After a lifetime of direct experience with my society getting it 100% wrong (wmd, covid, russiagate, and more specifically the metoo era witch hunts) i am very skeptical of Russell Brand as a sexual predator.
I will be happy to take a look at whatever evidence is made available, but there are myriad reasons to be skeptical and almost zero to trust.
I would imagine from the tone of your writing that you would consider this outlook a problem.
I like Russ Brand and will stop liking him if I'm convinced he is a legitimate predator, but the level of evidence needed to convince me has grown to such a level that (barring video / audio) would have to be "beyond a reasonable doubt"
It's almost like someone, somewhere, had the radical idea of "innocent until proven guilty" as a standard of justice where the accusers are inherently at a disadvantage as they need to prove the claims as opposed to the mob mentality you *seem* to be tacitly endorsing...
I appreciate your reminder to tread with caution and preserve an open mind. I have followed RB for the better part of the last two years. He'd have to be one hell of an actor to be faking the level of compassion, fairness, and commons sense reasoning he presents in his nightly broadcasts. While I have no idea what he does in his private life or the details of his admitted years of poor judgement, he has been candied about his misgivings. But the most telling reasons to believe Russell do not come from Russell himself. No one who is alive and breathing can refute the coordinated censorship campaigns between government and media currently running rough shot over democracies world wide with major voices of opposition being attacked in the most grievous ways. Russell like other successful podcasters are a threat to the mainstream because they are on the way out. It's so obvious it's laughable. But regardless of my opinion, our laws are built upon the premise of innocent until proven guilty. Somehow this crucial aspect of justice has been the victim of our Orwellian culture. Now the public assumes guilt by accusation, and twistedly puts the burden of proof on the accused.
I’m not going to say alleged. Nope, not gonna give the benefit of the doubt.
One accusation is bad,
more than one is a pattern…
More than one PLUS decades of whispered hints and advice passed from one woman to another… that’s a god damned home f-ing Run. Hope he goes to and rots in Prison.
First of all, we have a little thing here in the US of A called presumption of innocence. That's a foundational principal in our justice system. Second, allegations are simple that, allegations. To date he has not been charged with a crime. Third, name one alleged case where there has been a coordinated media effort in multiple countries (not just England where RB lives) to censor and forbid the accused from earning any money (especially for one's defense)? I'll wait. Fourth, the media was engaged in a year+ long hunt to find anyone who would go forward with a claim. They never brought independent charges to a court for a decade before NOW. Speaking of now, RB becoming a major oppositional figure in the counter movement to the authoritarian controls sweeping our globe. He has become a target and how convenient to accuse someone of something incredible hard to defend against. A decade ago, we were at the height of the #metoo movement, a movement so successful it brought down the likes of Harvey Weinstein, the most powerful man in Hollywood. You don't find it just a tad suspicious that no one accused RB of these crimes then? I've always been a feminist, but the timing, the coordinated media origins and manner in which the accusations are being played out on social media should give any thinking person pause. Slapping a guilty charge on someone and denying their right to defend himself before a criminal charge is even launched IS the crime. God help you if you think this is ok because one day it might be you who stands before the world as the accused!
I suspect that this truth-insistant attitude of yours is part of why you avoided contracting the brainworms that have infected so many of the "anti-woke".
Toward the end of your commentary, you headed towards more pertinent territory: who cares? We can all sail through life better without the words “Russel” and “Brand” being combined for any purpose whatsoever. He is a male celebrity impersonator, who seems to live off the smell of drying ink on tabloids. He is a kind of anti-wisdom, an entropic sink of endless nothing.
“I would be inclined to be more openly critical of his views if it were not for the fact that I find his voice and persona too irritating and his reasoning too poor to spend any time listening to him.”
Somewhat unrelated to your post’s main point, but I find Jordan Peterson in this category. He is often cited by many gender-critical people, and he has had some interesting things to say at various points, but in general it seems he just loves to hear himself speak (his interviewing style is abysmally self-centered), he makes offhand and poorly constructed comments/arguments about major topics (i.e. when he said as an aside in his convo with Michael Schellenberger “I don’t believe lesbians exist,”), and is just generally a prick in most of his interactions. I can never really understand why he has so much credibility in the intellectual debate space.
It seems to me with politically and socially-charged stories like this (seems to happen frequently these days) the stakes are much higher for the liars and disinformationists, for them the appearance of legitimacy is everything, since they don't have the truth on their side. Everything that affects that appearance is seen as threat to a whole movement and everyone who supports it. Unfortunately for the public discourse, the truth with allegations like these may never be settled. For my money the loudest protests are for those trying to maintain their legitimacy, not get to the truth.
Helen,
After a lifetime of direct experience with my society getting it 100% wrong (wmd, covid, russiagate, and more specifically the metoo era witch hunts) i am very skeptical of Russell Brand as a sexual predator.
I will be happy to take a look at whatever evidence is made available, but there are myriad reasons to be skeptical and almost zero to trust.
I would imagine from the tone of your writing that you would consider this outlook a problem.
I like Russ Brand and will stop liking him if I'm convinced he is a legitimate predator, but the level of evidence needed to convince me has grown to such a level that (barring video / audio) would have to be "beyond a reasonable doubt"
It's almost like someone, somewhere, had the radical idea of "innocent until proven guilty" as a standard of justice where the accusers are inherently at a disadvantage as they need to prove the claims as opposed to the mob mentality you *seem* to be tacitly endorsing...
Love your writing,
Kurl
Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I mean by that, until the appeal process is exhausted.
I appreciate your reminder to tread with caution and preserve an open mind. I have followed RB for the better part of the last two years. He'd have to be one hell of an actor to be faking the level of compassion, fairness, and commons sense reasoning he presents in his nightly broadcasts. While I have no idea what he does in his private life or the details of his admitted years of poor judgement, he has been candied about his misgivings. But the most telling reasons to believe Russell do not come from Russell himself. No one who is alive and breathing can refute the coordinated censorship campaigns between government and media currently running rough shot over democracies world wide with major voices of opposition being attacked in the most grievous ways. Russell like other successful podcasters are a threat to the mainstream because they are on the way out. It's so obvious it's laughable. But regardless of my opinion, our laws are built upon the premise of innocent until proven guilty. Somehow this crucial aspect of justice has been the victim of our Orwellian culture. Now the public assumes guilt by accusation, and twistedly puts the burden of proof on the accused.
I’m not going to say alleged. Nope, not gonna give the benefit of the doubt.
One accusation is bad,
more than one is a pattern…
More than one PLUS decades of whispered hints and advice passed from one woman to another… that’s a god damned home f-ing Run. Hope he goes to and rots in Prison.
First of all, we have a little thing here in the US of A called presumption of innocence. That's a foundational principal in our justice system. Second, allegations are simple that, allegations. To date he has not been charged with a crime. Third, name one alleged case where there has been a coordinated media effort in multiple countries (not just England where RB lives) to censor and forbid the accused from earning any money (especially for one's defense)? I'll wait. Fourth, the media was engaged in a year+ long hunt to find anyone who would go forward with a claim. They never brought independent charges to a court for a decade before NOW. Speaking of now, RB becoming a major oppositional figure in the counter movement to the authoritarian controls sweeping our globe. He has become a target and how convenient to accuse someone of something incredible hard to defend against. A decade ago, we were at the height of the #metoo movement, a movement so successful it brought down the likes of Harvey Weinstein, the most powerful man in Hollywood. You don't find it just a tad suspicious that no one accused RB of these crimes then? I've always been a feminist, but the timing, the coordinated media origins and manner in which the accusations are being played out on social media should give any thinking person pause. Slapping a guilty charge on someone and denying their right to defend himself before a criminal charge is even launched IS the crime. God help you if you think this is ok because one day it might be you who stands before the world as the accused!
I am not one for conspiracies but this does have an air of the manufactured.
I await evidence
I am thankful for this reminder to not pass judgment or solidify an opinion until all of the evidences in.
*evidence is in.
I suspect that this truth-insistant attitude of yours is part of why you avoided contracting the brainworms that have infected so many of the "anti-woke".
No surprise when I heard. There had been mumblings around the comedy circuit for years. 🤷🏽♀️
Toward the end of your commentary, you headed towards more pertinent territory: who cares? We can all sail through life better without the words “Russel” and “Brand” being combined for any purpose whatsoever. He is a male celebrity impersonator, who seems to live off the smell of drying ink on tabloids. He is a kind of anti-wisdom, an entropic sink of endless nothing.
This is also a valid position to. take! I absolutely defend your right not to read anything about Russell Brand
“I would be inclined to be more openly critical of his views if it were not for the fact that I find his voice and persona too irritating and his reasoning too poor to spend any time listening to him.”
Somewhat unrelated to your post’s main point, but I find Jordan Peterson in this category. He is often cited by many gender-critical people, and he has had some interesting things to say at various points, but in general it seems he just loves to hear himself speak (his interviewing style is abysmally self-centered), he makes offhand and poorly constructed comments/arguments about major topics (i.e. when he said as an aside in his convo with Michael Schellenberger “I don’t believe lesbians exist,”), and is just generally a prick in most of his interactions. I can never really understand why he has so much credibility in the intellectual debate space.
Would love to hear yours/other’s thoughts on JP.
I like this very much. Minor point spell judgment without the e (just trying to help
:) I'm British.
The one time I happened upon him, my scumbag-radar, which rarely does me wrong, was alerted #justsaying
Great, good for you, the men are always allowed their presumption of innocence, why don’t the women get presumption of truth?
It's not 'MEN' who are allowed the presumption of innocence, it's ALL those who are accused.
In case of interest, Mary Harrington (UnHerd) comes at this from an interesting angle: https://unherd.com/thepost/could-russell-brands-defenders-and-accusers-both-be-right/
It seems to me with politically and socially-charged stories like this (seems to happen frequently these days) the stakes are much higher for the liars and disinformationists, for them the appearance of legitimacy is everything, since they don't have the truth on their side. Everything that affects that appearance is seen as threat to a whole movement and everyone who supports it. Unfortunately for the public discourse, the truth with allegations like these may never be settled. For my money the loudest protests are for those trying to maintain their legitimacy, not get to the truth.