A bit like Julian Assange, isn't it? - Russell Brand Discussion

[–] McQualude (4231) a year ago

No one cares about shutting up Brand. He's a (bad) comedian looking for a new audience. All he does is regurgitate stuff he hears from other people. He's not a messiah.

reply

[–] fc31 (5795) a year ago

But you can't deny his popularity, just look at his youtube subscriber number, you need a pretext to demonitise his account, which youtube just did, even it is just an allegation, that is a bit suspicious too, isn't it?

reply

[–] BourbonKing (5781) a year ago

His YT subs aren't all that.

reply

[–] fc31 (5795) a year ago

For a political commentator over 6M is not bad.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

Brand is and was well known in Britain (and USA) for many things other than being a political commentator.

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) a year ago

Does 6 million make him a big deal? Is he one of the top men on youtube? Where's he getting all these deep dark secrets that make him so dangerous to the establishment? Is he a journalist with deep contacts, getting sent deep dark secrets? No. He interviews people more important than himself, or wackadoos, and parrots what they say. Why would anyone give two shits about him. Have you considered that as a narcissist, he feels entitled to the affection of women and behaves inappropriately? I mean seriously, he comes off as a bit of a weirdo. He once said that if he started jiujitsu earlier he might have turned gay, lol, wtf. It is more fun to imagine conspiracies around every corner I suppose, conspirators so incompetent that rando comedians on youtube know all about their machinations.

reply

[–] fc31 (5795) a year ago

Well, election year is coming, can't be too careful.

Like I said it is quite easy, it is not like giving a girl a free lawyer is something of trouble.

If youtube did not demonetised his channel, I would not have thought any of this.

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) a year ago

Yeah, if Russell Brand uncovered your conspiracy, you don't have the resources to "take him down" lol.

reply

[–] BourbonKing (5781) a year ago

Or Harvey Weinstein, or Matt Lauer, or Charlie Rose.

BTW, Biden was being called a Pedo and a Rapist by his opponents but evidence was lacking, and the one person to publicly come forward has fled to Russia for some reason.

reply

[–] fc31 (5795) a year ago

Looking at the difference between Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, I think if US government were onto you the obvious choice would be Russia.

Calling Biden Pedo or rapist can be easily dismissed due to the lack of evidence, calling him a liar is far more serious.

reply

[–] Martoto (5054) a year ago

Brand achieves nothing but notoriety for doing nothing. All he does is promote himself as an anti-establishment pseudo-intellectual and exploits all the alt right dog whistles because that's the most defined and therefore easiest market to play to. Plus it has an in-built self defence mechanism of defining all criticism and ridicule as suppression etc.

reply

[–] fc31 (5795) a year ago

Did you hear me praising his intelligence? Whatever he was, he should not be taken down this way.

reply

[–] Martoto (5054) a year ago

But he's not being "taken down". He's nothing like Assange.

reply

[–] fc31 (5795) a year ago

UK parliament demands all social media demonetise him, but of course he is not taken down.

People presumed guilty without evidence all the time, if UK parliament is doing it of course made it all right.

There is nothing to see here.

Just keep repeating "everything is normal", I am sure repeating enough times it is going to become the truth.

reply

[–] Martoto (5054) a year ago

The UK parliament di not and does not demand social media demonitize him. That's just false. (I don't know what demonitising has got to do with anything. Are we supposed to be suspicious of the allegations because of his "political" views or because this millionaire is having difficulty earning more money from his clickbait?)

Yes some people will always presume guilt. Brand is nothing special in that regard. But there has been allegations surrounding him for over ten years.

reply

[–] fc31 (5795) a year ago

When you let go of shame you will become invincible ...

That somehow came to my mind in Palpatine voice when I read your post.

Anyway, I think I made my point.

reply

[–] cyguration (3951) a year ago

The UK parliament di not and does not demand social media demonitize him. That's just false.

They literally did:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2023/09/21/rumble-slams-british-lawmakers-over-disturbing-demand-to-demonetize-russell-brand-after-sexual-assault-allegations/

reply

[–] capuchin (3265) a year ago

No. They really didn't. They sent a letter inquiring as to what measures Rumble intended to take over Brand in relation to the Online Safety Bill, which will imminently be given Royal Ascent.

Certainly, the implication of the letter is that it might be a good idea to demonetise Brand -- the Select Committee was certainly leaning on Rumble. But again, this is only reminding them of their upcoming legal obligations under the imminent Act.

Whether they like it or lump it, US social media companies are going to have to learn to operate under European regulations reflecting European values -- see also the EU Digital Services Act, and the brand spanking new EU Digital Markets Act -- if they A) don't want to be fined into oblivion or banned from these territories.

reply

[–] cyguration (3951) a year ago

Whether they like it or lump it, US social media companies are going to have to learn to operate under European regulations reflecting European values -- see also the EU Digital Services Act, and the brand spanking new EU Digital Markets Act -- if they A) don't want to be fined into oblivion or banned from these territories.

That is literally demanding censorship.

reply

[–] capuchin (3265) a year ago

Well, it's regulating an industry. Which is a government's job.

reply

[–] fc31 (5795) a year ago

Other than paid shills who would defend those politicians so valiantly? Who would support the suppression of free speech? This is just another sign that this place is crawling with those people.

reply

[–] Martoto (5054) a year ago

Demonitising is nothing like taking away or prohibiting free speech. It's about money.

Brand says what he says because it nets him the most reliable income.

reply

[–] fc31 (5795) a year ago

To be honest only people have been paid are this determined, try to argue from all possible angles.

The more you say the more apparent it is.

reply

[–] Martoto (5054) a year ago

So in order for free speech to remain free, it must be monetised?

Ironic isn't it? You're alleging that I'm being paid to point out obvious but inconvenient facts to you. And you're shilling for this millionaire and painting him as a martyr because he might not be able to profit as much as he already does from telling certain people things they already want to hear.

reply

[–] fc31 (5795) a year ago

I only voice support because nobody did, they are all like you, swarming to presume his guilt.

If he really paid people then there would be more like me here, there aren't.

So I think it is quite clear who is paid.

reply

[–] Martoto (5054) a year ago

I didn't accuse you of being paid. I'm pointing out that while you claim you are standing up for free speech, what you're actually standing up for is a millionaire, so he can be more easily paid for the targeted content he generates for youtube and other platforms.

And in this case it's actually specifically concerning Brand's ability to make money from content about the allegations and the ongoing investigation.

Youtube content regularly gets demonitised for far more frivolous and inconsequential things. So it's even more ridiculous that anyone with any dignity is turning this issue into a free speech thing.

Do you know that to "shill" does not necessarily involve payment. A shill is just someone posing as an impartial observer or participant when they actually have ulterior motives to secretly assist or conspire with someone else involved.

reply

[–] fc31 (5795) a year ago

So you just hate people who are successful, is that it?

Also youtube always starts with demonetisation to discourage content, then if that did not work, it usually follows with account suspension.

I think you know that, it is just a different kind of lie, but that does not change the fact that it is a lie.

reply

[–] Martoto (5054) a year ago

No I just don't have the tendency to boot lick like you apparently.

What does the linear process for Youtube suspension have to do with your confusion of free speech with monetised speech?

Suspension is usually the result of failure to comply with youtube's terms and conditions. Monetisation rules are something else. You can choose not to observe them if you don't mind being demonitised. The rules that lead to suspension are a different thing. Although if you break those rules you can be certain you'll be demonitised. That's just common sense.

reply

[–] fc31 (5795) a year ago

Name calling just shows your desperation, also shows you are indeed a low life.

And I have no interest to engage a low life.

reply

[–] Martoto (5054) a year ago

You started calling me a paid shill. So I figured you wouldn't mind and wouldn't melt like a delicate little snowflake if I remarked on your apparent tendency to lick boots of millionaires because an avenue for them to profit from allegations made against them had been closed or threatened with closure.

reply

[–] fc31 (5795) a year ago

Calling you a paid shill is just a fact, and clearly you are.

Saying something like "lick boots" that means you are starting to throw insults.

That is the sign you are losing the argument, and now you are just being shameless.

Anyway, adios.

reply

[–] Martoto (5054) a year ago

You said you had no interest to engage. But still, you engaged.

So in that sense you're right. It's my loss.

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) a year ago

Spot on.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (15918) a year ago

But an US presidential election is just around the corner and I think he has been dissing Biden quite mercilessly:

Oh i get it , all the right wing crazies think he's their friend, so they are attempting to defend him in the usual right wing stlye:

BATSHIT CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORIES.

its cute really
This explains the countless new threads along the lines of "its a hit job" and " the elites want him out" and other such tosh that you'd only normally see posted by Trump brainwashed magas on the politics page, next to stuff like
"Democrats weaponised the FBI"
"The democrats have all the judges on the payroll"
"Democrats own hollywood to hurt the white man"
"Democrats own all the media to print lies"
and the old classic "Democrats fixed the election"

When the much more likely , occam's razor , is that the guy is a sex pest.

Look out for a larger than usual amount of rape apologists posts from the same crowd because in their eyes, his political leanings (which they have imagined) somehow have a bearing on his guilt, or lack of.

reply

[–] fc31 (5795) a year ago

Except he is not right wing, he is a Julian Assange supporter, that is why I used the comparison.

This explains the countless new threads along the lines of "its a hit job" and " the elites want him out

Look at what politicians are doing, that is literally what they are doing.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (15918) a year ago

I know he's not. But he's said a few things that have got the more rabid GOP party voters all gooey between the legs.
Probly some shit about covid being fake and masks being against your rights, or in the OP's case he thinks RB has been "dissing Biden" so in his mind proves the illuminati hatchet job.

reply

[–] fc31 (5795) a year ago

You see, you are starting to sound more and more like the shills paid by elites.

I don't like Trump anymore than you do, but we all know he is prosecuted because of the upcoming election.

What is happening to Russell Brand is really nothing comparing what is happening to Trump.

So this is hardly some conspiracy, only people oblivious to it, pretending or not.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (15918) a year ago

Look at what politicians are doing, that is literally what they are doing.

If they are , which they arnt , its not because of his political stance is it ? which is what all these nuts are suggesting.

reply

[–] fc31 (5795) a year ago

Yeah, sure, of course you know what elites are thinking, and of course you can speak on their behalf.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (15918) a year ago

So you're sticking with

" 'Elites' are getting rid of him because he dissed Biden" ?

Do you know how crazy that sounds?
Are these elites British , or American ? or some shadowy james bond internatioanl supervilian group?

reply

[–] fc31 (5795) a year ago

People think Trump is prosecuted because of the upcoming election, because he is the primary threat to Biden, do you know how crazy that sounds?

reply

[–] moviechatterer (15918) a year ago

Its sounds less crazy , but still crazy.
Trump is in court because of his illegal conduct during his presidency, amongst other things.

reply

[–] fc31 (5795) a year ago

Yeah, that proves you are lying, the only question now is whether you are paid to lie or not.

reply

[–] Martoto (5054) a year ago

He deals exclusively in the dogwhistles that the right wing responds to. Says nothing about other "anti-establishment"/"anti-mainstream" issues because he knows that it won't play well with the right/alt-right market he's playing to.

Brand is simply a media grifter. Nothing more. He had an audience that was growing out of his comedy and started trying to drum up interest and controversy by telling people they should not vote for anyone or anything. Then when he started gaining fans from certain quarters for this he began playing to that audience.

reply

[–] JFZ (1459) a year ago

Liberals use right-wing, nazi, alt-right, racist, and transphobic for anyone who wants some damn transparency or TRUTH. The seething, mentally ill, shithead liberal hates the Truth because they've constructed a delusional safe space that even has a boogie man (that they blame for all the problems they cause themselves) so they can beat it and feel good. It's about feeling good to the libshit. Reality and Truth be damned. Did you see how they tore the entire world down cause they lost an election in 2016 and were robbed of a feel good moment of electing a woman? Who cares if she's helped murder at least 3 people (Seth Rich, Epstein, Vince Foster). She was gonna be the first woman president dammit!! So they threw a temper tantrums for 4 years, burning down the country, destroying statues, letting criminals run wild on anyone who voted red, so they can get a FEMALE VP! OMG! YAY! She's a psychotic moron, but FIRST!!! WE DID IT!!!! GOLD STAR! That matters!

reply

[–] Wint3rFir3 (7243) a year ago

No, not even a bit like that.

reply

[–] Martoto (5054) a year ago

Nobody in the real world actually gives a shit what Brand says about Biden.

All Brand can achieve is gain popularity from people already receptive to anti-Biden rhetoric. And that's all he seeks. The clicks and the income.

Brand isn't costing Biden any votes. That's just a completely ludicrous idea. He's never been seen as a "liberal" figure so he's not converting any of the dafties who still think he was a good comic.

reply