Russell Brand is being accused of rape

[Danioover9000]

@Scholar

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

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.

   Good post, it reminds me of these videos below and Daniel Schmachtenberger's takes:

and

 

[Consept]

@Scholar

I'm not necessarily speaking in a moral judgement way. What im saying is quite basic, if you are a high status man and have a lot to lose then it has to be on you not to cross the line of legality, because you will be the one to suffer social and possible criminal consequences. In Brands case I feel empathy for him because he was celebrated for his behavior and he had obvious addiction issue, he's obviously changed that behavior, so it's unfortunate for him that he may have let his chimp mind take hold to the point where potential crimes were committed. 

In general my issue would be with predators because there has to be a society that can protect the vulnerable from them whilst also not over correcting to the point that if someone has a bad sexual experience they dont label the man as a predator. Although they are few and far between they usually have a lot of victims, at their worst they could even encourage others to live a similar life such as Tate who taught other men how to be pimps. This is distinct from a man who just enjoys the game of attracting women and having sex with them, which I agree does lead a man to devalue women. 

Brand finds himself in a grey area where he obviously loved the game but then this slipped into alleged criminal incidents. His best course of action would be to admit exactly what happened and maybe try and dialogue and apologise to the women if that's the case. If it really didn't happen then he needs to fight it and throw all his resources at it. 

 

 

[Tanz]

2 hours ago, Consept said:

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. 

Those crimes that you suggest him off does not equal to rape.  His accusations and what he says on youtube are two different things. If he was breaking community guidelines regarding youtube then they should suspend him or ban him.  Like what Alex Jones did when he said the school shootings were fake.  Corporate crime and corruption have been crimes big pharma have done in the past such as the whole opioid epidemic and no one was jailed for it.  These types of crimes he has exposed.  He has said, if big pharma has done these guilty things how can be trust them?  This maybe not a valid point but for some people its enough.

Similarly if I had orgies and I was a sex addict, my wife would probably not want to marry me.  All of the stuff Russell Brand is guilty of the past, people are holding him against that stuff today.  Just like he is accusing big pharma of lying about the vax based on their past.  You see how similar your thought process is to him only different stories?  Do you see your bias towards him is equivalent to peoples bias over him.    

 

2 hours ago, Alex M said:

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.

Youtubes sales would not be hurt, they punished Logan Paul for filming dead people that committed suicide which is arguably more dangerous than having someone who's possibly committed a crime 15 years ago speak on their platform.  Eventually they put him back on their platform because he was making lots of money for them.    

[Tanz]

4 minutes ago, Consept said:

Brand finds himself in a grey area where he obviously loved the game but then this slipped into alleged criminal incidents. His best course of action would be to admit exactly what happened and maybe try and dialogue and apologise to the women if that's the case. If it really didn't happen then he needs to fight it and throw all his resources at it. 

His lawyers probably advised him not to speak about it as most lawyers would ask their clients to do so.  Just like he has the right to remain silent people have the right to assume whatever they want to about him.  In any scenario he doesn't gain anything going to any detail on social media because people can inject their own projections on what he is trying to say.  
Its also not nice for him to talk about his past because he has a wife and kids.  My wife would hate me if I spoke about what I did with women in the past publicly in any kind of detail.  His kids may get teased and bullied in school and have a horrible childhood from it also.    

[Danioover9000]

@Tanz

9 minutes ago, Tanz said:

Those crimes that you suggest him off does not equal to rape.  His accusations and what he says on youtube are two different things. If he was breaking community guidelines regarding youtube then they should suspend him or ban him.  Like what Alex Jones did when he said the school shootings were fake.  Corporate crime and corruption have been crimes big pharma have done in the past such as the whole opioid epidemic and no one was jailed for it.  These types of crimes he has exposed.  He has said, if big pharma has done these guilty things how can be trust them?  This maybe not a valid point but for some people its enough.

Similarly if I had orgies and I was a sex addict, my wife would probably not want to marry me.  All of the stuff Russell Brand is guilty of the past, people are holding him against that stuff today.  Just like he is accusing big pharma of lying about the vax based on their past.  You see how similar your thought process is to him only different stories?  Do you see your bias towards him is equivalent to peoples bias over him.    

 

Youtubes sales would not be hurt, they punished Logan Paul for filming dead people that committed suicide which is arguably more dangerous than having someone who's possibly committed a crime 15 years ago speak on their platform.  Eventually they put him back on their platform because he was making lots of money for them.    

   What crimes suggested of him does not equal rape? The documentary is implying Russel Brand could be a rapist via 4 women witness testimonies, one reporting herself for a rape test kit, anti biotics, why? Because she texted him before, and when she arrived, he was drunk and high and forced himself onto her despite her trying to repel him, he undid her pants and pulled her panties aside, put himself into her. If this testimony is true, this is statutory rape clear as day. Yes, his accusations and what he's YouTube Channel covers are separate, what does that have to do with YouTube's decision to ban him? It's their company and private business space, just like me and you are in this private space of Actualized.org, and why freedom of speech laws do not extend into Actualized.org. You do understand that a business has to think of the costs of their public image being effected, if it's found out that they have hosted a potential rapist in YT right? Just look at what they did to Mr. Girl's Channel, they took it done because a bunch of Nick Fuentes fans and streamers that are alt right mass reported his Channel over the pedophile rap song. What mainstream business wants to be found out they're potentially hosting a pedophile in their YT space, even if later it's found out there was mass reporting done by the Twitch community and abuse of the report function? Compare and contrast their guidelines to this forum's guidelines.

   What are you assuming of Russel Brand's wife, and Russell Brand's behavior in that time? What if Russel Brand is that charismatic that he fooled his wife into thinking he's a nice normal guy, they date, have sex, got married, have kids, and at this point it's too late for the wife to back out? So because Russell Brand accuses 'big pharma' of lying about the vax that get's him a free pass to say other conspiratorial BS and anti mainstream anti establishment BS? Like do you understand how many more casualties and fatalities that Covid-19 would have if they didn't enforce Covid-19 lockdowns and rushed vaccine development? Do you know that polio, a terrible disease that leads to people paralyzed and relying on iron lung tanks, got wiped out because 'big pharma' western medicine, scientists and capitalists that funded that vaccination development and distribution, that vaccine wiped out polio?

   So YouTube punished Logan Paul for filming a couple of dead bodies in Japan's suicide forest a couple of years ago, is arguably more dangerous than YouTube hosting a Rapist who could've done those crimes 10-15 years ago? You do know that there's a difference between footage of dead bodies versus hosting a person that may have raped multiple women 10-15 years ago? 

[Leo Gura]

Question: Should YT allow any convicted rapist to publish videos? Is being a rapist enough to get you banned from all social media platforms?

Edited September 25, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Danioover9000]

@Tanz

21 minutes ago, Tanz said:

His lawyers probably advised him not to speak about it as most lawyers would ask their clients to do so.  Just like he has the right to remain silent people have the right to assume whatever they want to about him.  In any scenario he doesn't gain anything going to any detail on social media because people can inject their own projections on what he is trying to say.  
Its also not nice for him to talk about his past because he has a wife and kids.  My wife would hate me if I spoke about what I did with women in the past publicly in any kind of detail.  His kids may get teased and bullied in school and have a horrible childhood from it also.    

   Why are you assuming a bunch of things from the lawyers, and Russel Brand's actions? What if he does gain by advertising what he's channel does meanwhile dodging the allegations?

   Compare and contrast the two videos of his body language and presentation.

 

and

 

[Danioover9000]

@Leo Gura

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Question: Should YT allow any convicted rapist to publish videos? Is being a rapist enough to get you banned from all social media platforms?

   I think YT should see your forum guideline page, and get inspired to write explicit rules. No more wiggling room for interpretations! They should also see your warning point system, and how you moderate your website well.

   I think YT shouldn't allow any convicted rapist to publish videos, unless it's through a third party, like a podcast or interview. Probable yes in the current world, being a rapist would get you banned, what mainstream business wants to host a rapist/pedophile/cannibal or other evil people?

   Handling allegations, accusations, slanders and defamation is another trickier matter outside private spaces or even inside private spaces, but it's their business, their space, to decide which Channels are taken down or not.

[Danioover9000]

   Another interesting take of the situation:

 

[Leo Gura]

Charlie has a good analysis of the situation:

Charlie has good takes.

Edited September 25, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Danioover9000]

   A follow up from that video:

   I can clearly detect the bias and preference of siding with Russel Brand a bit, on the cancelation and censor part, obviously not siding with the rape part. But this guy is a good example of appearing authoritative and objective, yet is weaponizing that image appealing to logos/pathos/ethos to disingenuously give he's commentary. Not saying that it's he's intention to manipulate, seems like it's subconscious and his attention is selective. I just notice the smart looking types do this a lot, presume a universal truth such that it doesn't feel like you're stringing fallacies and appeals to logos, some pathos and some ethos, and feels like it's objective and appear centrist. Again not saying he's maliciously doing this, it's a much deeper and wider problem in most parts of society.

[Alex M]

54 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Question: Should YT allow any convicted rapist to publish videos? Is being a rapist enough to get you banned from all social media platforms?

I suppose if the person did their time and turned a new chapter of their life and is not profiting from the said crimes. Then maybe it's not an issue. Mike Tyson is a perfect point in this case.

Edited September 25, 2023 by Alex M

[ZenAlex]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Question: Should YT allow any convicted rapist to publish videos? Is being a rapist enough to get you banned from all social media platforms?

Mike Tyson is on youtube.

But the answer to the question is I dunno. I think if they previously used platforms to groom then yes they should be banned.

Edited September 25, 2023 by ZenAlex

[Hello from Russia]

We really live in dark ages, holy shit

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, ZenAlex said:

I think if they previously used platforms to groom then yes

Grooming is a whole different issue.

Obviously grooming cannot be allowed.

[effortlesslumen]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Question: Should YT allow any convicted rapist to publish videos? Is being a rapist enough to get you banned from all social media platforms?

@Leo Gura If the person is facing the consequences of his actions, integrating them, makes every mature move in the direction to forgiveness ( eventhough such an action is hardly ever redeemed) and the content he is creating is unbiased, unrelated to the crime and without ill intent i would say yes youtube should allow said person to publish videos. 

Edited September 25, 2023 by effortlesslumen

[Tanz]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Question: Should YT allow any convicted rapist to publish videos? Is being a rapist enough to get you banned from all social media platforms?

No, if they have done their time they should not, or if the legal system found them innocent.  It would not be fair for youtube to do deep background checks on all their users for various crimes they have done.  If we are talking about something beyond the laws we have to convict someone.    

If OJ Simpson wanted to do a youtube channel he should be allowed to do so.  As should someone who got drunk, killed someone, and did their time.  

Lets take the extreme and talk about a mass murderer in Norway, Behring Breivik .  The dude killed 77 people and got 21 years in jail, in 2033 he will be a free man.  Even he should be allowed to have a YouTube channel.  Personally I think 21 years in jail is too short and there isn't a single state in America that would give him such a light sentence so we cant hold every country's to the same standard especially since America has the highest incarceration rate and the most people in jail per capita.  But the legal system of his country deemed 21 years is enough and we just have to go by that. 

If we lived in a society where citizens can punish people as they want without checks and balances there would be much more damage than even someone like Alex Jones can do.    

Edited September 25, 2023 by Tanz

[effortlesslumen]

17 minutes ago, effortlesslumen said:

@Leo Gura If the person is facing the consequences of his actions, integrating them, makes every mature move in the direction to forgiveness ( eventhough such an action is hardly ever redeemed) and the content he is creating is unbiased, unrelated to the crime and without ill intent i would say yes youtube should allow said person to publish videos. 

Its a different story if people are still gonna watch  the hypothetical person when the crime is known.  But of course you have to consider the side of the victim or victims . It most certainly would be a psychological burden for the victim and very  hard to deal with as such scars run deep. 

Edited September 25, 2023 by effortlesslumen

[Bobby_2021]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Question: Should YT allow any convicted rapist to publish videos? Is being a rapist enough to get you banned from all social media platforms?

As long as they do not use the platform to promote "rapey" stuff, they should be allowed to publish videos. It is not like they will publish a lot of videos from prison anyway.

[Danioover9000]

@Leo Gura

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Charlie has a good analysis of the situation:

Charlie has good takes.

   Seen some of the video, but I can't help but feel like he's slipping some anti mainstream and anti establishment bias into he's video, and telling a story with some twists to it. So on his take of Russel Brand it's a bit shady to me.

   But on Andrew Tate, a 180 degree flip!?

Edited September 25, 2023 by Danioover9000