Russell Brand

[Just Iron]

No need for that last little dig, Heath. I thought the rest of your post was perfectly sound.

On the ‘types’ who have may somehow ‘defended’ Brand I would just point out that they differ massively in their views and backgrounds. To lump Peterson with Galloway or Musk with Tate I find revealing and disturbing. I guess what apparently unites them is the perception that they are all that Sidey detests… untrustworthy, conspiracy theorists, blindly partisan etc I’ve no axe to grind for any of them .well, maybe Peterson .. and have always disliked Galloway .. but I do still maintain that referencing these individuals as a gang of ‘types’ shows that the political aspect of the Brand case can’t be discounted.

[Heath]

“To lump Peterson with Galloway or Musk with Tate I find revealing and disturbing.”

And Brand, and Johnson, and Trump, and Caligula. There is a lump!

Would you accept the lump of self-serving, exploiting alpha males?

[Just Iron]

Of course those 4 could be categorised in that way. What’s the relevance of this to previous posts?

[Heath]

Could possibly add a few football club owners to that list.

The common lump is out of control, powerful men – most with an over inflated ego and not limited by their inabilities. History is littered with them, and I predict the future will be too.

For the sake of balance, some women could also be added to the list, though more alpha males have sexual explotation added to their “character “.

[Siderite]

Just Iron wrote:

No need for that last little dig, Heath. I thought the rest of your post was perfectly sound.

On the ‘types’ who have may somehow ‘defended’ Brand I would just point out that they differ massively in their views and backgrounds. To lump Peterson with Galloway or Musk with Tate I find revealing and disturbing. I guess what apparently unites them is the perception that they are all that Sidey detests… untrustworthy, conspiracy theorists, blindly partisan etc I’ve no axe to grind for any of them .well, maybe Peterson .. and have always disliked Galloway .. but I do still maintain that referencing these individuals as a gang of ‘types’ shows that the political aspect of the Brand case can’t be discounted.

I don’t mean they’re one of the same politically, and I specifically said that some are less extreme than others, but all are united by a conspiracist mindset. At least now. I don’t think Peterson is a bad person in the way Tate is by the way, so I don’t mean it to say there are no differences.

I will say that when Jordan Peterson first burst into the mainstream I thought a lot of the criticism of him as an unreasoned crank was very unfair from the left. His interview on Channel 4 came across badly, from Channel 4’s end. However, I feel that in recent years, probably because of ill mental health, he has deteriorated into the caricature of what the left portrayed him as. Mostly, I feel sorry for him and think he needs to take a breather and seek some therapy, good therapy that challenges his mindset (not over politics, but over how he frames things), because he’s now posting tweets in weird haiku formats and making nothing but weird rambles, seemingly.

I don’t mean that they are all bad people, but they are all people who have judgement I find skewed and detached from reality or apologetic to such.

[Siderite]

I will also add by conspiracist, I don’t mean stark raving mad conspiracy theorist as such (though some, like Oliver and Brand seemingly are). I mean those who reactively doubt something because it’s a more ‘mainstream’ position without much actual scepticism, in my opinion.

[Heath]

Hopefully my follow up post clears up the “relevance to the discussion”.

[Deereyme66]

Pertinent I thought…

“It’s called populism. Whether it’s Russell Brand or Liz Truss… this idea there is conspiracy everywhere is really dangerous.”

Listen on @GlobalPlayerhttps://t.co/SdyBDl7qyY@maitlis | @lewis_goodall pic.twitter.com/5AqRpN25YM

— The News Agents (@TheNewsAgents) September 19, 2023

[Just Iron]

I seem to be a bit of a lone voice on this one though there have been some points of agreement and also some evidences of a bit less polarisation for which I’m grateful. A couple of further comments.
I don’t see the same evidence in Peterson of mental disturbance as you do, Sidey. Maybe I’m just not paying attention ..but I do listen to a fair amount of his stuff. Its also possible that you are coloured by your dislike of some of the positions he takes. I would urge caution on any referring back to those well documented mental/addiction battles. Some of us have also been there and just might have emerged more sane than Joe average.
Another concern is this use of ‘Conspiracist’which I see as a bit of a catch all disqualifier for anyone challenging the ‘progressive’ agenda. The word ‘populist’is used in the same way. If anyone challenges the view, for example, that society is characterised by the fact that men are somehow inherently toxic and women generally victimised by this pathology then the labelling kicks in. The same with any challenge to the notion that not only must LGBTQ plus representation be tolerated but also promoted or even celebrated as evidence of decency. Likewise with anyone suggesting that it’s not clear to what extent the climate is changing in terms of speed, extent and potential catastrophe nor whether alleviation measures may not actually cause more suffering and even death than those proposed measures. These are just a few examples of how a narrative is being promoted ..from what is now a progressive establishment .. which seems to brook little challenge and seems to carry the approval and cooperation of the press, other media and other institutions in a whole swathe of countries. Whilst I agree that some go too far in ‘seeing’this as an issue I believe that the rise of alternative outlets for news and discussion is necessary and healthy. Many of the voices which are dismissed as conspiracists do, I believe, provide an essential balance to progressive establishment power.
One more point ..and a major one more directly related to the Brand case ..but I’ll post this first because I don’t want to lose it!

[Just Iron]

Deereyme66 wrote:

Really can’t be bothered to go in to great detail to justify why I class them as’types’ JI. Suffice to say they all share similar conspiracy theorist supporting, pseudo free speech warrior, narcissistic, right wing traits in what the say and write. I’m done with this subject btw. Hope the victims go to the police and he gets what he deserves and they get some justice

I’ve said plenty above which relates to the wider context of those dissenting voices who challenge and interrogate the Progressive Establishment . Directly to the Brand issue I am absolutely appalled as well as chilled by that concluding sentence Deerey. I won’t labour previous points about the security for us all in long established and slowly evolved institutions adhering to principles of due process and presumption of innocence. The fact that no one else on the forum has expressed any degree of distate for the implications of that statement doesn’t help me to steer away from the dissenting voices whish are emerging as long established institutional freedoms are eroded.

[Siderite]

I am no psychiatrist, so my opinion is just that and not one backed by expertise. The clips I see of him today are far different from several years ago. They’re less lucid and filled with more odd ramblings, strange diversions and at times odd outbursts of emotion. I don’t mean it to be mean, but I find it odd and worry he might be unhealthy.

I clarified what I meant by conspiracist and you have twisted it beyond all proportion. I mean it’s those who see themselves as never wrong, when there is an accusation against them it’s because of ‘the establishment’ out to get them. Any disagreement is disingenuous behaviour from the metropolitan liberal elite/progressive agenda. Not because they disagree with them; any opinion against such people is inherently bad faith. from Ironically, many of the same people were fine when people like Owen Jones and Aaron Bastani get called out for their own, similar conspiracist thought where everyone against them was an establishment figure out to do them down.

As for progressiveness, there is much to that I disdain and find it too embroiled in identity politics. That said, the other side is just as bad. There is nothing wrong with celebrating gay people, for example, just because it hurts the feelings of conservatives, the religious or makes them feel disgust. I couldn’t, frankly, give a stuff about such whining about their hurt feelings or disgust because society now acknowledges gay people. It’s not appalling that society tolerates gay people or trans people and doesn’t make them out to be anything but decent because of something which isn’t something that can be controlled. I don’t think of trans rights in the same way as many current trans rights activists do, I know, but don’t want to make out that being trans inherently makes someone trans a freak. Does some of the progressive nonsense go too far? Yes, I am no fan of seeing the kink people in pride in front of kids, nor the trans issues being simplified to make out anyone who thinks women should have their own spaces is some kind of bigot. However, the other side just want gay people to go back into hiding, from what it seems, and act as thin skinned about it as the ‘snowflake progressive’ counterparts. Similarly with women’s rights. Male violence towards women is a thing, and should be dealt with. That’s more important than men moaning that it hurts their feelings. It doesn’t mean all men are aggressive or violent.

[Siderite]

I realise a lot of that might come across as strong, but I don’t think it is wrong of me to make a stand here. My position is always to respect the believer, but that does not mean I have to respect the belief (it doesn’t matter the political stripe).

Things like homophobia and climate change minimisation, when it goes against evidence, does not need to be treated with some sort of respect as a position worthy of respect. Much of the latter isn’t reported in the media, because it’s frankly wrong. It doesn’t mean I won’t disrespect you or others as a person, but I withhold my right to think leftist, centrist or rightist ideas are wrong if they don’t fit with what I understand. I recognise others will say my views are wrong too, but they in turn have to respect the reciprocal.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Just Iron

[Just Iron]

A sensible ‘take’ I think.
The Spectator Brendan O’Neill You Tube is wrong to rush to judgment on Russel Brand

[Author]

Posts