Another one bites the dust?
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Stirlingsays Online  18 Sep 23 11.54pm |
   |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
You’re just over inflating his importance. He’s also only on your radar because of his recent pivot into right wing land. He’s always held the same political opinions and been far more visible to the general electorate (the ones that actually matter) than he is now. He has indeed been a public figure for decades and I can assure you that his reach was far wider at his peak then than it is now. Plenty of examples of prominent anti-establishment figures being taken down, or out even. I’m not naive to the obvious fact that shady s*** happens on the regular. However, he’s not prominent, he’s nowhere near the reach or relevance of Lennon, and I really dislike the narrative which is simply - ‘it must be the elites. No way any of this is credible’. It’s a very partisan position If he’d actually channeled all his looney addiction and general silliness over his career into doing more with the fleeting glimpses of what actually was on a lot of occasions valid and often well articulated political critique then we might be having a different conversation. But an Assange, a Lennon, a Snowden he most certainly is not and never will be. Nowhere near it. Edited by SW19 CPFC (18 Sep 2023 11.38pm) Having watched his content I can assure you Brand is most definitely not right wing. Anti elite certainly....I like some of his opinions, like his focus on decentralisation as the better option... but I note that many on the left try to blanket everyone with the same labels (while complaining if anyone does the same to them). It's like a libertarian, you can be a right wing libertarian or a left wing one.....one is far less common today but they exist....An English Bill Maher type....A right wing one would be Peterson. If I had to 'label' Brand I'd probably call him that....a left wing libertarian. He's certainly not my guy...but I can respect him nevertheless. However, it's certainly true, that while not being the same thing that the right and libertarianism can agree on topics.....but that's no different to Labour agreeing with liberal democrats on their own sacred cows. Edited by Stirlingsays (18 Sep 2023 11.56pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 19 Sep 23 12.01am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Having watched his content I can assure you Brand is most definitely not right wing. Anti elite certainly....I like some of his opinions, like his focus on decentralisation as the better option... but I note that many on the left try to blanket everyone with the same labels (while complaining if anyone does the same to them). It's like a libertarian, you can be a right wing libertarian or a left wing one.....one is far less common today but they exist....An English Bill Maher type....A right wing one would be Peterson. If I had to 'label' Brand I'd probably call him that....a left wing libertarian. He's certainly not my guy...but I can respect him nevertheless. However, it's certainly true, that while not being the same thing that the right and libertarianism can agree on topics.....but that's no different to Labour agreeing with liberal democrats on their own sacred cows. Edited by Stirlingsays (18 Sep 2023 11.56pm) I never said he was right wing. He just appeals to that crowd these days and has adjusted his content accordingly to maximise monetisation. As I stated his political views have more or less stayed the same over time. So in that sense he’s been able to stay true to his political beliefs whilst adding other little flourishes to maximise returns. He’s not stupid.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays Online 19 Sep 23 12.21am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
I never said he was right wing. He just appeals to that crowd these days and has adjusted his content accordingly to maximise monetisation. As I stated his political views have more or less stayed the same over time. So in that sense he’s been able to stay true to his political beliefs whilst adding other little flourishes to maximise returns. He’s not stupid. Mmmm....one part of him has been. So you say that he's appealing to the right (without expressing actual right wing opinions) as a cynical ploy to make more money? In actual reality he makes libertarian arguments and appeals to anti elites. As you can see from many on the right on Hol....they aren't fans: It's a subset. Edited by Stirlingsays (19 Sep 2023 2.10am)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Matov 19 Sep 23 6.28am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Mmmm....one part of him has been. So you say that he's appealing to the right (without expressing actual right wing opinions) as a cynical ploy to make more money? In actual reality he makes libertarian arguments and appeals to anti elites. As you can see from many on the right on Hol....they aren't fans: It's a subset.
Plus he is a kook. And is a literal nobody in terms of formulating policy. He parrots many themes and adds his own style to it. Grifting? Definitely a part of it. But worthy of all this effort? This is what I still don't get about this entire charade. He is yesterday's man. Many people on the Right despised him when he was at the height of his 'fame' (myself included) and pay him almost no heed now. But others might. With this exposure probably driving traffic to his online presence rather than driving them away. It is almost as though the mainstream, yet again, fail to understand how little they matter. Brand was not worth the effort. And yet now, the most talked about man in the UK.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Matov 19 Sep 23 8.01am |
|
|---|---|
|
Right. Done and dusted with this charade. Only conclusion I can reach is this down to pure vindictiveness. That back in his murkey past Brand managed to piss off somebody within media circles who has now risen to prominence and with the ability to try and do Brands legs. He ain't influential enough for any kind of 'Deep State' takedown. And he is not mainstream enough to warrant any kind of rational explanation for this level of effort. Emotive claims, which given the numbers of people who had to be interviewed to even come up with those, do not make a 90-minute expose on prime Saturday night TV. Leaving the possibility that somebody within the Media world hates Brand with a passion and has made it their life goal to try and bring him down because he slighted them a long time ago. Very Shakespearean. And very human, despite how pathetic it actually is. A dark part of my soul actually rather admires the need for vengeance. Edited by Matov (19 Sep 2023 8.02am)
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 19 Sep 23 8.17am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
Right. Done and dusted with this charade. Only conclusion I can reach is this down to pure vindictiveness. That back in his murkey past Brand managed to piss off somebody within media circles who has now risen to prominence and with the ability to try and do Brands legs. He ain't influential enough for any kind of 'Deep State' takedown. And he is not mainstream enough to warrant any kind of rational explanation for this level of effort. Emotive claims, which given the numbers of people who had to be interviewed to even come up with those, do not make a 90-minute expose on prime Saturday night TV. Leaving the possibility that somebody within the Media world hates Brand with a passion and has made it their life goal to try and bring him down because he slighted them a long time ago. Very Shakespearean. And very human, despite how pathetic it actually is. A dark part of my soul actually rather admires the need for vengeance. Edited by Matov (19 Sep 2023 8.02am) That's a surprise I never would have realised that the entertainment and media world is full of jealousy envy and resentment
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 HKOwen  Hong Kong 19 Sep 23 8.30am |
|
|---|---|
|
IMHO Brand will say whatever he thinks will make him a pound.
Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 becky over the moon 19 Sep 23 8.36am |
|
|---|---|
|
Two things that bother me about the claims..... 1) how many ordinary people still have the same mobile phone 10 years on? 2) How many ordinary people save messages from 10 years ago?
A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
|
Teddy Eagle  19 Sep 23 8.37am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by HKOwen
IMHO Brand will say whatever he thinks will make him a pound. YouTube has suspended his account so he won't be earning anything from them.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 19 Sep 23 8.45am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by becky
Two things that bother me about the claims..... 1) how many ordinary people still have the same mobile phone 10 years on? 2) How many ordinary people save messages from 10 years ago? It does seem slightly unusual that more than one person would keep texts for ten years.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 19 Sep 23 8.53am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by becky
Two things that bother me about the claims..... 1) how many ordinary people still have the same mobile phone 10 years on? 2) How many ordinary people save messages from 10 years ago? A valid point.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 19 Sep 23 9.04am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
Right. Done and dusted with this charade. Only conclusion I can reach is this down to pure vindictiveness. That back in his murkey past Brand managed to piss off somebody within media circles who has now risen to prominence and with the ability to try and do Brands legs. He ain't influential enough for any kind of 'Deep State' takedown. And he is not mainstream enough to warrant any kind of rational explanation for this level of effort. Emotive claims, which given the numbers of people who had to be interviewed to even come up with those, do not make a 90-minute expose on prime Saturday night TV. Leaving the possibility that somebody within the Media world hates Brand with a passion and has made it their life goal to try and bring him down because he slighted them a long time ago. Very Shakespearean. And very human, despite how pathetic it actually is. A dark part of my soul actually rather admires the need for vengeance. Edited by Matov (19 Sep 2023 8.02am) That you might regard this as “done and dusted” is a personal choice but one that is very unlikely to be a reality. It seems it is only at the beginning. Brand may well be a political nonentity but he represents an attitude that most find offensive at best and now potentially criminal. Exposing this attitude will serve as a warning to others that no matter how much time elapses their behaviour can be called to account. That alone makes this worthwhile. If it restricts others from abusing the vulnerable then it serves a purpose. Savile was never prosecuted, for obvious reasons, but no one disputes his crimes or excuses them. Brand may not be prosecuted because of a lack of admissible evidence, although there does seem some that could be. Does he deserve a free pass if he isn’t prosecuted? Will anyone doubt his behaviour was criminal? If Savile is universally now regarded as a sexual predator why would Brand not be? I know Savile abused children but Brand has been recorded as trying to assist him in that. If Savile matters then so does Brand. Especially as he is still here, pontificating, spreading misinformation and monetising prejudice. Those who abuse their power for sexual gratification, or in any other way, need to have their behaviour exposed. That applies to every walk of life, not just entertainment. In an ideal situation it needs to be done in a Court but sometimes the legal system is either inadequate or needs help. This seems such a case.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.