Forum menu
Here hate likes are anonymous.
But it's literally a thing you've made up, so how can that be a valid assessment of what other people are doing?
And used to bully.
the second missing part of that sentence is "...I've decided, with no real evidence at all to back up what I think."
Man, some folks overthink shit waaaay too much.
I think the insidious thing with Brand while he may often have initially got consent he then takes it as permission to do whatever he wants in future, that pattern came across from the documentary. The initial consent has lead to some victim blaming but abuse is abuse.
Here hate likes are anonymous. And used to bully.
How about we get back to the subject rather than using it to air grievances about perceived slights?
One really couldn’t argue that. I think you’re demeaning and/or misunderstanding the whole sexual harrassment/misuse of power/abuse culture by saying that type of “seduction” is on the same level tbh.
I'm not misunderstanding anything. Rather I was trying to give bear the benefit of the doubt.
Here hate likes are anonymous.
What are you talking about? You're arguing against something you've literally just made up.
Are you OK? This isn't like you.
I remember back In my twneties my mate and I met a couple of lasses in a bar. When the first one asked what my mate did and he told her (a scientist) she seemed distinctly uninterested
so when the other asked what I did, I told them I played for Aston Villa..no idea why exactly, slipped off the tongue..what astounded me was she actually believed it..
obviously the lie fell apart somewhat when she invited herself back with me, only to find I lived in a 1 bedroom flat in slateford. That said she still put out. Her reason being as she’d come all this way she may as well get some action..
I don’t think either of us covered ourselves in glory that evening😂
I've never heard it called "glory" before.
@bunnyhop agree, and I think ties in with @edukator "dissatisfied customer" statement as I understand it, that whilst they may have gone willingly with a notion in their head once there reality disabused them of that notion and left them in a situation they either didn't or felt they had no control of that they didn't consent to.
See also withdrawing consent.
I think the insidious thing with Brand while he may often have initially got consent he then takes it as permission to do whatever he wants in future, that pattern came across from the documentary. The initial consent has lead to some victim blaming but abuse is abuse.
Rape within a marriage only became a crime after a case in the 90's IIRC. Before that it was taken that entering into marriage meant a woman had given ongoing consent. Some people still seem to be living in a world that predates that where they believe that if you have consented in the past then that same person can't rape you while you remain in a relationship. I don't know the figures but it wouldn't surprise me if the majority of rapes do occur within relationships.
If his accusers are telling the truth then he is guilty of rape and sexual assault. That is a simple matter of fact. What is variable and difficult is how we feel morally about it and it as this tread seems to show. I don't think anyone condones what he's been accused of but there does seem a variation in how it makes people feel.
(I would be perfectly happy to pay for a digital subscription but for some reason I am not aware off I was gifted a lifetime subscription years ago)
Thank you for declaring your interests which give a context to your view. 🙂
The subject? I see it as a symptom of societal ills. Gagging orders. Media companies building up dodgy stars then shooting them down for doing what they built them up to do. The cost and availability of justice. The attitudes of the police towards citizens. The impunity of people in positions of power because of the way the institutions work starting right at the top with the royal family, the prime minister and ministers. You might think that something would have been learned from the succession of scandals we're treated to, it hasn't. When you look at the royals, parliament, the media moguls, the film directors, the stars... it strikes me that as a society we've made some lousy choices - we've got into bed with the likes of Brand on so many levels, abused by our chosen abusers.
Look at the film threads on here, objectively the more outrageous preposterous and implausible the film the more people view, the deeper in the gutter the press paper is the more buy it, the more populist bollocks a politician spouts the better their chances of victory, the royals - nuff said (the number of roylaists on STW is surprising and not surprising at the same time). We as a society enable all this with our clicks, views and votes.
Brand has sure pissed some people off and possibly broken some laws but is himself a victim of those who've been successful on the back of his bad behaviour and encouraged it. He was walking a greasy tightrope and far from trying to call him down every wobble and slip was cheered. He needed protecting from himself because that was the best way of protecting everyone else when he eventually inevitably fell into the crowd.
As for the Sean Paul vid linked it's a case of one unpleasant high profile bigmouth slagging off another high profile big mouth with some thickly veiled accusations burried in the hate and bile that's not going to be taken very seriuosly and wasn't at the time.
Hindsight is wonderful.
I hope nobody runs a programme about those of us not in the spotlight and what we’ve done or said to get laid in the past.
I have made some questionable decisions around women I chose to have relationships with - but I have never behaved badly or said anything or reprehensible to get a woman into bed.
On Facebook you have a choice of like symbols and if you hover over them you see who has liked. Here hate likes are anonymous. And used to bully.
Don’t most people use it as an appreciation of a post that they particularly like. I agree with posts that I appreciate - not as a mark of approval of a person. I only know a handful of people on here as a person - which I don’t think is unusual - so why I would use the ‘like function’ to express my affection or hate of a person is really unclear.
Sean Paul? Did you mean Sean Locke?
I think Brand might be many a thing but painting him as a victim in this just enables him and his ilk. Its the same speil given by many of the bad guys in the films you so despise (poor me, don't hate me, society made me this way).
I’ve never heard it called “glory” before
Probably best not to start googling it
I was refering to the Louis Theroux investigative journalism quoted on here a few days back, politecameraaction, again hindsight is wonderful.
I've been observing the use of likes since they appeared, jamj1974 and it isn't all positive appreciation. If you are careful to use it positvely and avoid liking posts slagging off members that's good.
The colours thing displays a hierarchy and the rosette like thing gives privileges to the higher echelons of that hierarchy, it's all very Twitter blue bird. Divide to better reign except it didn't help Twitter. I think it's counter productive but I'm not running STW. There's always been the paying members slagging off the freeloaders (a tag once upon a time IIRC). It creates divisions and clans and petty conflict. IMO it makes people less likely to pay now, some have us have become entrenched wearing our freeloader badges with pride even if sometimes we might be interested enough in an article to pay 99p in the same way as I'll buy a newspaper if an article jumps off the page as I walk past the news stand.
Another them and us divide is between the editorial staff and us lot. The writers rarely engage on either comments or in the forum. This is quite irritating if the editorial content is controversial or provocative, and some members do fawn over the staff, more likely with some rosette colours than others 😉
Whatever you think of Brand just have a look at the dynamics of the thread, proper school playground stuff, never mind who started it or who's right or wrong, get stuck in and lash out.
But I'm still here, more or less tolerated for the moment. 🙂 Must be nuts 🙁
Edit:
Sean Paul? Did you mean Sean Locke?
I did, the vid is somewhere up the thread.
I'm suggesting Brand is a victim of the media circus that made him famous and gave him privilege rather than a victim of the 16 year old. I see him as a perpetrator of some things and victim of others - the two are not mutually exclusive.
what in the world is a “hate-like”?
It's like a like-like, in that it is a like, but a bit more hateful. Does that help?
I think the point is that, if on a comment that could be controversial it is an anonymous way of expressing an opinion. Albeit so vaguely that it is barely worth the bother.
I presume it is similar to the angry face emoji that is invariably on the RNLI stuff I see on FB. I just choose to interpret these as anger that the RNLI has to go around with a begging basket to fund its good work. Drill through, though, and you invariably find the angry party has a union flag as part if their profile pic, posted more stuff around the various royal deaths and coronations than they had in the previous years, can't spell and think Brexit is brilliant. 🤷♂️
I disapprove even though it’s legal. Perhaps you should be aiming at her mother rather than me.
So again you're blaming someone else other than Brand?
I definitely tolerate you Edukator - and don't think you are nuts. I also don’t really think of people as freeloaders or a lower category of consumers. I would rather that people do pay - as supporting a small business to produce content I appreciate, I feel is positive.
I would too like more contribution to the forum from the editorial staff, but they do run the risk of being perceived as overbearing. It’s a hard line for those people to walk. I think of some of the posts from members on the CRC sponsorship and the Isuzu article. A lot of them were not positive.
The colours thing displays a hierarchy and the rosette like thing gives privileges to the higher echelons of that hierarchy,
Crikey. Is there a risk that, perhaps, you might be over thinking things a bit?
gives privileges to the higher echelons of that hierarchy,
Not long after they were introduced, I forgot all about them, I'm a fully paid up subscriber and I've just noticed got a freeloader rosette, I can't honestly remember the last time I paid any attention to them, and it doesn't change the way I interact with anybody on the forum, and I don't know what the privileges are, other than knowing we're helping to support the website, I guess.
The writers rarely engage on either comments or in the forum.
They, y'know, might be busy doing work...You never know, eh?.
I’m suggesting Brand is a victim of the media circus that made him famous and gave him privilege rather than a victim of the 16 year old. I see him as a perpetrator of some things and victim of others – the two are not mutually exclusive.
Yeah I know what you were saying and I disagree. The media circus only enabled him, nobody forced him to do the things he did. He is not a victim.
On the same scale you have Ian Watkins, his fame didn't turn him into what he was, it was just an enabler for him to carry out his crimes. The severity may be different but they still used their power to do something they would have done regardless of whether they were still on the pub circuit or selling out venues.
Gone a bit inception on this thread .
I’ve been observing the use of likes since they appeared, jamj1974 and it isn’t all positive appreciation.
There is no way you could possibly know that. An anonymous person pressed a button, for all you know they sneezed. I've hit it by accident more than once (you can press it again to cancel it).
In any case: it's a Like button. "Where's that 'like' button?" has been a running gag on STW for as long as I can remember. It lights up gold (or green if it's your own press) for goodness' sake. Do you seriously believe that there are people out there thinking "I hate this post, best hit the Like button to express my displeasure"? That's crazy.
I hate to break it to you but if someone makes an unpleasant post and it gets a Like, it's because someone else equally unpleasant liked it.
The writers rarely engage on either comments or in the forum.
I cannot possibly imagine why.
“I hate this post, best hit the Like button to express my displeasure”? That’s crazy.
I think it's more the liking of a post that is casting dispersion on another poster.
I liked your post therefore I am
Can we get back on topic please.
Maybe start a “hate-like, freeloader, look at my rosette which is exactly the same as everyone else’s. Thread.”|
You say I 'm blaming, another question to put words into my mouth. Perhaps some of the poeple on STW who have daughters would like to comment on the attitude of the mother. I have a son and was quite happy to incure his wrath and confront people I disapproved of on a dark night in the street when outnumbered.
The attitude of the mother was a part of the circumstances. I can disagree with her attitude without blaming her. I don't blame the parents when young kids are killed (by car drivers) on the scooters bought for them by their parents - I blame the car drivers. But I question the judgement of parents letting their inexperienced kids out in traffic with next to no training. Parents have responsibilies and duties towards their children, we don't all agree how far we should go in exercising that authority.
Yes I'm blaming people other than Brand, I'm blaming those who put him up on a stage to brag about his sexual exploits and joke about rape, then screening it rather than binning it and firing him.
Now we're back on topic: I think they should cut his hands off! /s Edit: Brand that is, not other posters 🙂
Hmmm, probably should wait till he’s proven guilty of something first.
I’m not sure I like the whole demonetization and removal of stuff he’s been in before he’s even stepped foot in a court.
You say I ‘m blaming, another question to put words into my mouth.
Wait what? No I'd didnt. I'm just saying he has no claim on victimhood.
Perhaps some of the poeple on STW who have daughters would like to comment on the attitude of the mother.
I have no idea who you're talking about, the 16 year old? You can only do your best and hope that you've done enough to prepare them for reality. And even then it can all be for nothing.
Yes I’m blaming people other than Brand, I’m blaming those who put him up on a stage to brag about his sexual exploits and joke about rape, then screening it rather than binning it and firing him.
Absolutely, that is another problem that lets people think what they are doing is okay. But again, I don't think there was a mild mannered boy called Russel who was tempted and coerced into that behaviour.
Hmmm, probably should wait till he’s proven guilty of something first.
We need that to deprive him of his liberty. We can form opinions about him based on what's in the public domain.
Yeah I know what you were saying and I disagree. The media circus only enabled him, nobody forced him to do the things he did. He is not a victim.
RB is playing the media circus, he is not "just" a victim of it, but using it through his own media to sow his own narrative.
Started by preemptively publishing a video before the story actually broke (iirc?)
Brand is a complete shit. Surely that was as obvious to everyone else as it is to me?
Yes he had enablers in the media - but that does not excuse him. He is not a victim for being a rapey shit. He is a rapey shit. Its very easy not to be a rapey shit. don't treat women badly
The only men I know who have any time for Brand, Tate and Pederson have one thing in common. a complete inability to form lasting relationships withthe other sex. I also know a couple of young men 19/20 who follow Tate. They then complain they never meet any interesting women. well thats not a surprise is it? any woman will pick up the signals and run a mile
What are you talking about? You’re arguing against something you’ve literally just made up.
Are you OK? This isn’t like you.
It does make sense, just badly named hate likes, he's on about the more victim blame replies being liked, to be fair this thread is full of mixed up stuff, i've done it myself and it's led to weird responses and more off tangent stuff, i need to think a bit more before responding some times as ambiguity isn't so bad on a SRAM vs Shimano thread, but on this type of one, maybe a little worst!
As for the Brand allegations and stories, i do see it kicking off with the right wing media in full swing, backers coming out and a lot of stories centring around the storyteller rather than the actual issue, hopefully the police/CPS are making good headway, one way or the other.
The attitude of the mother was a part of the circumstances. I can disagree with her attitude without blaming her.
Perhaps I am missing something (I read the Times article but didn't see Dispatches as I am in Finland) but didn't the mother firstly express her concern then confront Brand on his doorstep, and his response was to try and kiss her? Can't see what else she could do under the circumstances. Let's focus on the person most responsible for Brand's behaviour, which is Brand.
the only person responsible for his behaviour.
Ah, well if it cheers you up i put likes on a couple of posts to try and work out if there was more than one option, not sure which posts but they got likes now 🤣
Pretty sure if you click the like button again it removes your like.
The impunity of people in positions of power because of the way the institutions work starting right at the top with the royal family, the prime minister and ministers.
The current PM has been fined twice by police, and is shortly to be kicked out of office. The previous one was kicked out for being useless. The one before that was fined by police. His home secretary was fined. That's not impunity - that's accountability. I can't stand the Tories.
It's a bizarre (maybe even baroque) kind of logic that says Rishi Sunak is too powerful so sexual assault complainants should be treated as "unhappy customers" and their mothers should be blamed instead of assailants. As the kids say: touch grass.
a complete inability to form lasting relationships withthe other sex.
TBF to Peterson he's been married (and had just the one marriage) since 1989. But yeah, I agree with you about Tate, Brand et al. The 'excuse' of "oh, I'm just as damaged by the media system" is shitty and lame, there's no need to be a rapey ****bag, and that decision is pretty easy to make, they just don't wanna
I’m not sure I like the whole demonetization and removal of stuff he’s been in before he’s even stepped foot in a court.
The fact that YouTube has decided to demonetise his videos has nothing to do with whether or not he goes to court. They provide a service and are within their rights to withdraw it. You may disagree, believe it's an overreaction, and that private companies shouldn't have so much sway over an individual, but the fact remains that he doesn't have to be found guilty for them to take action.
I also know a couple of young men 19/20 who follow Tate. They then complain they never meet any interesting women. well thats not a surprise is it? any woman will pick up the signals and run a mile
AKA "Incels"
so sexual assault complainants should be treated as “unhappy customers”
To be fair to Edukator, I read that as a tongue-in-cheek comment(*) rather than intending to be demeaning or victim-blaming. Could be wrong of course.
(* - not least because it's the sort of stupid shit I'd write)
Its very easy not to be a rapey shit. don’t treat women badly
I'm reminded of the adage that it's easy to give up smoking: You know that thing where you take a cigarette and put it in your mouth? Stop doing that.
It's easy to not be a rapey shit. You know that thing where you take your penis and put it in someone else's...
To be fair to Edukator, I read that as a tongue-in-cheek comment(*) rather than intending to be demeaning or victim-blaming
Yeah and I've witnessed how sexual abuse/rape can effect someone 30yrs down the line, so tongue in cheek or not it touched a nerve & I'm not sure that the subject matter is right for tongue in cheek comment.