Russell Brand.

C Kent said:
You've perfectly illustrated how things have changed since the advent of social media though, now you can have a bunch of crazies living in Timbuktu make a random comment, which is in turn amplified by other crazies and before long you got a bunch of nutters amplified all looking for their dopamine hit.
Click to expand...

Well no not really. If it was notable then it would be picked up by other papers etc.
For sure more people in general will see stuff but thats really down to the enablement of WWW and real time communications between countries.

Its just the evolution of faster and faster thats happened over the last coupe of hundred years, starting with telegrams etc.
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Well no not really. If it was notable then it would be picked up by other papers etc.
For sure more people in general will see stuff but thats really down to the enablement of WWW and real time communications between countries.

Its just the evolution of faster and faster thats happened over the last coupe of hundred years, starting with telegrams etc.
Click to expand...
Do you honestly believe society (average person/mass media etc) hasn't changed with the advent of social media?
 
C Kent said:
Do you honestly believe society (average person/mass media etc) hasn't changed with the advent of social media?
Click to expand...

Yes I think the change has been in regards access speed and availability.
People have always been interested in whats going on, rumours that sort of thing.

Most peoples access to information was TV, newspapers (small local, regional, national) and rumours down the pub
pre TV it was just the second two.
 
Social media has probably increased the relative voice that women have on such debates - a great leveler - equality

Has Russell been de-banked yet - was listening to an article on de-banking of gun-club member on r4 this am
 
Hedge said:
You'll get branded a conspiracy nut now for saying that.

People have lost a desire to question anything.

Companies buy out threatening smaller businesses and dissolve them etc. It's not surprising to think powerful firms might control narratives for their interests.

"investigative journalists" need an operating budget. An editor will decide what they are allowed to investigate. They are sent out like attack dogs. Don't pretend they have any public interests in mind.
Click to expand...

Happy to be branded whatever by people if it makes them feel better. I just don't trust much that I read nowadays on non controlled sources. However, it's not as if the BBC and the Press (although laws are there to prevent misinformation/libel/slander) are free from pushing a rhetoric incorrectly.

The only social media I use is LinkedIn and this forum I guess is it's considered social media. The rest of the time, I tend to bounce ideas, thoughts and articles I've read to a wide range of people (work colleagues, strangers, friends, family etc...) and I do get a spectrum of replies / thoughts / opinions back.

I don't believe the press has any public interest in mind - they're after money and fame. Altruism for truth and balanced arguments doesn't seem to exist from what I can see. This is why people are so aggressive these days if you're not part of their way of thinking. Very partisan lives many people live these days.

Zefan said:
Pretty sure this is disinformation/misinformation/****information. Forwarded to BBC Verify.
Click to expand...

Come at me bro! :D
 
hurfdurf said:
No one at this stage is saying RB should be in prison, nor are they calling for him to be beaten up.

Your comparison of the two is disingenuous to the point where one must question your motives.
Click to expand...
Yes they are calling him guilty by assuming the allegations are true.

The foundation of the cases against Brand and Tate are similar, yet you're not believing the women with Tate but are with Brand.

You have an inconsistent position.
 
jigger said:
That’s a dangerous opinion, in my opinion. People shouldn’t have opinions?
Click to expand...
i'm mostly just poking a bit of fun at the idea that you're innocent until proven guilty - perhaps legally but it doesn't mean your career might not be over, for example.

p.s. this is not a suggestion that Brand is innocent of anything btw.
 
One More Solo said:
Cost needs to be balanced against undermining public trust, which paying out definitely does.
Click to expand...

If the actual complainants who wanted money got the money they wanted the complaint is done.

What are you suggesting, that the complainants should be forced to perform in a public circus against their will?

Being paid off requires both sides to want that outcome. The public is neither of them.
 
B@Th*nG said:
i'm mostly just poking a bit of fun at the idea that you're innocent until proven guilty - perhaps legally but it doesn't mean your career might not be over, for example.

p.s. this is not a suggestion that Brand is innocent of anything btw.
Click to expand...

I’m pretty sure even former convicts find work after prison.
 
Woop woop, good morning incel crew!

Sort your young boys out:

Many teenage girls say they experience sexual harassment in their day-to-day lives and do not feel safe on the street alone.

The above article that I happened to read through before coming here this morning made we think about the influence Brand had on me and my peers when I was late teens/early twenties.

I couldn't stand him and his div mate Noel. Didn't see the big deal that some of my peers saw. When I was out and about though, you'd see guys like part goth, part Jack Sparrow, part Brand/Fielding-esque image. If they were aspiring to 'look' like them, I wonder what his behaviour was insipring them to do. Similar now to Tate and his direct messaging, this is a problematic message that cuts through to young boys.

My point, if I even have one, is: Where are the realistic role models for young boys and men to provide inspiration and a way of being to aspire to? There's a lot of influence out there, and many tools in order to do it, but who exactly are providing the good lessons these kids need to learn, to not do the things that make the teenage girls (and boys) in that BBC poll feel that way about there lives and personal safety?

It doesn't bode well for the next generation, and what revelations will be uncovered over the next 20 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom