Dispatches tonigh

bosstrabs

mono-stereo

hugopal

mono-stereo I was commenting on two possible differences between a shagger and a (problematic) sex pest.

That doesn’t really answer the question - neither of those examples define someone who is merely a shagger for instance.

Also, being flirty as Brand appears to be in the video alistair shared above is not committing sexual assault.

By your own comment you say you think Brand has probably got with women in the thousands - it hardly seems likely he’ll have done that by committing thousands of cases of assault. And when he’s getting with so many then why would he even need to commit assault? He comes across as flirty and provocative, but not violent.

How do you think someone should behave if they’re out with someone they want to invite back to theirs - say they’re currently struggling with a tax return and ask if they happen to be a chartered accountant?!

Old-Dutch

hugopal How do you think someone should behave if they’re out with someone they want to invite back to theirs - say they’re currently struggling with a tax return and ask if they happen to be a chartered accountant?!

Let me show you how incum tax works

mono-stereo

hugopal That doesn’t really answer the question - neither of those examples define someone who is merely a shagger for instance.

It was a simple point that everyone else seemed to get. There is nothing wrong with consenual sex with lots of people “ie a shagger”. There is obviously somthing wrong if said shagger rapes and sexually assaults people, you might call them a sex pest. I’m not gonna repeat myself again so don’t bother asking me.

hugopal He comes across as flirty and provocative, but not violent.

Based on what? Has he fucked you? Was he a caring lover?

Mad_Cyril

mono-stereo
Yep, same for DV.

Not sure all the sensationalism helps though - that extract from the times was one step away from having stage directions.

If all the energy burnt on sensationalism and internet ‘justice’ could be focussed on resolving the myriad issues in the Justice system, would be far more beneficial to the victims.

mono-stereo

Mad_Cyril If all the energy burnt on sensationalism and internet ‘justice’ could be focussed on resolving the myriad issues in the Justice system, would be far more beneficial to the victims.

Yup. completely agree.

hugopal

Old-Dutch careful now, that’s starting to sound too much like it could potentially be flirting - can’t be having that, it’s basically the same thing as assault don’t you know?!

Old-Dutch

This is incredible:

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/16/accusations-russell-brand-tv-documentary-comic

“…..the arrival on the cultural and current affairs landscape of popular internet pundits such as him and Tate, and in America, Joe Rogan and Ben Shapiro, has become a serious challenge to public faith in careful journalism and in the more experienced, educated voices of comment. And that is exactly what was intended."

The absolute fucking state of that. Lol

hugopal

Old-Dutch there’s so much bollocks in that article it’s difficult to know where to begin, but I also found this part very amusing:

“The shows put out by Brand give his fans the chance to imagine themselves part of his circle. It is a byproduct of social media that sociologists are watching with interest and which can function almost like a traditional cult. A leader draws viewers in with the lure of promised intimacy, or at least of a sense of “community”, which coincidentally is the name of the “wellness” festival that Brand stages in the countryside each year.”.

Meanwhile… at the Guardian you can pay to become a “Patron”, where:

“By becoming a Guardian Patron, you can receive exclusive access to our work. Guardian Patrons are a close community of supporters who are invited to enjoy unique back-stage access to the Guardian’s journalism, history and future. They are invited to Patron-only events, with the opportunity to meet and discuss the issues of the day with our journalists”.

Sounds like the Guardian is also painting itself as functioning “almost like a traditional cult”.

https://amp.theguardian.com/membership/2018/aug/07/support-the-guardian-how-to-make-the-most

hugopal

mono-stereo There is obviously somthing wrong if said shagger rapes and sexually assaults people, you might call them a sex pest

But @alistair already said that supposedly Brand has “always been a sex pest” - so to use your confused definition, that would indicate that it was supposedly already known that Brand was someone who has always committed sexual assault. In which case, why didn’t you or alistair already comment prior to these stories that Brand had committed sexual assault?

And also, if someone was a rapist or had committed sexual assault, why would you not instead simply refer to them as being a rapist or someone who had committed sexual assault? Again, your use of the term seems very unclear, vague and confused.

hugopal

mono-stereo Let me try once more. I gave my interpretation, not Alisairs. His interpretation of this or any other phrase may differ to mine.

mono-stereo It was a simple point that everyone else seemed to get.

See, gotcha.

Clearly not “everyone else” got the supposedly “simple point” given that other people (not just me) interpreted it differently.

Cheers.

mono-stereo

hugopal As usual you’re tying yourself up in knots. I said you might refair to the latter a sex pest, I wasn’t talking in absolutles. Feel free to replace the term with anything you like, the only person who’s confused here is you.

hugopal And also, if someone was a rapist or had committed sexual assault, why would you not instead simply refer to them as being a rapist or someone who had committed sexual assault?

Well Spock, because that’s not the way language works. See above.

hugopal

mono-stereo I said you might refair to the latter a sex pest

That doesn’t seem how alistair could have been using the term though.

Although you still “might” refer to someone who’d been a rapist as a “sex pest” it doesn’t seem the most obvious term to use.

Unless alistair already somehow knew that Brand had “always” committed lots of sexual assault and rape, then it can’t have been he was using the term “sex pest” as synonymous with someone who commits lots of rape and sexual assault. In which case, he must have been using the term to describe something else.

He actually gave the example of the video above which generally just shows Brand flirting. I would say a term which can and is used to describe anything from flirting to rape is imprecise, sloppy and dangerously vague.

It would mean that anyone who does just sleeps with a lot of people by flirting, can be lazily lumped together with rapists. It does therefore need to be specified precisely what a person means when they try and label someone a “sex pest”.

Dan

mono-stereo 🤦🏼‍♂️

Homegrove

hugopal

Homegrove Hannu acts as a “conduit of natural forces” by getting down on his knees in front of his wife, pointing to his anus, then pointing to the cupboard where the strap-on is kept; all the while making strange mewing noises.

alistair

hugopal you call it flirting but it’s very evident his extremely suggestive actions making the recipients very uncomfortable and flustered on national TV. Have you seen the Saville Selina Scott interview?

hugopal

alistair making the recipients very uncomfortable and flustered

i. e. turned on, perhaps.

alistair extremely suggestive actions

Err, flirting is by its nature suggestive. How would you flirt without being suggestive?

alistair

hugopal By not referring to genitalia for a start. He’s an overgrown child. It’s been about 20 years since I went on a first date but even know about basic etiquette.

Homegrove

Found Hugo.

hugopal

Homegrove Found Hugo.

I like Jordan Peterson, I don’t like Andrew Tate.

Cankles-McJeggings

Homegrove

Imagine admiring Alex Jones 😂 or any of those twats tbf.

« Previous Page Next Page »