Russell Brand is being accused of rape

[Tanz]

9 hours ago, Consept said:

Good points, i was thinking about this though in terms of, if the media doesnt bring something like this to the light who will?

 

They need to interview him the minute someone accuses him, well actually the police need to do that first because its their job to do so.  The media then needs to talk to the police and Brand if he wants to.  They need to show that they tried to communicate with him but refused.

 

7 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

   So what are some solutions then, if Russel Brand is guilty but there's little interest in investigating him?

If he is not convicted then he is a free man and he should be able to make money off of youtube as long as he meets their guidelines.  

The world is an unfair place and there are people that have done ALOT worst than Brand, like Bill Cosby whom was found guilty and its a well known fact that he gave women date rape drug and raped them.  60 of them and he didn't even have a relationship with them like Brand did.  They free Cosby after a short while after being convicted because of a legal technicality that the judicial system messed up on.  The judicial system is still the best system we have and we should not use public opinion to punish people.  On a different topic argument with the vaccine  and why we have to use health authorities to make decisions rather than "youtubers" is exactly like the same reason we cant just make Brand guilty until the judicial system finds him guilty.  Both people on the left and on the right cherry pick and often aren't philosophically consistent in their thought process.  

This video is a good example of people.

 

[Danioover9000]

@Hatfort

11 hours ago, Hatfort said:

If it's a conspiracy against him for his views, why isn't for example Joe Rogan getting the same treatment? I'm sure he has been with multiple women too. If it was that easy to get false allegations for Brand, why wouldn't it be for Rogan too, and shut another truth-teller about vaccines and stuff?

I'm sorry, but the investigation seems consistent. The guy was a monster. He may have embraced a spiritual route last years, I'm sure he has improved, but the girls he hurt are allowed to come back from his past and not be fine.

YouTube did well according to their guidelines because it's not only about content. If a creator damages their corporate image with their life apart from the videos, they can and should take measures. To put an extreme example, if a serial killer of children would upload party song videos, wouldn't YouTube be allowed to demonetize or cut his content just because his videos are okay? Hell no, fuck him, banned, and so his content and videos. Elon Musk would be glad to show them in X anyway.

   Because Joe Rogan is part of the dark intellectual web, plus he's connected to Lex Fridman and Elon Musk and a few other shady figures. Maybe he has powerful friends in the background?

   Are they launching an official investigation now? I also agree with you on an intuitive level and from what I've analyzed of his tonality and body language, just suspicious to me.

   I have mixed feelings about YouTube, I would agree if they have explicit guidelines and policies against not just convicted or those accused of rape, but of every criminal act, of any convicted person if they have specific rules against I would agree. However, compared to the forum guidelines YouTube's guidelines is horrendously implicit and lots of wiggle room for interpretation, by YT Channels to abuse, and by YT staff or algorithm to abuse. For example, there was a YT Channel called Mr. Girl, who now has just mr.girl.tv. His Channel was taken down because Nick Fuentes gang mass reported on few of his rap songs about pedophilia, even though most of his content is mature themed and provocative/trollism to trigger awareness in the viewer, no YouTube didn't consider the nuances of his Channel and the mass reporting by an outside community manipulating the report system, instead takes his Channel down and complies with a bunch of users that are outside of YouTube.

[Danioover9000]

@Leo Gura

11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

X, where a child killer feels at home.

   Twitter x?

[Consept]

9 hours ago, Tanz said:

They need to interview him the minute someone accuses him, well actually the police need to do that first because its their job to do so.  The media then needs to talk to the police and Brand if he wants to.  They need to show that they tried to communicate with him but refused.

The point is that the police might do that, they might interview him straight away but then he denies and says its consensual, it comes down to his word against hers and because theres at least reasonable doubt the police cant go any further if theres no evidence (this is partly why the conviction rate is so low). So in this case the woman, or womens story if theres multiple, dont get heard. So no one will investigate the story because the police have already closed it and so one of the only ways to investigate it, is through the media. This is commonplace in all different fields, for example Coffeezilla on youtube has actually exposed a lot of fraud in the financial world through investigating that possibly wouldnt have come to light otherwise and was absolutely necessary for the public to know as these people were ripping off thousand's. 

The media always reaches out to the accused for comment before the investigation is released to the public, so there is opportunity for them to reply, however a lot of the time they dont take it up or just comment saying they deny all charges. Im not sure but i think if you were 100% innocent you most likely would take that chance to speak. Actually a similar case in the UK was Philip Schofield allegedly grooming a young boy, in which he did do an interview with the BBC where he explained the situation, he did essentially lose his career anyway but he still did the interview.

But generally i think the media is important in this role of bringing things to light that are in the public interest, it is almost a duty for them to do so, however there is also the potential that they can exaggerate or even manufacture a story that will be of interest to the public, this is why they need certain restrictions and tough defamation and liable laws.    

[Danioover9000]

@Consept

26 minutes ago, Consept said:

The point is that the police might do that, they might interview him straight away but then he denies and says its consensual, it comes down to his word against hers and because theres at least reasonable doubt the police cant go any further if theres no evidence (this is partly why the conviction rate is so low). So in this case the woman, or womens story if theres multiple, dont get heard. So no one will investigate the story because the police have already closed it and so one of the only ways to investigate it, is through the media. This is commonplace in all different fields, for example Coffeezilla on youtube has actually exposed a lot of fraud in the financial world through investigating that possibly wouldnt have come to light otherwise and was absolutely necessary for the public to know as these people were ripping off thousand's. 

The media always reaches out to the accused for comment before the investigation is released to the public, so there is opportunity for them to reply, however a lot of the time they dont take it up or just comment saying they deny all charges. Im not sure but i think if you were 100% innocent you most likely would take that chance to speak. Actually a similar case in the UK was Philip Schofield allegedly grooming a young boy, in which he did do an interview with the BBC where he explained the situation, he did essentially lose his career anyway but he still did the interview.

But generally i think the media is important in this role of bringing things to light that are in the public interest, it is almost a duty for them to do so, however there is also the potential that they can exaggerate or even manufacture a story that will be of interest to the public, this is why they need certain restrictions and tough defamation and liable laws.    

   Speaking about Coffezilla, he did a scam of podcasts here:

   Even podcasts are not safe, and are not objective because if there's a scam like this, how many other scams are there in the podcast space? If Leather Apron Club Channel is correct in his reporting here:

 

 

    And finally back to the topic of Russel Brand:

   Then this is evidence of much deeper scams and corruption in the internet and online spaces. How can we deal with so much misinformation/disinformation flooding our information ecology? How do we make sense of the political, cultural, ideological, narrative, and information warfare going on?

[Tanz]

@Consept I'm talking about normal standard proceedings when it comes to crimes. When someone is assaulted they should go to the police first. The police then ask him to go to the police department so they can question him. Then the news reports it. 

The media overrid that and did a documentary right away. 

Do you expect the media to be the first to report victims and their abusers first before doing any legal procedure?

Edited September 27, 2023 by Tanz

[Consept]

16 minutes ago, Tanz said:

@Consept I'm talking about normal standard proceedings when it comes to crimes. When someone is assaulted they should go to the police first. The police then ask him to go to the police department so they can question him. Then the news reports it. 

The media overrid that and did a documentary right away. 

Do you expect the media to be the first to report victims and their abusers first before doing any legal procedure?

@Tanz

yes ideally that would be how it works, but in reality it rarely works like that. First off the woman could be scared to go to the police or manipulated someway to not go or just not think it's worth it given the low conviction rate. 

Second is that she could go to the police and Brand could be called in for interview but he just denies what happened and its his word against hers. Further Brand, as has been rumoured, could've taken a super-injuction out, which basically bans anyone from naming him around certain incidents, basically it's like an nda. 

Keep in mind in all these scenarios he could've still done it without any repercussions. So what we're saying is that when the system fails what option is open to the alleged victim? Its really just the media. 

This isn't a wild idea, for example if you got ripped off by your electric company and they refused to pay you back, you might go to the media or post it on social media if you feel the police wouldn't do anything about it. Both to warn others and get a sense of justice. 

 

[Tanz]

@Consept Well in this incident they only care because he's famous and they can make more money off of it.  If it were a catholic priest or a teacher at a preschool they would not cover it at all. These things happen every day and people report them, even to the FBI such as Epsteins situation.  If the media is the gatekeeper of such things they would be undermining the law and anyone can go to them and attack a famous person because its so easy.  

Women dont even get arrested when they accuse someone and get caught lying.  I have family in law enforcement and they never charge the woman.  If the media were involved in EVERY single assault case, our entire society would live in fear.  
The only real solution is prevention and have strict guidelines social on engagement and ensure that women aren't sleeping around so easily.  

[Danioover9000]

   This entire thread is wild, and this rape accusation of Russel Brand is like this podcast here, of Carlos out of left field making a weird analogy between plagiarism and joke theft to rape accusations:

 

   Good example of both sides unaware of developmental factors of this situation like value systems, cognition, morality, personality types/traits, ego development and shadow selves, life experiences and other lines of development in society and life, ideological beliefs indoctrinated by culture, self biases and preferences, and other factors that make plagiarism and conflicts of interest.

   IMO, both sides of this issue are seeing past each other in binaries and are polarizing. In Carlos's side there are pros and cons, he to himself clearly sees he didn't steal, yet he objectively has stolen the wall joke and the other joke, as far as hundreds of other jokes we don't know so he'll deny in that part. From my body language analysis and tonality, it's clear he's being defensive, few areas of deception, but I feel like it's against the accusation of plagiarism both Bobby Lee and his GF are slipping in.

   Bobby Lee and his GF's perspectives also have pros and cons. They side with the victims of this theft, and are trying to get Carlos to capitulate to a stage green value extreme of apologizing blanket statement, almost trying to get him to virtue signal sorrow. However, they overlook other developmental factors and personality types/traits, like what if to Carlos he's a psychopath or a sociopath and doesn't feel genuine sorrow? Therefore, why does he have to blanket apologize to everyone who suffered from joke theft? What if they're wrong, biased, and ideologically driven to pressing Carlos for his lack of empathy, not saying sorry, and lack of understanding for the 'victims'?

   Personally I don't care that much in this context, like if you are offended and triggered that some other comedian steals your joke, so what? Be more creative and come up with another joke lines, adjust how you write your stand up comedian scripts, and improvise more and be more observational. In a different context, IMO it's more risky in the writing industry, with Novelists, the issue of plagiarism is far more worse because authors do 300-500 or more pages per book, 10,000 to 1000,000 words written per book, usually takes 3-6 months or more to complete. Compare this to stand up comedian material, which is around 300-600 or even up to 1,000 words for some who are literate biased and too logical, clearly the joke plagiarism is lesser than the novel plagiarism. In fact the easy remedy to this is to be more spontaneous, random, witty, playful, creative, and outside the box with the humour. In fact every goal of every comedian should be to release original and new material, recycled a bit to mostly brand new. THAT SOLVES THE JOKE PLAGIARISM! There could be a number of factors why plagiarism exists, but IMO plagiarism is due to someone trying to cut corners, easy mode, a lazy minded way to make more money and attention. It's opportunistic.

[Danioover9000]

@Consept

58 minutes ago, Consept said:

@Tanz

yes ideally that would be how it works, but in reality it rarely works like that. First off the woman could be scared to go to the police or manipulated someway to not go or just not think it's worth it given the low conviction rate. 

Second is that she could go to the police and Brand could be called in for interview but he just denies what happened and its his word against hers. Further Brand, as has been rumoured, could've taken a super-injuction out, which basically bans anyone from naming him around certain incidents, basically it's like an nda. 

Keep in mind in all these scenarios he could've still done it without any repercussions. So what we're saying is that when the system fails what option is open to the alleged victim? Its really just the media. 

This isn't a wild idea, for example if you got ripped off by your electric company and they refused to pay you back, you might go to the media or post it on social media if you feel the police wouldn't do anything about it. Both to warn others and get a sense of justice. 

 

   This is true, though depending as you said on if there's coercion, manipulation, blackmail or intimidation that causes the female victims to not report to the police, to feel scared and gas lighted to not do so, for the low conviction rates or even the finance of the whole legal situation.

   In that documentary, of the 4 women alleged to be raped, there was that one women who texted, gone to a medical center for a rape kit and had anti biotics, maybe the most compelling. A super-injunction?

   True, the media is the only option left when the justice and legal systems fail the rape victims. Or revenge and killing the rapist, if they are that motivated.

   Although with the electric company one, there's still that option to file a lawsuit and take them to court. Having said that, if your financial situation is bad such that you can't offered all the legal stuff, then maybe social media and media is the next thing then.

[Danioover9000]

@Tanz

12 minutes ago, Tanz said:

@Consept Well in this incident they only care because he's famous and they can make more money off of it.  If it were a catholic priest or a teacher at a preschool they would not cover it at all. These things happen every day and people report them, even to the FBI such as Epsteins situation.  If the media is the gatekeeper of such things they would be undermining the law and anyone can go to them and attack a famous person because its so easy.  

Women dont even get arrested when they accuse someone and get caught lying.  I have family in law enforcement and they never charge the woman.  If the media were involved in EVERY single assault case, our entire society would live in fear.  
The only real solution is prevention and have strict guidelines social on engagement and ensure that women aren't sleeping around so easily.  

   You're assuming the 4 women in that documentary are doing this because the women only care to gain money off of Russel Brand because he's famous. Why are you assuming this?

   No, some media do cover rape situations which involve catholic priests and teachers at preschool. They even cover some mass shootings, terrorists acts, bombings. Why are you assuming all media don't cover other rape cases?

   If the media is the gatekeeper of such things they would be undermining the law and anyone can go to them and attack a famous person because it's so easy? Can you see how you presume so many assumptions here, because if any of that is different it will undermine your logic, because what if the media isn't gatekeeping? what if the media isn't undermining the law? What if some people go to the media to tell their story because they can't afford the legal system and the legal costs of filing against a famous person that has so much financial security and even powerful connections to make the legal process hellish for the rape victims? What if the media is their only option, because they are coerced, threatened, intimidated, and blackmailed into not filing?

[Consept]

22 minutes ago, Tanz said:

Well in this incident they only care because he's famous and they can make more money off of it.  If it were a catholic priest or a teacher at a preschool they would not cover it at all. These things happen every day and people report them, even to the FBI such as Epsteins situation.  If the media is the gatekeeper of such things they would be undermining the law and anyone can go to them and attack a famous person because its so easy. 

Yes of course, it makes national or even international press because of his fame and how many people are interested in him, its the equivalent to the influence he has on the world. But also if it was a local story the press would cover that as well. Catholic priests and teachers get caught all the time, there was a whole film called Spotlight based on the media exposing the catholic church and its protection of pedophiles. Epstein got away with what he was doing for years its only when the media started reporting on it that it came into the public consciousness. People and institutions with power are very much able to silence victims, this is the whole point of where the media can fulfil an important service. 

Not anyone can just attack powerful people because its so difficult thats the whole point, how many powerful abusers who actually did what they were accused of, got away with it for decades. As well you cant just defame people without legal ramifications so people can not run around just accusing without any foundation. 

30 minutes ago, Tanz said:

Women dont even get arrested when they accuse someone and get caught lying.  I have family in law enforcement and they never charge the woman.  If the media were involved in EVERY single assault case, our entire society would live in fear.  
The only real solution is prevention and have strict guidelines social on engagement and ensure that women aren't sleeping around so easily.  

I agree that women probably should get charged for false accusations but again its as hard proving that as it is to prove the rape actually occurred, its one word against another, but if they can prove it they should get charged. The media shouldnt be involved in every case obviously, just the ones where there wasnt justice and where there is strong evidence. 

[Consept]

4 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

Then this is evidence of much deeper scams and corruption in the internet and online spaces. How can we deal with so much misinformation/disinformation flooding our information ecology? How do we make sense of the political, cultural, ideological, narrative, and information warfare going on?

It is really difficult tbh, the best way is to try and look at things from all perspectives. People tend to get stuck in one perspective if they like the person. For example with Brand people are consuming his content but not acknowledging his bias and are not steel-manning the other side so they just take what he says as truth. The shit hits the fan with this assault issue because the fact is no one apart from Brand and the girls know exactly what happened yet people are still defending and will disregard any evidence so they are definitely not agnostic. Its even more extreme with someone like Tate in which there is tons of evidence and even him on camera admitting it but people still support him. 

So our aim as individuals should be to have as clear a perspective as possible and recognise our own bias', it is difficult given all the info but i think its possible. It would be good if everyone was taught critical thinking as well. 

[Tanz]

21 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

 You're assuming the 4 women in that documentary are doing this because the women only care to gain money off of Russel Brand because he's famous. Why are you assuming this?

I didnt say that.  

22 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

Why are you assuming all media don't cover other rape cases?

They just don't and they definitely do not make a documentary for every rape case they come accross
 

23 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

What if some people go to the media to tell their story because they can't afford the legal system and the legal costs of filing against a famous person that has so much financial security and even powerful connections to make the legal process hellish for the rape victims?

There is no cost to going to the police station and filing a report, this is why we pay taxes.  None of these women went to the police right away.  If the police do not investigate, then the person would go to the media.  
Lets say my neighbor blows up my car, I am not going to call CNN and ask them to report on it.  I will call the police, and if they dont do anything about it then I will come up with other means.  
 

[Tanz]

18 minutes ago, Consept said:

As well you cant just defame people without legal ramifications so people can not run around just accusing without any foundation. 

If a person doesn't have any money then there is no money to sue a person from.  Some young girl can just try to sleep with a famous person and defame them.  This famous person wont sue because there is nothing to sue them with.  

Sort of like if someone who doesnt have money crashes their car into you and they dont have insurance, there's nothing you can do from there, you'll have to just claim thru your own insurance.  Basically if we just make it easy for people to accuse someone anyone can just do it.  

The only real solution like I said earlier is just have a social rule not to sleep with anyone until you know they are serious about you but how many actually do that?

 

[Consept]

4 minutes ago, Tanz said:

If a person doesn't have any money then there is no money to sue a person from.  Some young girl can just try to sleep with a famous person and defame them.  This famous person wont sue because there is nothing to sue them with.  

Sort of like if someone who doesnt have money crashes their car into you and they dont have insurance, there's nothing you can do from there, you'll have to just claim thru your own insurance.  Basically if we just make it easy for people to accuse someone anyone can just do it.  

The only real solution like I said earlier is just have a social rule not to sleep with anyone until you know they are serious about you but how many actually do that?

 

They wouldnt sue the girl, they would sue the publication, anyone can go to the media and sell a story but its the outlet that would be liable if the story turns out to be false. Remember when Fox news ran with Trumps story that the election was rigged? Trump didnt get sued for that but Fox did for 100s of millions, it would be the same in these assault cases. 

The girl could post on youtube but not many would probably watch it, she could still get a cease and desist order or a strike from youtube if the accused reports. If a media outlet did pick it up from youtube then they would be liable. 

The solution obviously wouldnt work so we still have the same problem. Keep in mind as well Epstein, Prince Andrew, Cosby, Saville etc were never found guilty, if we go by your method, none of these peoples crimes wouldve come to light. 

[Danioover9000]

@Tanz

28 minutes ago, Tanz said:

I didnt say that.  

They just don't and they definitely do not make a documentary for every rape case they come accross
 

There is no cost to going to the police station and filing a report, this is why we pay taxes.  None of these women went to the police right away.  If the police do not investigate, then the person would go to the media.  
Lets say my neighbor blows up my car, I am not going to call CNN and ask them to report on it.  I will call the police, and if they dont do anything about it then I will come up with other means.  
 

   Just because you didn't state that, doesn't mean you were not implying the assumptions.

   Not one rape case was covered by the media?

   You are assuming financial costs of reporting to the police, but what about the emotional, psychological costs? What if the women were gas lighted, coerced, blackmailed and intimidated to not report to the police by the famous celebrity rapist? You are assuming that the lack of police investigation is why the person, the woman, goes to the media, why are you assuming one motivation? What if the woman goes to the media because they were emotionally and psychologically manipulated to not report to police?

   That hypothetical of your neighbor blowing up your car, and you not reporting to the media first but to the police assumes that the neighbor hasn't gaslighted, coerced, blackmailed, and made threats of harm or death upon you or your family. What if the neighbor bullies and coerces you to not report at all to police or media? What if said neighbor has blackmail material of your wife naked, or your nakedness, and threatens to release those nudes? What if the neighbor threatens the life of your wife or kids if you report, hold them hostage? After all, if the neighbor is capable of blowing up your car, then the neighbor is very capable of manipulation tactics against you, your wife, or your children, and manipulating you into silence. What if the neighbor has police connections? How would you resolve such a violent and manipulative situation? 

[Tanz]

@Danioover9000 now you are sounding right wing antivax conspiracy theory person and think the police are going to cover up someone black mailing me and using their power to control the narrative. 

Let's take it deeper and assume the media is in on it too and they actually pretend they care about people. I guess that person is as screwed as a homeless Iraq veteran.

Going back to these women. They never even tried to go to the police and if they did, it was 10 years later. 

Anyways I don't know the truth of the whole situation and certainly no one outside of Brand and the 4 women do...

[Danioover9000]

@Tanz So your reply to me pointing out your logical fallacies, assumptions and questions here:

1 hour ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Tanz

   Just because you didn't state that, doesn't mean you were not implying the assumptions.

   Not one rape case was covered by the media?

   You are assuming financial costs of reporting to the police, but what about the emotional, psychological costs? What if the women were gas lighted, coerced, blackmailed and intimidated to not report to the police by the famous celebrity rapist? You are assuming that the lack of police investigation is why the person, the woman, goes to the media, why are you assuming one motivation? What if the woman goes to the media because they were emotionally and psychologically manipulated to not report to police?

   That hypothetical of your neighbor blowing up your car, and you not reporting to the media first but to the police assumes that the neighbor hasn't gaslighted, coerced, blackmailed, and made threats of harm or death upon you or your family. What if the neighbor bullies and coerces you to not report at all to police or media? What if said neighbor has blackmail material of your wife naked, or your nakedness, and threatens to release those nudes? What if the neighbor threatens the life of your wife or kids if you report, hold them hostage? After all, if the neighbor is capable of blowing up your car, then the neighbor is very capable of manipulation tactics against you, your wife, or your children, and manipulating you into silence. What if the neighbor has police connections? How would you resolve such a violent and manipulative situation? 

   Is to name call and character assassinate me, and take out of context my response to your hypothetical by making me look like a right wing anti vax conspiracy theorist, to then misquote and twist my hypothetical? Then you character assassinate these 4 women by stating 'that they NEVER even tried to go to the police and if they did, it was 10 years later.', and look over the coercion, black mail, threats, and gas lighting that Russel Brand and other male celebrities would do to them to silence them? Do you realize your male centric biases you are projecting onto this situation, assuming hat the 4 women can logically report to the police the rape, and skip over the emotional manipulations that silence these women?

54 minutes ago, Tanz said:

@Danioover9000 now you are sounding right wing antivax conspiracy theory person and think the police are going to cover up someone black mailing me and using their power to control the narrative. 

Let's take it deeper and assume the media is in on it too and they actually pretend they care about people. I guess that person is as screwed as a homeless Iraq veteran.

Going back to these women. They never even tried to go to the police and if they did, it was 10 years later. 

Anyways I don't know the truth of the whole situation and certainly no one outside of Brand and the 4 women do...

   If you don't know the truth, the whole situation, Brand and the 4 women, why do you assume what the 4 women were up to, and what Brand was up to before then? Why are you assuming fault of the women and the media? How about you engage with your own hypothetical, that I've pointed out logical flaws of? Why are you dodging your own hypothetical?

Edited September 27, 2023 by Danioover9000

[Danioover9000]

   This the next one, even more convincing body language analysis and tonality. The person also has anti mainstream biases but if this person feels there's something wrong or missing, and this person's bias is similar to Russel Brand, IMO that's a significant red flag:

   Oh, and speaking of the white shirt Russel Brand is wearing, I find it poetic and symbolic that it's pattern is a bunch of dragon flies. What are dragon flies? Insects that pray on flies and other smaller insects. Basically dragon flies are predators, so wearing a thing that means predator while being accused of being a sexual predator, that's poetic and not a good look, add to that colour psychology, in the west white=purity and innocence, so I guess poetically he's a pure and innocent sexual predator???

Edited September 28, 2023 by Danioover9000