towards others?.There have been historical cases where rich men (aristocracy) have basically had the right to assault lower class women and maybe this is a modern extension of this?

There are obviously the misogynist conspiracy theorists but I think there are also others that may be looking to defend the antics of men in the 2000s as they were of that period and they don't particular like the whole era being stained in their memories. There are also a few that think Brand is being judged by 2023 standards when a lot of the alleged crimes happened in the 2000s where although the law was the same , in my opinion, the culture wasn't and Brand was maybe an extreme of behaviour shown by many men.

@sleepyscientist .

I think you speak for a section of the population that possibly went through some debatable sexual choices but chalked it down to life experience.

However there are those that are scared by experiences that were enabled by a culture where consent was implicit and not actively defined. I think the era of hedonism and anti feminism that marked the late 90s onwards did foster an environment where casual misogyny was tolerated and there were that took advantage of this.

I don't think it is unrealistic or prudish for consent to be heavily emphasised in modern society as it is incredibly important. To my mind consent and good sex and relationships aren't mutually exclusive. The point is consent is a protection that needs to be afforded to women and society needs to understand what this means; the incredibly serious crime of rape is defined in terms of this very notion.

I think that the delay in people talking about their experiences in past decades is partly due to the fact they may have been reluctant to report experiences that were perceived acceptable in some ways in those times which is pretty damming of the era.

I wouldnt worry about a heavy emphasis on consent in school of more generally in society will lead to a passionless people and men being afraid of the legal/reputational problems with any kind of sex. I think the only men that should worry are those that don't understand or willingly ignore consent.

But now he has the love of a good woman that's redeemed him and his previous behaviour was in the past.

I don’t think that is it. I think becoming a parent is the thing that changes them - the shocking insight about all they did.

It's a paper thin redemption. Good men don't give themselves permission to be vile and then imagine they can make the world less hostile for their daughters. My suspicion is that Brand is still carrying all these attitudes with him, and he will condition his daughters to accept similar treatment. It gets handed down from generation to generation.

@TeenEyeroll

Good post. As someone slightly older who lived through the 90s this was a time that would probably shock gen Z. I think to be not viewed as a prude women did not combat the prevailing culture at the time; possibly these were the original cool girls?

It is now that I think we may get high profile women really reveal their true experiences with the benefit of hindsight and secured careers..

The fact Brand’s dad took him to a brothel when he was a teenager, means he would have a lot more work to do on himself to really get it, than the other men of the era who had sounder upbringings. I still think he would be changed by parenthood and that all his spiritual/meditation stuff is his sincere attempt to get a grip on himself. I hope it is possible for people to change.

Well spotted.

And it goes further than that - he’s not only avoiding language that suggests a lack of control on his part, he’s avoiding language that suggests a compulsion on his part.

I'm completely open the the idea that people can change, and mature in their attitudes as they grow older/have children/reflect on their past actions. The possibility of redemption is an important part of being human. But that would involve taking responsibility for past actions, apologizing, trying to set things right even if they come at massive personal cost (eg the loss of reputation, for those that commit crimes prison). I don't think he's shown any genuine wish to attone - rather he seems to want to protect himself/paint himself as a victim or martyr. And I know how similar that seems to the SJW attitude of all must repent/flagellate themselves for perpuity. But it's not what I mean.

My focus in that post was on why Chris Evans wasn’t commenting on the news items about RB in his radio programme, swansong. I wasn’t professing to be an expert on what RB has done. I didn’t watch the programme.

Re your question of: “why are talking about anything else?” I’d imagine it’s because there’s a lot of people with an interest in distracting attention and discussion away from men’s exploitative behaviour towards women and girls.

Re Andrew Tate and his followers - the world is certainly a depressing place at the moment.

I think it's disgusting that he has not been taken to court and found guilty of any of the alleged crimes but the government has written to media companies to dump him and deny him an income.

I agree with this! This is no place for the government to get involved and is a scary precedent. What happened to free speech? I'm not a supporter but he has the right to have his say and defend himself. What kind of world would it be if that was taken away from all of us. I am not saying he is innocent by a long stretch but any one of us could be accused of a crime we didn't commit and why should we have no right of reply? Especially in the face of no arrest or conviction. Scary scary world should we just allow our government to dictate what we see or hear. Didn't think I was living in Russia!

The media companies could say no to the Government. They certainly do on other things. What they’re doing isn’t illegal so if they really wanted Brand’s content they’d tell the government to sod off

Brand strikes me as a classic narcissist and those do not change. This is man who baked a cake representing his wife's genitalia on national TV.

That was in 2019. No, he has changed focus, but not changed himself. He can't.

Good luck to his daughters. If they are unlucky they will pick a man just like him for themselves.

Agree that the media companies could say no, and quite honestly, I think they lose credibility when they don't because they are demonstrating that we can only watch what is deemed appropriate.

YouTube have said he violates their creator responsibility policy. Hard to see how so many other people slip through though the net.

Rumble is the only one with any gumption to come out and say they don't always agree with their content creators but hey UK government, get the fuck in the bin.

Rumble did exactly that and good for them. YouTube had already demonetised. Caroline Dineage who wrote the letter to Rumble on behalf of the Culture and media committee is marked to Mark lancaster who is in the 77th brigade who the govt put in charge of rubbishing lockdown opponents. Join the dots.

*Married

Regarding the ‘of its time’ defence - it happening about 15 years ago - does anyone else not remember the horrendous backlash against feminism that had been roaring since the early 1990s?

I don’t remember a backlash against ‘feminism’ as such - then as now it was fine to be a certain kind of feminist - the easy going fun compliant kind…

’progressive’ men still berate women who argue that strangling isn’t a normal part of sex, or that porn shouldn’t be consumed at work. The right kind of feminist is sex positive and doesn’t support ‘kink shaming’. The right kind of feminist doesn’t argue with men, but makes them feel good about themselves.

I think the presentation has changed - lads mags don’t exist anymore - but the pressure to be a cool girl hasn’t gone away. It’s just gone online.

I

I think we have an idea of what a "sex pest/offender" looks like, and when it's someone who is "attractive" or charismatic people find it hard to reconcile as there's the belief that all the women must have "wanted it."

I agree with this take. RB is highly likely guilty but it's not for big tech or the government to cancel and unperson someone when they are accused of crimes, no matter how heinous. And in doing so, they only give fire to the people calling 'conspiracy'.

I don't object to the media researching and carrying out the investigation - and the evidence against RB is pretty damning - but justice should be pursued in a court of law. He should not be getting any punishment before the verdict is in.

To be clear, I think he is almost certainly guilty. But it's a matter of principle. Anyone can be accused of a crime and if being accused of a crime is considered a valid reason to end a career, shut down a bank account etc, then it would be a very, very scary world.

So - not a defender of RB but definitely feeling very uneasy about the things that are happening to him right now.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/09/19/big-tech-must-not-be-judge-jury-and-executioner/

And if the police do nothing? Or blame you?

Have you seen how rape victims are treated when the accused is even slightly famous?

And historically how the police have treated victims?

Sometimes the only kind of justice you can get is via the press.

Ian Huntly was accused of rape a number of times, but he wasn't arrested. Hopefully these days when 3-4 women claim they have been raped by the same man police might actually investigate?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/dec/17/soham.ukcrime6

Yes, that's basically what I think.

I can quite believe that he's done what he's accused of, in fact, I'd be more shocked if he was innocent TBH, but I don't believe that governments and social media/tech companies should be the judge and jury about anything like this.
It's a dangerous and slippery slope to start down.

Innocent until proven guilty?

How does a rapist get proven guilty when only 1.9% are even charged. The barriers to being proven guilty are huge. You need the police to record it first. People to believe you first. And if it’s against a man with millions behind him?

Well he’ll just take you to court for harassment - and win. Which is exactly what Russell did to a potential victim in 2014.

https://amp.theguardian.com/culture/2014/sep/11/russell-brand-jemima-khan-masseuse-court-order-harassing

this is why women go to the media. There is no other way to be heard and even now they aren’t being heard because of the mania he has built around himself.

As an employer I don't have to employ anyone that makes me look bad.

He hasn't been silenced, he's very vocal on big platforms

This is free speech. The women who were silenced are now able to speak.

Also I can see why the government wrote to media outlets.

it’ll be because they expect a certain standard of verified information to be available in the media. So that fake news cannot take over the world. Like an ombudsman or governing body would be a regulator. This kind of things stops cults or mistruths or messianic men with rapist tendencies to rise above the law.

He's also free to speak to MSM and give interviews like anyone else. To refute the allegations against him. He's been given the details.

Given the likelihood of a legal case against him and that he is known to sue for almost every thing, I doubt he would jeopardise any outcome by speaking on this topic directly.

he also needs income so I saw his statement today not so much “please continue to watch me on rumble” but more “they are the only ones still paying me and I need cash right now”.

he did talk about holding people up to scrutiny which I found particularly hypocritical seeing as he has made a career of scrutinising everyone but won’t accept the same level of accountability

Also I can see why the government wrote to media outlets.

They didn't. One Conservative MP took it upon herself to do so for her own reasons in a which that represented she was speaking on behalf of a Select Committee when it's possible the SC hadn't authorised this.