Russell Brand is being accused of rape

[Raze]

1 hour ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Raze

   That presumes the conditions you set for a person being innocent, as 'totally calm' and 'happy' while his entire reputation and career gets destroyed is true. Is it true? Probably not true, which means Russel Brand, in your logic, is guilty.

   So, in your view, explain to us what justice is and how justice works? How is this thread an example of people willing to give up freedom to dictators and engage in hysterical witch hunts and lynch mobs? 

   

No, it isn’t. You said he’s guilty because he’s upset, I’m saying he’d be upset even if he’s innocent. 
 

Justice is making judgements based on evidence, not jumping on a bandwagon and openly declaring you believe in guilty until proven innocent and cheering on large corporations hypocritically restricting someone based on just allegations when they didn’t do the same to others on their platform who are actually guilty. 

[Consept]

@Raze So whats your solution for if someone gets raped by a powerful man but theres not sufficient evidence to convict them? (either they hid evidence or the victim was scared to report it or something along those lines) 

[Butters]

2 minutes ago, Consept said:

@Raze So whats your solution for if someone gets raped by a powerful man but theres not sufficient evidence to convict them? 

You elect them president of the united states. 

[Danioover9000]

@Consept

55 minutes ago, Consept said:

Not the BBC necessarily but youtube and the British government that requested his content be taken down, i think that is a bit excessive, im not sure its really their place to do that. Having said that the advertisers are more than free to not want their brands associated with (excuse the pun) Brand. So the result would most likely be the same as thats what happened with Rumble where brands wanted their advertising taken off his videos. 

I would say it is on him to either justify what happened and tell his story or completely deny them, then at least he has made a stand and he can go on and sue those that reported on these false claims. Im not even saying justify it from a moral standpoint im saying if he wants to redeem his reputation this would seem like the obvious course of action. By not really addressing it directly it would lead people to believe that there is truth to it. Like imagine someone accused you of rape and you just started talking about how everyone is out to get you and you never flat out deny or tell your story about it. At the very least people would think youre hiding something. 

Also he brings people down constantly without any evidence on his youtube channel and states they need to answer questions, so it is somewhat rich that he is not answering questions himself. 

   That is true to an extent. How can you not try to justify and defend yourself directly, but instead scapegoat to others and not address the accusations directly? At worst it makes him look more guilty and adds more credibility to those allegations, at best he's manipulating the narrative by blaming big tech or big pharma, mainstream news and get's more more attention to mind fuck more people.

[Danioover9000]

@Raze

24 minutes ago, Raze said:

No, it isn’t. You said he’s guilty because he’s upset, I’m saying he’d be upset even if he’s innocent. 
 

Justice is making judgements based on evidence, not jumping on a bandwagon and openly declaring you believe in guilty until proven innocent and cheering on large corporations hypocritically restricting someone based on just allegations when they didn’t do the same to others on their platform who are actually guilty. 

   No, I stated to that user that his conditions for him being innocent is he's detached from the reputational and career lose, which makes him far more likely to be guilty IF that is the determination the users uses. Yes, him being upset even if he loses is, by the user's standards, makes him already guilty under his logical framework.

   Justice is making judgments based on evidence, which makes this thread justice then and us advocates for justice, due to us judging the witness accounts and testimonies of these 4 women in that documentary? Which types of evidences or proofs do you consider valid? Which justifications do you consider valid? Also, how do you know if justice is objective here and in favor of the women, when the ruling authority groups of this justice is mostly male centric, and have much higher power and status? How do you know the current legal system is fair to these women, when people like Russell Brand and other celebrities can use their finance and influence to manipulate the system?? 

[Consept]

32 minutes ago, Butters said:

You elect them president of the united states. 

  nice

it is crazy that Trump skirted all the rape accusations, he was literally on camera checking out girls with Epstein. I think his strategy of just hardcore deny at least for now seems to work 

[Raze]

1 minute ago, Consept said:

  nice

it is crazy that Trump skirted all the rape accusations, he was literally on camera checking out girls with Epstein. I think his strategy of just hardcore deny at least for now seems to work 

It’s actually not crazy because in real life you have to actually present evidence and go to court to prove something, just saying something happened really shouldn’t mean anything because anyone can say anything. Being on camera looking at someone isn’t necessarily proof you did something else.

Edited September 24, 2023 by Raze

[Raze]

39 minutes ago, Consept said:

@Raze So whats your solution for if someone gets raped by a powerful man but theres not sufficient evidence to convict them? (either they hid evidence or the victim was scared to report it or something along those lines) 

You still go to the police because you don’t know what they’ll find and it’ll provide credence if someone else reports them in the future.

You can go to the media but the media should be balanced and not report something baseless or be clear it is just an allegation and not try to create a narrative and pressure companies to drop someone. The public should also be reasonable enough to understand you don’t know what you don’t know and people shouldn’t be judged guilty by default.

[Guest Tobia]

@Consept

7 minutes ago, Consept said:

He was literally on camera checking out girls with Epstein. I think his strategy of just hardcore deny at least for now seems to work 

That is evidence of having committed a crime? What planet do you live on?

You seem confused

[Consept]

4 minutes ago, Raze said:

It’s actually not crazy because in real life you have to actually present evidence and go to court to prove something, just saying something happened really shouldn’t mean anything because anyone can say anything. Being on camera looking at someone isn’t necessarily proof you did something else.

Trump did go to a civil court and was found guilty and had to pay 5 mil in damages just this year - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/breaking-down-the-verdict-as-jury-finds-trump-liable-for-sexual-assault-and-defamation

But my point was its crazy how he just bypasses the knocks against his reputation and is still a contender to be president again. 

5 minutes ago, Raze said:

You still go to the police because you don’t know what they’ll find and it’ll provide credence if someone else reports them in the future.

You can go to the media but the media should be balanced and not report something baseless or be clear it is just an allegation and not try to create a narrative and pressure companies to drop someone. The public should also be reasonable enough to understand you don’t know what you don’t know and people shouldn’t be judged guilty by default.

But therein lies the issue, most women that go to the police, file a report etc as was the case with one of Brands alleged victims do not see their attacker convicted of anything, simply because its notoriously difficult to have sufficient evidence to convict anyone. 

The media has incredibly high standards for factual evidence backed information in the UK, this is because the law is on the side of the person being named. So if they are baseless allegations the person named is almost guaranteed to win. Russell Brand does in fact put a lot of baseless allegations on his own channel but that's another story. 

Also it wasn't the media trying to get Brand banned it was actually the government, which I do kinda of agree that's an over reach, however he would've been demonitised anyway because companies don't want ads on his videos. 

But still you haven't really presented a solution because it maybe the case they never get found guilty in court however they still did the crime. If we go by this method in theory Cosby, Saville etc could all go about their business and never face repercussions because they weren't found guilty. This also sets a precedent that if you have power you can get away with this type of stuff.

[Consept]

27 minutes ago, Tobia said:

@Consept

That is evidence of having committed a crime? What planet do you live on?

You seem confused

In that post I didn't say he necessarily committed a crime I was just making the point his reputation didn't suffer that much despite things like that video or saying he grabs women by the pussy or whatever, it's just interesting how bulletproof he is. 

Evidence of him committing a crime is him having to 5 pay mill in a civil suit earlier this year for assaulting and then defaming someone. His ex-wife also wrote in her book that he raped her.

BTW even if I did extrapolate that he was guilty from that epstein video that's far less than what Brand does on his channel when tarnishing others. 

Edited September 24, 2023 by Consept

[Danioover9000]

@Raze  and @Tobia , can you just calm down when you're arguing with @Consept ? Russell Brand isn't your daddy, seems like there's no personal thing at stake here for you guys. There's nothing wrong mostly with the me too movement.

[Tanz]

20 hours ago, Alex M said:

How is the BBCs treatment excessive? Just from reporting on the story? Or something else?

They haven’t interviewed him or requested. They allowed the documentary to be released without having his side of the story. They didn't even wait for him to be charged of the crime and they already requested him getting canceled. 

The recent incident of Johnathan Majors resulted in the same thing. He got fired from marvel only shortly after the woman accused him was the abusive one. 

The media is trying to create a society based on fear

If the media is going to act swiftly there needs to be at least video footage. Text take time for validation and someone's word is definitely not enough to jump to conclusions. 

In this situation they at least ask several witnesses to testify.

Edited September 25, 2023 by Tanz

[Alex M]

1 hour ago, Tanz said:

They haven’t interviewed him or requested.

I've seen on a few articles they've requested comment from Brand (not sure if this is true).

1 hour ago, Tanz said:

They allowed the documentary to be released without having his side of the story.

The BBC had nothing to do with the documentary. 

1 hour ago, Tanz said:

The media is trying to create a society based on fear

This is problematic with both the mainstream and independent media. Both are guilty of doing this. Please look over the last 20/30 of Russell Brands' videos; his fearmonger is as bad as the mainstream media. In the video titles, he uses words like 'LIED', 'EXPOSED' & 'TERRIFYING', very clickbait/fearmonger.

Also, I'd like to clarify that I'm not siding with the media here. The whole handling of this situation is a total clusterfuck. The demonetisation (without even being found guilty of anything is very concerning). But I can also understand YouTube's position. They would be no doubt worried about advertisers pulling the plug (much like on Rumble now). YouTube's goal is its own survival. So if that means upsetting Brand and lesser of the population, then so be it. In their eyes, it is better than being cancelled by advertisers. 

Edited September 25, 2023 by Alex M

[Consept]

 

@Tanz

It's a tricky situation because you need protection/justice for victims but you also need protection for victims of false accusations. 

Your standard of things being filmed is a bit much as the chances it's not going to be filmed. The whole reason why the media put out the documentary is because justice wasn't served in the first place despite at least one of the women reporting the rape at the time. The women in this type of situation are usually fearful of coming forward, this was the original idea with metoo and weinsteins accusers for example. (Although metoo did go a bit off the rails)

So what happens is you have a society where powerful can essentially rape as they please without any kind of repercussions. The media are literally the only ones that are able to make a difference in this regard by reporting the women's story. If the women just said it on youtube no one would listen. Can they media go too far? Of course which is why there are strong defamation laws in the UK, to give that protection. 

Also Brand has basically been banned from every mainstream platform because of his behavior before these revelations. Hollywood, UK TV no one wanted him because of the potential issues he causes. Its not like he's shunned the mainstream, he's happy to go on US TV. So this I just the public knowing what most likely got him banned from these other outlets. 

The mainstream does stoke up fear of course but Brand is actually worse, his audience live in constant fear due to his youtube videos, so he's definitely not better in that regard. He's learnt that fear sells and run with it. 

 

[Scholar]

36 minutes ago, Consept said:

 

@Tanz

It's a tricky situation because you need protection/justice for victims but you also need protection for victims of false accusations. 

Your standard of things being filmed is a bit much as the chances it's not going to be filmed. The whole reason why the media put out the documentary is because justice wasn't served in the first place despite at least one of the women reporting the rape at the time. The women in this type of situation are usually fearful of coming forward, this was the original idea with metoo and weinsteins accusers for example. (Although metoo did go a bit off the rails)

So what happens is you have a society where powerful can essentially rape as they please without any kind of repercussions. The media are literally the only ones that are able to make a difference in this regard by reporting the women's story. If the women just said it on youtube no one would listen. Can they media go too far? Of course which is why there are strong defamation laws in the UK, to give that protection. 

Also Brand has basically been banned from every mainstream platform because of his behavior before these revelations. Hollywood, UK TV no one wanted him because of the potential issues he causes. Its not like he's shunned the mainstream, he's happy to go on US TV. So this I just the public knowing what most likely got him banned from these other outlets. 

The mainstream does stoke up fear of course but Brand is actually worse, his audience live in constant fear due to his youtube videos, so he's definitely not better in that regard. He's learnt that fear sells and run with it. 

 

This is a type of problem that might not be able to be solved through the justice system, and it might be unlikely that it will be solved through social media witch hunts.

One of the major problems is that in casual dating culture, females are inherently disadvantaged as the powerdynamic, especially when it comes to actual physical interactions, is biased towards men. So, every casual dating interaction is inherently risky for the woman. Women in general are also disadvanted on a psychological level because they are less assertive and aggressive.

In practice, such a dynamic, combined with an inherent immaturity within the population, will constantly lead to such situations. Women are drawn to high status men, high status men are able to abuse their power due to being high status. So, in casual sex culture, high status men will have endless opportunities of sexual interactions with women, which over time leads to these types of depravities in some individuals, whether due to sex addiction or other types of dynamics.

 

The whole situation is driven by a sort of immature hedonism, and because sexual interactions actually are a serious thing for most people, these types of situations will continue to occur.

 

You have to also keep in mind that casual sex for high status men tends to lead to an objectification of women, and an objectification of women will lead to an insensitivity to their needs and desires.

 

 

Another aspect of this is a falling away of safety mechanisms. In the past, your parents would have to evaluate a potential partner before you had the chance to really get into risky situations. Of course in practice this was not always the case and there were other drawbacks to that system, but there was some sense of protecting young individuals from their own naivity and inexperience. Today, dating is much more private, and especially young, naive inexperienced women can be easily exposed to risky situations that they do not quite understand are risky, both to their mental and physical well-being.

Edited September 25, 2023 by Scholar

[Danioover9000]

@Scholar

6 minutes ago, Scholar said:

This is a type of problem that might not be able to be solved through the justice system, and it might be unlikely that it will be solved through social media witch hunts.

One of the major problems is that in casual dating culture, females are inherently disadvantaged as the powerdynamic, especially when it comes to actual physical interactions, is biased towards men. So, every casual dating interaction is inherently risky for the woman. Women in general are also disadvanted on a psychological level because they are less assertive and aggressive.

In practice, such a dynamic, combined with an inherent immaturity within the population, will constantly lead to such situations. Women are drawn to high status men, high status men are able to abuse their power due to being high status. So, in casual sex culture, high status men will have endless opportunities of sexual interactions with women, which over time leads to these types of depravities in some individuals, whether due to sex addiction or other types of dynamics.

 

The whole situation is driven by a sort of immature hedonism, and because sexual interactions actually are a serious thing for most people, these types of situations will continue to occur.

   Of course this type of problem wouldn't be only solved in either justice system or social media/social witch hunt and mob justice, won't be solved using tier 1 cognition, and us vs them mentality. There needs to be a mixed method approach that's flexible and adaptable, otherwise if you look at the history of warfare, if they only relied on one method of war, then everyone wouldn't be adapting to battles and to wars, but in that history you'll see creative solutions and innovations to overcome certain defensive strategies or make offensive strategies, and it's almost always a mixed approach.

   The major problem is that men and women are mostly ignorant of many developmental factors like stages of development, cognitive and moral development, personality types and traits, 9 stages o ego development and shadow selves they suppress, life experiences and other lines of development in life to societal domains, ideological beliefs indoctrinated from culture, self biases and preferences. What you think are specific problems between male and female power dynamics in dating, is a feature of the male and female mind, male and female centric worldviews they see the world. How is that factor a problem and not a feature?

Edited September 25, 2023 by Danioover9000

[Scholar]

1 minute ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Scholar

   Of course this type of problem wouldn't be only solved in either justice system or social media/social witch hunt and mob justice.

   The major problem is that men and women are mostly ignorant of many developmental factors like stages of development, cognitive and moral development, personality types and traits, 9 stages o ego development and shadow selves they suppress, life experiences and other lines of development in life to societal domains, ideological beliefs indoctrinated from culture, self biases and preferences. What you think are specific problems between male and female power dynamics in dating, is a feature of the male and female mind, male and female centric worldviews they see the world. How is that factor a problem and not a feature?

I think the cause of much of this simply is hedonistic casual dating culture. People get exploited by sociopaths or functional equivalents usually because they are naive and immature. So, in a system in which you increase casual intimate interactions between people, such incidents will just increase.

So, of course women will prefer to go for high status men, and if you listen to the types of situations that led up to many of the cases we are talking about here, it is almost mindblowingly immature and naive how the women have acted. Which makes sense, because these women were young, naive and inexperienced. They just wanted some Russell Brand for themselves, and they were too hedonistic and unwise to predict the type of behaviour such a man could be biased towards. There was nobody to truly protect them from this, and nobody really taught them to be in control of their own hedonistic desires. In fact, they might not even be aware of such hedonistic desires. Men are not much different, they will be completely blinded by attractive women, if they are immature. But of course, men inherently don't take the same risks during such interactions, so men don't really care that much.

This is why we don't care as much when male students have sex with their teachers vs vice versa.

 

Like men have an irrational drive towards attractive women, women have an irrational drive towards high status men. And like men get into all sorts of trouble because of their irrational drive towards attractive women, so do women get into trouble because of their irrational drive towards high status men.

Now, you can moralize around this as much as you want, but we are talking about the nature of human beings here. It will be difficult to culturally move away from dynamics like the objectification of women by high status men if casual dating culture persists and these chimps keep having sex with tons of women without consequences.

You can correct some of this through education of men, but really, what this requires is more maturity in the population in general. There will always be sociopaths around, and power always will corrupt, no matter how much you educate people. So, the solution has to be on both sides, women need to act less recklessly, meaning they need to be more mature about how they interact in casual dating culture, and men also need to be more mature in controlling their hedonistic desires.

Really, both sides are immature with their hedonistic, chimp like desires, and that's the root of the issue. This is the core reason why religions controlled sexual interactions so much, and why they moralized them. Because people act like chimps, and the sex drive is one of the most powerful irrational drive in the human organism.

[Consept]

@Scholar

I agree with you in that there is always that power dynamic with men and women and agree with mostly what you say. I think if society is hedonistic and casual dating exists that is fine as in if a guy wants to have sex with a girl and not talk to her again, hes free to do that and vice versa. But what we're talking about is not just a high status guy having sex with a lot of girls and then blocking them, we're talking about a line of criminality being crossed in regards of rape or sexual assault. 

Its like if Im buying a car and i pay over the odds from a dodgy car dealer, maybe he exaggerates how good the car is, my naivety might lead me to making the mistake of doing the deal, i might feel a bit shit after I realise but I can take it as a lesson learnt but i wouldnt go to the police. However if the car dealer over charged my card on purpose and basically stole money from me then that is crossing the line of legality and i can take that further. 

So in my view, its on the car dealer or in Brands case, powerful man, to not cross the line of legality. Hes free to be arguably scummy if he wishes, but of course if you rape thats a whole different game. Also if you do so called scummy behavior you also you also have to accept that it could be talked about if not in public, in social circles which is what happened in he comedy circuit in the UK.

Also note that predators, not necessarily Brand, look specifically for young naiive girls that need something from them, there are probably a lot of women that will have nothing to do with them. In the case of Saville he literally bought a wing in a hospital and had free run to just go around molesting girls who couldnt fight back. Which is extreme but im just making the point that predators look specifically for the vulnerable. 

[Scholar]

4 minutes ago, Consept said:

@Scholar

I agree with you in that there is always that power dynamic with men and women and agree with mostly what you say. I think if society is hedonistic and casual dating exists that is fine as in if a guy wants to have sex with a girl and not talk to her again, hes free to do that and vice versa. But what we're talking about is not just a high status guy having sex with a lot of girls and then blocking them, we're talking about a line of criminality being crossed in regards of rape or sexual assault. 

Its like if Im buying a car and i pay over the odds from a dodgy car dealer, maybe he exaggerates how good the car is, my naivety might lead me to making the mistake of doing the deal, i might feel a bit shit after I realise but I can take it as a lesson learnt but i wouldnt go to the police. However if the car dealer over charged my card on purpose and basically stole money from me then that is crossing the line of legality and i can take that further. 

So in my view, its on the car dealer or in Brands case, powerful man, to not cross the line of legality. Hes free to be arguably scummy if he wishes, but of course if you rape thats a whole different game. Also if you do so called scummy behavior you also you also have to accept that it could be talked about if not in public, in social circles which is what happened in he comedy circuit in the UK.

Also note that predators, not necessarily Brand, look specifically for young naiive girls that need something from them, there are probably a lot of women that will have nothing to do with them. In the case of Saville he literally bought a wing in a hospital and had free run to just go around molesting girls who couldnt fight back. Which is extreme but im just making the point that predators look specifically for the vulnerable. 

In a moral sense, the responsibility falls on the man, and of course he has to live with the consequences.

Predators however are exceptionally rare. Most of these incidents happen because of simple immaturity. Even Russel Brand probably didn't think of himself as a rapist or predator, he probably did little of what he did consciously. He just had terrible impulse control, and his interaction with women just lead to an objectification of women.

None of that should spare him from the legal and social consequences that will ensue, but we have to make this clear to understand how to solve the problem.

This is similar to how, most children who are molested by adults are not molested by pedophiles. It's counterintuitive, but true, and yet we focus on moralizing the issue around pedophelia rather than the major cause of child molestation.

 

In most instances where sexual assaults occur, it is not a man physically forcing themselves onto a woman. That is exceptionally rare. In most cases, the man is pushing the woman until she relents into sex, and the woman is often too uncomfortable to make a clear signal that she is not consenting. Other situations involved drugs like alcohol and so forth. Part of the problem is that in our culture, women play the role of sexual defense and males play the role of sexual aggression. It is expected that the woman will not be open to sex instantly, even if she is interested. She needs to be basically manipulated by the man into sex. This is basically how casual sex culture functions for the most part, it's a type of game. And this type of game, of course will lead to it's own dynamics that then lead to people getting hurt even though there is no actual malice involved.

 

We have to understand that sexual interactions make people irrational. Sexual drives are strong and inhibit rational thinking, and especially in sex addiction this can completely undermine a persons executive control. So, with high status men, who get to have sex with an insane amount of women, naturally what will happen to their chimp minds, in todays sexual culture, is that they wills start objectifying women. In other words, women become primarily a means to an end, and it is forgotted to take into account the woman as an end in and of itself. Men then start manipulating women into sex solely to get the sex, as that is the goal of casual sex culture, pure hedonism. This is just going to happen in a population of immature minds, which is what our population is.

 

The problem is that you assume, naively, that we will just have this casual sex culture where everyone treats one another respectfully, has some sexual activity and moves on no strings attached. This requires actually high maturity to do in a healthy manner. Many women who go for these interactions actually want a relationship with the high status male, while the male is just interested in sex. And to continue their casual sex-capades, they will of course start shutting down their empathy for the women they have sex with, it will be simply overridden by their sexual obsession.

The more power you have in that regard, the more risk there is for depravity. You have to look at the human mind like the mind of a chimp, and put aside the moralization for a minute. In this scenario, given human nature, you are just creating these types of minds and therefore these types of situations, as a natural consequence of the system.