Russell Brand is being accused of rape

[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

[effortlesslumen]

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?

Thats a question that can not be awnsered easily, as you can not shove every criminal into a hole and bury them indefinitely nor can you make the rules so loose you invite more crime.  

[Consept]

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?

Imo i think if youve committed a crime, done your time, genuinely have remorse and are not producing videos that encourage anything along the likes of rape then i dont see a problem. In criminal and youth services there are tons of people that have committed crimes and work in that field to help others who might be on that same path, so i would say its almost essential for people to be able to seek redemption. 

However, youtube is funded by advertising this means brands can withdraw their adverts for whatever reason they see fit and this is completely acceptable as you may not want your brand associated with certain people. This is essentially whats happened with Brand, youtube hasnt banned him theyve just demonitised him, but if they hadnt the brands wouldve withdrawn anyway because thats what they did on Rumble. On top of that youtube can completely ban anyone they see fit as a private company but i think this should be reserved for only the most extreme cases, not just because you dont like someones views. For example i think Brands views and presentation are terrible but i dont think he should be banned on that basis. 

Short answer is yes mostly anyone should be allowed to publish but whether thats monetised is down to advertisers discretion.