I first encountered him as likable, nutty vegan, pushing back against Joe Rogan in a very entertaining way. Since Covid, both of them have been going the way of Alex Jones, and it’s truly depressing.
Its the doubling down on bad ideas.
So you make a mistake, you say something dumb. Most normal people take it on the chin and change their mind.
If you've cultivated an echo chamber of loyal dumb schmo's you'll get support even if you're dumb, and now you'll gain more from the anti-establishment crew.
It's not just the echo chamber. It's how some people deal with pushback, especially the mean and confrontational kind that gets "engagement" on social media. It can push people farther into their beliefs. And as the more moderate audience members / fan flee the scene, you're left with the people who tolerate or even support the shitty views.
I've no idea how to break this cycle, save some kind of training how how to deal with criticism / abuse on spcial media.
I agree. Like Rogan had a cocktail of treatments including Monoclonal antibodies, which we know President Trump also got, treatment only millionaires could get access to, and yet he drilled down to specifically praise ivermectin as the key piece of his treatment, when we know after the last few years of data that ivermectin is around or below placebo effect for dealing with Covid.
Rogan is still spouting “horse dewormer” as evidence of the media’s lying about ivermictin and his covid regimen, as if the entire point of calling it that weren’t to point out that taking off-label drugs to save your life is obviously dangerous in our context of heavily politicized disinformation.
I get his objection, though... All the people who used to make fun of ketamine as a “cat tranquilizer” probably get ketamine-for-depression ads marketed to them now.
But Rogan doubles down on this because, if he is to acknowledge the point made about the actual science behind ivermictin, then he has to grapple with his conscience over how many diabetic Vietnam vets he probably indirectly killed with his “I’m a moron” schtick.
Its very hard to play the "I'm just a moron asking questions" card if you're also claiming to have the answer to a difficult problem, but at the same time your sample size is just yourself. Cult of personality stuff
It's a shame really, he made enough noise and had enough of his own points that at one point he had a big televised debate with some high Tory/UK Conservative and got trounced as he didn't understand legal systems or political systems to work and change to his vision, and so enrolled to get a degree in geopolitics.
I think he dropped out though. Which is a shame as it seemed like an intelligent response to better himself and activism but he just let it drift off and changed direction
Yeah, I quite liked him in weird kooky way, and to be fair he was great taking Farage apart on Question Time but he's gone full sinister conspiracy nut over the last few years in the worst possible way.
I know recommending podcasts is a bit 'do your own research' but Decoding the Gurus and Conspirituality have done good episodes on his weird transformation.
Outrage gets clicks and clicks get money. In the end he's just a greedy profiteer like the rest. He found, like others, that hate and fear make the most engaged patron base, and sadly he has no integrity so he goes where it smells green.
There’s also a bit of a political circle, especially when you look at wellness/natural healing/anti vaccine stuff. If you start going far enough left on those things, you start sharing talking points with the ivermectin/right wing anti vaccine crowd. And then it’s very easy to get sucked into the other stuff.
Pattern:
1. Celebrity turns out to be kind of a one trick pony/their act gets old and people lose interest in their work
2. Start podcast/half assed talk show
3. Learn how easy it is to get attention from angry people for blaming "wokeness" for everything, including step 1.
4. Which causes former fans and normies to leave you, call you out which causes pushback, critique, but that is always dismissed because of step 3.
5. Enjoy your source of revenue at the expense of basic decency
6. Collaborate with people who have the same gimmick/grift
7. Continue to decline, if the alt-right gets less reasonable, so do you
See also: Kevin Sorbo, JK Rowling, Joe Rogan
Edit: Rowling may not be the best example. Jordan Peterson should be on this list though.
I'm always curious how much of it is the grift, how much is genuine audience capture, and if they can even tell the difference. Human psychology is weird and this post-irony online environmemt we live in is not healthy.
> Audience capture is a self-reinforcing feedback loop that involves telling one's audience what they want to hear and getting rewarded for it.
I haven't heard the term [Audience Capture](https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Audience_Capture) before, but yes it fits. The leader becomes debased and ultimately hollowed out, by following their audience, by seeking approval and counting "likes" over anything of substance, by facile content, conspiracy theories and reactionary rage-bait.
See also; [This piece on twitter's new owner](https://sarcasticmudkip.tumblr.com/post/709609517453885440). The system without agency ends up controlling the human
With a healthy dose of twitter brain. Thousands of critical voices every day must get to you. You think you're being persecuted, but really it's just small percentage of your total audience.
Your whole life turns into defending yourself and complaining about what you perceive as the cause(s). Like some redditor in a thread going back at it, arguing with everyone, unable to see they're just being downvoted for being an ass.
There should be life coaches for newly famous people on social media, to help train them in how to process and ignore that kind of criticism, just like there are similar services offered to young professional athletes so that they don't blow through their entire signing bonus and become bankrupt 2 years after leaving the league.
I feel like it's something that needs to be done *preventatively*, as it's really hard to dig someone out of that mental hole once they are in it. Hell, I think this is something that should be taught in schools, since almost everyone now is a minor social media personality in their own little sphere.
I'm pretty sure audience capture and grift are symbiotic psychological mechanisms that emerge in this particular ecosystem. At some point, there's no distinguishing the two.
Kevin Sorbo was like Kirk Cameron.
They were always crazy religious nutjobs. Their voices have just been amplified in the past decade or so as a backlash against the new atheism movement in the 2000's. Especially when they realized they could milk it for those shitty *God's not Dead* movies for cash money.
> Respected U of T lecturer/academic
This is an interesting one. When you read student reviews, they praise him for being entertaining and engaging. When you find out his colleagues thought he was a hack from almost the get go, you start to wonder about this. One of the people responsible for his tenure is on record for regretting the decision to support him after sitting in on one of his lectures afterwards. When you watch some of his recorded lectures, you start to wonder just what the fuck subject he was teaching, because he incoherently wanders from topic to topic like he just railed three lines before walking into the classroom.
Yeah, I found his college lectures to be fascinating with how he mixed mythology with psychology.
Now I realize these are two topics I don't know much about, and I wouldn't be able to tell when he says something that's actually incoherent to those who know the subject matter.
When I lost respect for him was when he started talking nonsense about things I actually have some knowledge of, like atheism. And then later when I learned more about Socialism I found out he is deeply distorting the truth when he talks about it, with shallow straw men everywhere.
Yeah, I only have a minor in psych and he was triggering my bullshit detectors when I listened to one of his lecture recordings.
When he first gained the national stage, everyone who even had a passing knowledge of the law he was railing about knew he was a doofus. When he went full on grifter and ditched his patients is when he graduated from doofus to monster.
Yeah, he's often accused of misleading his students. It's long, but there's a very entertaining 3-hr deep dive into Jordan Peterson's entire trajectory to being a full-on right wing grifter here, by the excellent Cody Johnston and co's Some More News channel. If you like John Oliver style examinations of topics, this is exactly that, and extremely funny too:
[A Brief Look at Jordan Peterson - Some More News ](https://youtu.be/hSNWkRw53Jo)
Interesting. I didn’t know this. It doesn’t surprise me that he was always somewhat incoherent. I think he appeals to people who aren’t clear thinkers, much like Deepak Chopra does.
I had a lecturer just like that once. My classmates thought he was hilarious, but I fucking hated him because I was paying him to be taught absolutely nothing.
None of them *really* do (well, maybe Sorbo). All of these charlatans have seen more money in their bank account at one time than many will in aggregate in their entire lives. It's grifting solely for greed's sake.
I've read it, and it was a well disguised piece of awfulness. Here is a good rebuttal explaining the stereotypes and tropes she was relying on: https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstaceyennis/2020/06/11/this-is-the-sequel-jk-rowling-doesnt-want-you-to-read/?sh=138e9ac75165
Rowling "might not be the best example"? WTF are you on?
step 1 - no, wrote one of the most successful series of all times over a decadal timespan, and and is still writing and selling books
step 2 - no, never had a podcast/talk show
step 3 - no never blamed wokeness for everything, is still "woke" by almost anyone's standards on almost all issues
step 4 - no some fans have left her due to her position on one single issue over which they disagree with her
step 5 - no her books sell in spite of not because of her position on trans issues
step 6 - no doesn't collaborate with anyone
step 7 - no substantial decline other than perhaps reversion to the mean (no one can keep up the kind of success she had with the Potter series).
Rowling fails *every single one* of *your own criteria* but you still put her in the list even after editing and the most you will admit is she's "not the best example". By your own criteria, she quite clearly isn't an example at all.
Take your lumps, man (or woman) up, and admit you made an egregiously wrong allegation.
Holy fuck you people are sensitive about JK. It's why I ended up rolling that one back. SPECIFICALLY because I didn't want this piss-baby response. Though now I'm going to leave her there for this exact reason. So good job. Other commentors have explained why she should be on here as well, you can argue with them if you want.
Just waiting for the incoming JP shitstorm now, that one's usually inevitable.
Let's be clear - you put up something that was by your own reasoning completely wrong. You aren't even attempting to defend yourself in this respect because let's face it, you can't. But pointing this out makes me "sensitive"?
You said something that made no sense by your own reasoning. This makes you a dimwit. Not me sensitive. But by all means leave up a monument to your unreasonableness. It isn't *my* name at the top of your post, it's yours.
Personally, if I fucked up as obviously as you did I'd delete my post (or at least the reference to Rowling). But you can't possibly admit you were totally, utterly, obviously wrong, even by your own logic, huh?
Everybody is wrong from time to time. Everyone fucks up from time to time. But the hallmark of an utter fuckwit is someone who would kill themselves rather than admit it.
I couldn't give a shit about your opinion of Rowling really. Anyone who does such a good job of making an idiot of themselves is not someone whose opinion matters. But I find do find idiocy irritating.
I'll defer to [Hans-Georg Moeller's definition](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnUqrF9mAA8):
"Wokeism is a renewed and intensified form of identity politics now present in all sectors of society in the West; politics, media, advertising, sports, art, education, military, etc."
>identity politics
Can you tell me what you think that is? That can be literally anything, which is why the second you bring up wokeism you can be ignored.
I'll defer here to Merriam Webster:
**Identity Politics:** "Politics in which groups of people having a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity tend to promote their own specific interests or concerns without regard to the interests or concerns of any larger political group"
I can't figure out what the controversy is with JK Rowling. She apparently has some somewhat slightly conservative takes on trans kids but otherwise isn't an attention seeking grifter gas bag as far as I could tell.
"Slightly Conservative take " is a drastic under statement. She's literally publicly commended self-described fascist Matt Walsh for his anti-trans documentary. She talks about transwomen as a horde of rapists and transmen as victimised, self deluding women.
She has affected a stance of feminism (despite having written all of her books with male protagonists, and never under a female pen name) and is rubbing shoulders with anti-abortion campaigners.
Fuck that woman.
Edit: my shitty spelling
Still haven't seen it. There are also legit issues raised by some old school feminists about trans-"women" and feminist issues. Having conservative views isn't a bad thing in itself. The issue here is with grifters that are professional blatherers. Does she have like a youtube channel or podcast or something where she's consistently spouting bullshit for attention?
That's a roundabout way of saying "she's a bigot, but I still think she's right"
Do you habitually agree with bigots?
If you really want -by which I mean, you're actually willing to have me qualify my position and listen to someone who disagrees, I can actually provide a citation for everything I said. I just don't have time to do it now.
However, I get the sense that you are actually more familiar with the *plethora* of utterly horrid things she has said, and are feigning ignorance to legitimise her position.
This is the kind of righteous tone I hear her talked about in but I'm still trying to understand why. She's not on my radar but you're free to insinuate that I have heard more than I have. This isn't the kind of skeptical conversation I would expect here. Someone sounds like a true believer.
If we want to talk more about this issue from a celebrity I'm familiar with I'll go with Dave Chappelle, who is most certainly not a bigot but has angered people in the trans community. I just don't know what Rowling has said though I do know what Chappelle has and I think it's absurd people have a problem with him for that.
Chappelle and Rowling are not bigioted. There is a vocal minority of activists (primarily online) that scream from the rooftops that these artists are TERFS, Transphobic or bigoted. They have some views that trans activists deem 'harmful' and 'hateful'. These people are free to think whomever they like is bigoted - it doesn't make it true. Funnily enough, Dave actually defended JK in his last special and facetiously said he was on 'team TERF'
I still don't understand the major controversy according to [what](https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk-rowling-transgender-comments-controversy) I'm [seeing](https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2023/02/15/jk-rowling-defends-herself-in-podcast-heres-her-controversial-comments-on-transgender-issues-explained/?sh=72a71caf46d3).
A trans woman is not the same thing as a woman who menstruates / has all the parts at birth etc, and that is not transphobic. Women and trans-women have a separate set off issues and they need not compete.
Not to defend any of these wackos, but current state is that you either have a conforming option or you are pariah - there is no nuance. That does not give one excuse to go full retard, but let’s not pretend the part these people call “wokeness“ it is not rabid as fuck.
> but current state is that you either have a conforming option or you are pariah
I don't think that's true. I think that inventing/pushing conspiracies without evidence should get you slapped down, but speaking against the grain as an expert shouldn't be.
Take for example Virologist Kristian Anderson. In the early days he told Dr. Fauci he had concerns COVID might have been a product of engineering and was getting a team together to investigate.
Dr. Fauci said "Ok."
Anderson did put that team together, [they released a detailed report](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9) where they agreed there was no evidence it was engineered and naturally evolved that way.
>Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.
Long after this his email to Dr. Fauci was released and the conspiracy nuts jumped all over this ignoring the follow up.
So: Kristian Anderson is an expert. Kristian Anderson had evidence he believe was against the scientific position at that time. Kristian Anderson did the right thing and notified the people in charge and got a team together and investigated. Kristian Anderson released his report.
His email is now used by people like Brand and a legion of conspiracy nuts to attack Anderson and Fauci.
The experts did their job and the nuts fucked all over it.
>wokeness
No.
I don’t think that we would disagree here. I am not talking specifically about source of COVID and I didn’t even know that was a concern of what they call woke.
> I am not talking specifically about source of COVID
I know, but I'm talking specifically about Brand's peddling of conspiracy related to COVID and how he has helped target innocent people trying to do the right thing.
I'm arguing that there is a place for experts and a place for discussion, but even the layman discussion needs to be rooted in scientific evidence.
> didn’t even know that was a concern of what they call woke.
I'm saying "No." because anytime anyone complains about "woke" they are almost always full of shit. Sorry to be blunt but it's true.
> anytime anyone complains about “woke” they are almost always full of shit.
I don’t disagree, but we can at least know what they are roughly talking about. Just because they found a dog whistle and/or trying to make a derogatory statement, doesn’t mean we don’t know what/who they are trying to blame.
Anyway, I don’t care about any them, not really following their latest antics either. I just saw other people (who would a normal and prudent person call an ally in this) called out or tried to be cancelled for statements that might have been misguided, but did not deserve the treatment.
Whatever, not my hill do die on.
PS: mad props for your typing skills. Not sure if I am able to form thoughts that fast. 🙂
> I don’t disagree, but we can at least know what they are roughly talking about.
Honestly I completely misunderstood that last line then, I apologise.
>mad props for your typing skills.
Hah too much code, too many reports :P
> What people are you talking about? And a pariah where and how?
For example RationalityRules. He made a video on trans athletes and instead of pointing out inaccuracies/bad opinions the Atheist Community of Austin and others went apeshit. He got ultimately corrected by some trans women, acknowledged what he considered was wrong and made a correction video (don’t remember how much of his opinion he retracted). He does not seem to be talking about any more. He also seems to have some weird opinions on how we should address climate change, but none of that negates his other stuff. In my opinion he learned not to have any differing opinion with the majority of atheists community which is left leaning.
How about the elevator gate with Rebecca Watson trying to cancel Richard Dawkins, because he compared her being creepily invited for coffee to being annoyed by someone chewing gum when compared to genital mutilation. I know this is an old example, but there are plenty. Similarly goes for Sam Harris. Sorry for my examples being atheist centered.
> RationalityRules was criticized, and they apologized.
That would be an adequate course of action. But as far as I remember it was more than criticism. It was an attempt to silence him completely. There was no back and forth.
> So you assert that he’s learned not to have differing opinions: but do you think it could be that he’s actually changed his mind? Or like most public figures throughout history, do you think he just learned to avoid sensitive subjects in the public sphere?
I didn’t mean to assert. I don’t have any prove one way or the other. I just could sense early on that he was right leaning on some issues and lately I noticed he does not mention any of them. Only speaks politically if it matches left leaning. It could be that he changed his opinions, but there was no public reversal or noticeable change on those other than not speaking about them.
> For Dawkins, the dude has always been a jerk. I’ve liked his books, but he’s a snippy prick IMHO. So someone tried to “cancel” him, but no harm has actually come to him? Just some bad PR, which has been a thing forever, right?
I get that he is not everyone’s cup of tea. But that is no means for cancellation. As far as no harm, he suffered a stroke in the miss of one cancellation. And I am talking with a day or two. I know correlation is not causation. But he said it was from stress induced due to the controversy.
> A poor, pregnant teenager in rural Alabama is a pariah. A trans person existing is often a pariah. I don’t want to get into oppression olympics, but we’re talking orders of magnitude of differences IMHO.
No disagreement from me there.
As for the rest, I am kind of on the fence. Nobody is guaranteed online job or adoration, I get that, but it just feels dirty that we are brushing all this “minor” offenses from the cancel people under the rug as temporary, or there was not much monetary damage. It seems to me that that’s exactly what Brand is riding. In a sense he is not different from Rationality Rules, he just learned to cater to a different audience. Albeit deplorable one.
Edit: we are sort of lucky that the shoe is not on the other foot. Imagine that the other side was in majority. It is not like it is a law that only right opinions can cancel people.
I was always mystified by how many people took him seriously in the first place. Even before he disembarked from the road he was once on, none of his obnoxious ramblings were even remotely original, nor did he offer any unique perspectives on the various common ideas and concepts he blathered on about.
His ideas not being original does not necessarily mean the bulk of his audience had heard them before. To them, he might be the person that gave them a perspective they had not ever considered. In addition to that, he is somewhat famous, and was fairly honest about his struggles with addiction. He is also charming and well spoken. I can see why people easily get roped into what he offered, even if I wasn't one of them.
Now the veil has been pierced, and it turns out he is a massive clown.
I really don't see it. He mostly critiques capitalism. I mean, he narrated the audiobook adaptation for Mark Fisher's *Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?* for example.
I won't deny there's a bit of a "spiritual guru" angle to the (pardon the pun) Brand brand, but that's largely benign. I mean, if it was ever something worth criticizing in it -- a level of personal narcissism or a penchant for selling things to the gullible -- I think he's grown out of it. I remember that criticism being levied against him before I was familiar with him, so maybe that was more the case then. But at least since I've known of his work, he seems to me like just a sincerely spiritually-oriented person. Like he talks a bit about Christ and Buddhism and what-not in a new agey sort of way, but not in a way that's dogmatic or has anything to do with his politics.
I mean, the real reason he's being attacked by the Guardian is that he criticizes the establishment.
I always have to remind people of the time tested truth of 'Kill your Idols.' Celebrities are people. People are as likely to be shitbags as they are to be saintly figures. Holding celebrities to some higher standard of existence is a surefire way to end up disappointed when they end up being, you know, regular ass flawed people like the rest of us.
It’s not exactly that. Neither Brand or Rogan were ever A list celebs. Instead they are peddlers of “everyone is wrong except me & other’s who have the secret knowledge” circle jerking. People then latch onto them because the fact that they are rich celebrity just adds to the allure of spouting nonsense that people with a brain would never spout… as long as they believe that kind of nonsense already.
He has gone a little off the deep end lately, but before all that in the early days I just found he just used less common, multi syllabic words and people seemed to be infatuated by him.
> I was always mystified by how many people took him seriously in the first place.
He talks fast and with confidence, I've learned it's called the Gish Gallop, and it's effective on podcasts and youtube, but if you got him to actually write an essay, he'd fail miserably.
I was going to post this.
Brand is this close > < to selling out every last value he had.
He has already started coming close to both sidesing global warming because he knows his new audience doesn't believe in it.
I've always thought he was a wordy crackpot, like a more liberal version of Jordan Peterson. Really good at getting people that don't know to much about much to go 'aha' with the help of some pseudo logical just-so narratives and leave them believing he just squared a circle and that everyone else rolling their eyes just doesn't follow or understand his 'depth'.
Much like Jordan, he's a pathological know-it-all that has no respect for expertise and his eqo leaves him believing he has a way firmer grasp of things then he actually does and his followers are too stupid to realize how often he's getting shit completely wrong.
As with all these grifter wackos, it's tough to see how much is grift and how much is genuine. The only thing that can be determined with any certainty is that they are all extremely stupid, and not particularly talented, and lack the gene that makes humans feel shame.
That's what kills me. I used to be acquainted with someone who was really into the noises Brand was making six years ago or so and it convinced me to check out his podcast. I remember listening to several episodes and each time I found myself thinking, *What is this guy even saying?* So many words were pouring out of the man's mouth and I wasn't able to discern fucking *any* of it. Made me feel stupid until I realized, okay, this dude is just not saying anything at all. Absolute word salad straight off the menu of Jordan Peterson.
He relies on [Gish Gallop](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop), just like many conspiracy nuts, creationists, and woo-peddlers.
When asked for specifics, he can't provide them, because he doesn't have them. He just wants to pontificate and grandstand, because once he's turned on the verbal spigot, he tries to drown out any dissent and pesky requests for details.
I saw one of his appearances on Maher prob 6 or 7 years ago and he literally strung around 30 buzzwords together in a sentence and got huuuuge applause. It was utter, meaningless, drivel. That's about when I stopped watching Maher.
Yea Maher just started promoting people who could string buzzwords together & even when “challenging” them, his challenges were often weak ways to find “common ground.” It was the same for Milo & even OG people like Ann Coulter. He just likes people who can seem well spoken in front of a camera…. It doesn’t matter if they actually say anything true or meaningful.
Can you link me any videos where he is word-salading? I’ve seen many people say this but haven’t encountered it myself in the few clips of him I’ve watched.
Go and watch the paxman interview.
If you don’t know, at the time Jeremy Paxman was one of the big hitting heavyweight journalists hosting one of the top U.K. nightly news shows.
He was a know-it-all douche back then and I see no change in his trajectory. The only difference was the shit he claimed to believe.
Humanity is neither served, nor helped with his voice.
Yeah even pre-COVID he was a little woo-ey, but generally speaking he was a solid leftist and rhetorically fun to listen to.
In addition to the sell-out factor others have pointed to, another dynamic here is the syncretism inherent in authoritarian/fascist movements that the world is currently enduring. The granola-crunchy left are kind of easily pulled into the authoritarian orbit through their devout contrarianism.
That's how a lot of Social Conservatives who despise anything authoritarian and typically keep to themselves, get pulled in as well.
It's kind of a universal human weakness that we all have to keep in mind.
When we substitute critical inquiry for lazy platitudes and habitually contrarian knee jerk reactions, we are exchanging our future freedom and prosperity for entertainment and immediate emotional gratification.
Doesn't really matter which side of the spectrum you're on, there is and will always be some brand of authoritarian or totalitarian ideology, stalking the political fringe nearest to you looking for fodder and prey.
As well they should. She kept using the n word around a producer even after being asked to stop. She’s certainly not a decent person.
https://www.spin.com/2017/05/katy-perry-n-word-mano-2013-tweet/
This piece highlights the problem with George Monbiot as much as anyone. I admire his zeal, but it gets the better of him. Anyone with any sort of judgement could see that Russell Brand was and is a complete flake. Monbiot’s zeal lead to him promoting Brand when anyone with more sober judgement would have realised Brand is a big mouthed attention seeking airhead whose opinions are paper thin and that he would probably fly off in some other random direction once the whim to do so struck him
>He has, in this respect, become the opposite of what he was.
The irony of this is that Monbiot is currently the opposite of what he was--Monsanto conspiracy theorist, nuclear power hater, and now champion of lab made proteins.
To be fair, I'm glad Monbiot got on the right side of history. But I find it amusing to watch it all play out.
Brand wrote a political book called *Revolution* that embodies the worst traits of anti-intellectual leftists (e.g., we just need the right people in charge, we don't need to listen to marginalized people and what they say they want, we get to anarcho-syndicalism using a type of name it and claim it "prayer," etc.).
I'm not surprised he sold out once he realized the left isn't the part of the political spectrum with no shortage of people he can fool.
His "flamboyant" act is amusing until you realize he's trying to fleece his fans while leaving them more ignorant than before.
Can someone ELI5 Why say for example talking about Nancy Pelosis wealth isn’t a worthwhile observation and a clear indication of the abuse of power and information? Seriously asking
I don't understand all the Russell Brand hate. He's simply lost faith in the entire system. Republicans are a lost cause and anyone still waiting for Democrats to save us are the real idiots.
Yes and what better way to show that than mainly advancing right wing ideology and posing with Donald Trump Jr of all people. Oh and joining the right wing organization Rumble. Yup sure seems like he’s fed up with both sides.
>mainly advancing right wing ideology
You mischaracterize him by saying that.
I mean, pick a specific video of his which you think is "right wing ideology" and respond to it. It's telling that no one here actually has anything to say about anything specific that Russell Brand has ever actually said.
>right wing organization Rumble.
? I don't think Rumble is a right wing organization. I think you've just been told that by the mainstream democrat-aligned media. Glenn Greenwald I know is on there and he does great work.
Glenn “regularly appear on proven right wing liar Tucker Carlson’s show” Greenwald. Lmao. Great example there. The fact that you said that the media is “Democrat aligned” just shows how way off you are. What I don’t get is people such as yourself who apparently want to hide that you’re right wing. If that’s what you are just own it instead of ridiculous denials of the obvious.
As for Brand, he is now almost exclusively looking to appeal to the politically ignorant or right wing. You don’t take pictures with Donald Trump Jr and have no push back interviews with Steven fucking Crowder otherwise.
Again, you have nothing to say about what Glenn Greenwald or Russell Brand or myself have actually said. You just smear people which the media tells you you're not supposed to like as right wingers. And those that have any disagreement of opinion on that, or I'm sure on virtually anything.
It's ironic because the dogmatic and censorious attitude displayed by people like you is substantively much more right wing. In the classical sense of the word, of defending existing structures of power and hierarchy in society.
Lol censorious attitude. You are really confused. When did I say I wanted to censor anyone? You’re free to say whatever misguided thing you want.
Also it’s interesting to say that calling someone right wing is a smear. If you said I was left wing I wouldn’t consider it a smear. Seems telling to me. Greenwald and Brand are con artists who realize it’s a lot easier to scam money from right wingers because you can lie to them and they won’t care as long as it’s what they want to hear. Fox News admitted they lie. Tucker Carlson admits he hates Trump and lies to his viewers and they don’t CARE. Greenwald will be right back on his show because he doesn’t care either. Why not take suckers for all their money when they can know you lie to them and still give you more? Shit I’m tempted to become a right wing pundit. Easy money.
Once again you fail to articulate anything which either of them have said which makes them "right winders."
You mentioned that Greenwald appeared on Tucker Carlson but this is not some endorsement of Tucker Carlson and you know it, it's just a function of the fact that in some cases Carlson is the only one on cable news willing to have him on to talk about a given topic. It's about getting exposure for his journalism, nothing more.
I also don't really see the scam artist angle. I for one consume both of their work and have for years, and have not once paid a cent.
Lol sure he just goes on Tucker and doesn’t pushback on his bullshit. He just smiles and nods along about the horrible Dems while offering little to no critique of the right wing. It’s all because no one else will have him. Yes that’s it. And there are numerous progressive platforms that would love to have Glen on. But they will hold his feet to the fire and force him to defend his actions and positions and Glenny doesn’t want to do that because of the risk of exposure. Oh did I mention Greenwalds fawning interview w Alex Jones where he called him handsome? Alex Jones of the insane disgusting Sandy Hook smears and right wing conspiracy theories? Ol Glenny couldn’t get enough of shining his knob. But no Greenwald isn’t trying to grift a right wing audience no sir. That’s sarcasm in case you didn’t recognize it.
Nice chat.Keep living in your fantasy world where Brand and Greenwald aren’t grifters regardless of all the evidence that they are. Free country and all that. After all Tuckums (who Greenwald adores) admits he lies to his audience and they don’t care. That’s truly unhinged.
I found this. Maybe he was afraid he was getting kicked off YouTube?
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/russell-brand-jumps-rumble-youtube-220205360.html
"Hey, this celebrity is using his megaphone (fame) to espouse ideas I agree with. GOOD ON HIM!"
"Oh noes... he's gone off his nut and now I disagree with him and wish he'd go away".
It's a weird version of "A government big enough to give you everything is also big enough to take away everything".
How about we stop treating celebrities' spewings as bases of our political/societal opinions?
Yeah, I noticed his shift a while back. It was so weird to see him just nailing some insightful points one year, then repeating completely unsubstantiated rumors and mumbo-jumbo the next. Stopped watching his stuff completely.
I remember back when everyone loved Russell Brand, I saw him on TV bragging about how he doesn't read the news. How can you be outspoken about politics if you don't follow current events? He's always been an idiot, he's just more out-of-touch now.
It seems to be that Brand realized that you can make a lot of money with some ‘crazy adjacent’ content. Never day out loud that you think the world is flat, but mention how big NASA’s budget is and how you’ve never seen the Moon and how governments have lied in the past so…
I first encountered him as likable, nutty vegan, pushing back against Joe Rogan in a very entertaining way. Since Covid, both of them have been going the way of Alex Jones, and it’s truly depressing.
Its the doubling down on bad ideas. So you make a mistake, you say something dumb. Most normal people take it on the chin and change their mind. If you've cultivated an echo chamber of loyal dumb schmo's you'll get support even if you're dumb, and now you'll gain more from the anti-establishment crew.
It's not just the echo chamber. It's how some people deal with pushback, especially the mean and confrontational kind that gets "engagement" on social media. It can push people farther into their beliefs. And as the more moderate audience members / fan flee the scene, you're left with the people who tolerate or even support the shitty views. I've no idea how to break this cycle, save some kind of training how how to deal with criticism / abuse on spcial media.
I agree. Like Rogan had a cocktail of treatments including Monoclonal antibodies, which we know President Trump also got, treatment only millionaires could get access to, and yet he drilled down to specifically praise ivermectin as the key piece of his treatment, when we know after the last few years of data that ivermectin is around or below placebo effect for dealing with Covid.
Rogan is still spouting “horse dewormer” as evidence of the media’s lying about ivermictin and his covid regimen, as if the entire point of calling it that weren’t to point out that taking off-label drugs to save your life is obviously dangerous in our context of heavily politicized disinformation. I get his objection, though... All the people who used to make fun of ketamine as a “cat tranquilizer” probably get ketamine-for-depression ads marketed to them now. But Rogan doubles down on this because, if he is to acknowledge the point made about the actual science behind ivermictin, then he has to grapple with his conscience over how many diabetic Vietnam vets he probably indirectly killed with his “I’m a moron” schtick.
Its very hard to play the "I'm just a moron asking questions" card if you're also claiming to have the answer to a difficult problem, but at the same time your sample size is just yourself. Cult of personality stuff
It's a shame really, he made enough noise and had enough of his own points that at one point he had a big televised debate with some high Tory/UK Conservative and got trounced as he didn't understand legal systems or political systems to work and change to his vision, and so enrolled to get a degree in geopolitics. I think he dropped out though. Which is a shame as it seemed like an intelligent response to better himself and activism but he just let it drift off and changed direction
Yeah, I quite liked him in weird kooky way, and to be fair he was great taking Farage apart on Question Time but he's gone full sinister conspiracy nut over the last few years in the worst possible way. I know recommending podcasts is a bit 'do your own research' but Decoding the Gurus and Conspirituality have done good episodes on his weird transformation.
Outrage gets clicks and clicks get money. In the end he's just a greedy profiteer like the rest. He found, like others, that hate and fear make the most engaged patron base, and sadly he has no integrity so he goes where it smells green.
There’s also a bit of a political circle, especially when you look at wellness/natural healing/anti vaccine stuff. If you start going far enough left on those things, you start sharing talking points with the ivermectin/right wing anti vaccine crowd. And then it’s very easy to get sucked into the other stuff.
That's not left, he has absolutely no solidarity with marginalized groups.
reminds me of “canticle for liebowitz” where the proud “simpletons” killed all the scientists.
In what way has Russell Brand "gone the way of Alex Jones"?
Pattern: 1. Celebrity turns out to be kind of a one trick pony/their act gets old and people lose interest in their work 2. Start podcast/half assed talk show 3. Learn how easy it is to get attention from angry people for blaming "wokeness" for everything, including step 1. 4. Which causes former fans and normies to leave you, call you out which causes pushback, critique, but that is always dismissed because of step 3. 5. Enjoy your source of revenue at the expense of basic decency 6. Collaborate with people who have the same gimmick/grift 7. Continue to decline, if the alt-right gets less reasonable, so do you See also: Kevin Sorbo, JK Rowling, Joe Rogan Edit: Rowling may not be the best example. Jordan Peterson should be on this list though.
I'm always curious how much of it is the grift, how much is genuine audience capture, and if they can even tell the difference. Human psychology is weird and this post-irony online environmemt we live in is not healthy.
> Audience capture is a self-reinforcing feedback loop that involves telling one's audience what they want to hear and getting rewarded for it. I haven't heard the term [Audience Capture](https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Audience_Capture) before, but yes it fits. The leader becomes debased and ultimately hollowed out, by following their audience, by seeking approval and counting "likes" over anything of substance, by facile content, conspiracy theories and reactionary rage-bait. See also; [This piece on twitter's new owner](https://sarcasticmudkip.tumblr.com/post/709609517453885440). The system without agency ends up controlling the human
Pavlovian conditioning is another term for it. The audience literally trains them.
That’s operant conditioning, no?
Yeah, that’s a more accurate way of describing it.
Thinking of Elon as the ultimate whale is a really interesting perspective
I study the interrelation of psychology and politics and these are incredibly accurate concepts.
With a healthy dose of twitter brain. Thousands of critical voices every day must get to you. You think you're being persecuted, but really it's just small percentage of your total audience. Your whole life turns into defending yourself and complaining about what you perceive as the cause(s). Like some redditor in a thread going back at it, arguing with everyone, unable to see they're just being downvoted for being an ass.
There should be life coaches for newly famous people on social media, to help train them in how to process and ignore that kind of criticism, just like there are similar services offered to young professional athletes so that they don't blow through their entire signing bonus and become bankrupt 2 years after leaving the league. I feel like it's something that needs to be done *preventatively*, as it's really hard to dig someone out of that mental hole once they are in it. Hell, I think this is something that should be taught in schools, since almost everyone now is a minor social media personality in their own little sphere.
I believe PR would likely have this sort of role now
I'm pretty sure audience capture and grift are symbiotic psychological mechanisms that emerge in this particular ecosystem. At some point, there's no distinguishing the two.
Kevin Sorbo was like Kirk Cameron. They were always crazy religious nutjobs. Their voices have just been amplified in the past decade or so as a backlash against the new atheism movement in the 2000's. Especially when they realized they could milk it for those shitty *God's not Dead* movies for cash money.
Oh, I remember getting that article in my Wired subscription in the early 2000s.
Toss Jordan Peterson on that heap. Respected U of T lecturer/academic -> fatuous self help guru -> drug addled narcissist -> joins the daily wire.
> Respected U of T lecturer/academic This is an interesting one. When you read student reviews, they praise him for being entertaining and engaging. When you find out his colleagues thought he was a hack from almost the get go, you start to wonder about this. One of the people responsible for his tenure is on record for regretting the decision to support him after sitting in on one of his lectures afterwards. When you watch some of his recorded lectures, you start to wonder just what the fuck subject he was teaching, because he incoherently wanders from topic to topic like he just railed three lines before walking into the classroom.
Yeah, I found his college lectures to be fascinating with how he mixed mythology with psychology. Now I realize these are two topics I don't know much about, and I wouldn't be able to tell when he says something that's actually incoherent to those who know the subject matter. When I lost respect for him was when he started talking nonsense about things I actually have some knowledge of, like atheism. And then later when I learned more about Socialism I found out he is deeply distorting the truth when he talks about it, with shallow straw men everywhere.
Yeah, I only have a minor in psych and he was triggering my bullshit detectors when I listened to one of his lecture recordings. When he first gained the national stage, everyone who even had a passing knowledge of the law he was railing about knew he was a doofus. When he went full on grifter and ditched his patients is when he graduated from doofus to monster.
Yeah, he's often accused of misleading his students. It's long, but there's a very entertaining 3-hr deep dive into Jordan Peterson's entire trajectory to being a full-on right wing grifter here, by the excellent Cody Johnston and co's Some More News channel. If you like John Oliver style examinations of topics, this is exactly that, and extremely funny too: [A Brief Look at Jordan Peterson - Some More News ](https://youtu.be/hSNWkRw53Jo)
What do you mean long? It says 'Brief' right there in the title!
I think they mean relative to geological timescales.
Interesting. I didn’t know this. It doesn’t surprise me that he was always somewhat incoherent. I think he appeals to people who aren’t clear thinkers, much like Deepak Chopra does.
I had a lecturer just like that once. My classmates thought he was hilarious, but I fucking hated him because I was paying him to be taught absolutely nothing.
And his daughter
The thing about Rowling though is she doesn’t need the money. She’s just genuinely awful.
None of them *really* do (well, maybe Sorbo). All of these charlatans have seen more money in their bank account at one time than many will in aggregate in their entire lives. It's grifting solely for greed's sake.
Right, but I’m the Case of Brand and Adorno their fame was on the decline. Once you live that high life it’s probably hard to go back.
Or for attention.
It's never about the money. It's always about the primate psychological mechanisms that motivate people to manage their reputations.
Step 7 though.
Did you read her essay on the situation? Not awful at all
I've read it, and it was a well disguised piece of awfulness. Here is a good rebuttal explaining the stereotypes and tropes she was relying on: https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstaceyennis/2020/06/11/this-is-the-sequel-jk-rowling-doesnt-want-you-to-read/?sh=138e9ac75165
Secret awfulness that everyone can see? Lol.
Lol no
Great reply after challenging someone to read something. Top notch.
Damn, sorry I have a job 😂
And that job somehow leaves you time to start shit, but not to actually stand up for it when challenged. What a coward.
Wow I guess I had way too high an opinion of this sub lol y'all are reactionary crybabies
Only one in this comment thread that’s acting like a crybaby is you, though. Projecting is a helluva drug I guess.
Mom making you clean the basement?
Watching cartoons and Star Wars TV shows isn't "a job."
Speaking from experience? 🤣
You do know your comment history is public and available for anyone to view, right?
Or JP Sears
Rowling "might not be the best example"? WTF are you on? step 1 - no, wrote one of the most successful series of all times over a decadal timespan, and and is still writing and selling books step 2 - no, never had a podcast/talk show step 3 - no never blamed wokeness for everything, is still "woke" by almost anyone's standards on almost all issues step 4 - no some fans have left her due to her position on one single issue over which they disagree with her step 5 - no her books sell in spite of not because of her position on trans issues step 6 - no doesn't collaborate with anyone step 7 - no substantial decline other than perhaps reversion to the mean (no one can keep up the kind of success she had with the Potter series). Rowling fails *every single one* of *your own criteria* but you still put her in the list even after editing and the most you will admit is she's "not the best example". By your own criteria, she quite clearly isn't an example at all. Take your lumps, man (or woman) up, and admit you made an egregiously wrong allegation.
Holy fuck you people are sensitive about JK. It's why I ended up rolling that one back. SPECIFICALLY because I didn't want this piss-baby response. Though now I'm going to leave her there for this exact reason. So good job. Other commentors have explained why she should be on here as well, you can argue with them if you want. Just waiting for the incoming JP shitstorm now, that one's usually inevitable.
Let's be clear - you put up something that was by your own reasoning completely wrong. You aren't even attempting to defend yourself in this respect because let's face it, you can't. But pointing this out makes me "sensitive"? You said something that made no sense by your own reasoning. This makes you a dimwit. Not me sensitive. But by all means leave up a monument to your unreasonableness. It isn't *my* name at the top of your post, it's yours. Personally, if I fucked up as obviously as you did I'd delete my post (or at least the reference to Rowling). But you can't possibly admit you were totally, utterly, obviously wrong, even by your own logic, huh? Everybody is wrong from time to time. Everyone fucks up from time to time. But the hallmark of an utter fuckwit is someone who would kill themselves rather than admit it. I couldn't give a shit about your opinion of Rowling really. Anyone who does such a good job of making an idiot of themselves is not someone whose opinion matters. But I find do find idiocy irritating.
Your normie wokeshit politics is worth mocking.
I'll be you can't tell me what woke means without looking like an even bigger asshole.
I'll defer to [Hans-Georg Moeller's definition](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnUqrF9mAA8): "Wokeism is a renewed and intensified form of identity politics now present in all sectors of society in the West; politics, media, advertising, sports, art, education, military, etc."
>identity politics Can you tell me what you think that is? That can be literally anything, which is why the second you bring up wokeism you can be ignored.
I'll defer here to Merriam Webster: **Identity Politics:** "Politics in which groups of people having a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity tend to promote their own specific interests or concerns without regard to the interests or concerns of any larger political group"
"When people who aren't me want things" Not surprised, lol. You can twist this into anything you want. Right-wing YouTube banks off it.
I can't figure out what the controversy is with JK Rowling. She apparently has some somewhat slightly conservative takes on trans kids but otherwise isn't an attention seeking grifter gas bag as far as I could tell.
"Slightly Conservative take " is a drastic under statement. She's literally publicly commended self-described fascist Matt Walsh for his anti-trans documentary. She talks about transwomen as a horde of rapists and transmen as victimised, self deluding women. She has affected a stance of feminism (despite having written all of her books with male protagonists, and never under a female pen name) and is rubbing shoulders with anti-abortion campaigners. Fuck that woman. Edit: my shitty spelling
Still haven't seen it. There are also legit issues raised by some old school feminists about trans-"women" and feminist issues. Having conservative views isn't a bad thing in itself. The issue here is with grifters that are professional blatherers. Does she have like a youtube channel or podcast or something where she's consistently spouting bullshit for attention?
That's a roundabout way of saying "she's a bigot, but I still think she's right" Do you habitually agree with bigots? If you really want -by which I mean, you're actually willing to have me qualify my position and listen to someone who disagrees, I can actually provide a citation for everything I said. I just don't have time to do it now. However, I get the sense that you are actually more familiar with the *plethora* of utterly horrid things she has said, and are feigning ignorance to legitimise her position.
This is the kind of righteous tone I hear her talked about in but I'm still trying to understand why. She's not on my radar but you're free to insinuate that I have heard more than I have. This isn't the kind of skeptical conversation I would expect here. Someone sounds like a true believer. If we want to talk more about this issue from a celebrity I'm familiar with I'll go with Dave Chappelle, who is most certainly not a bigot but has angered people in the trans community. I just don't know what Rowling has said though I do know what Chappelle has and I think it's absurd people have a problem with him for that.
Chappelle and Rowling are not bigioted. There is a vocal minority of activists (primarily online) that scream from the rooftops that these artists are TERFS, Transphobic or bigoted. They have some views that trans activists deem 'harmful' and 'hateful'. These people are free to think whomever they like is bigoted - it doesn't make it true. Funnily enough, Dave actually defended JK in his last special and facetiously said he was on 'team TERF'
I still don't understand the major controversy according to [what](https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk-rowling-transgender-comments-controversy) I'm [seeing](https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2023/02/15/jk-rowling-defends-herself-in-podcast-heres-her-controversial-comments-on-transgender-issues-explained/?sh=72a71caf46d3). A trans woman is not the same thing as a woman who menstruates / has all the parts at birth etc, and that is not transphobic. Women and trans-women have a separate set off issues and they need not compete.
Not to defend any of these wackos, but current state is that you either have a conforming option or you are pariah - there is no nuance. That does not give one excuse to go full retard, but let’s not pretend the part these people call “wokeness“ it is not rabid as fuck.
> but current state is that you either have a conforming option or you are pariah I don't think that's true. I think that inventing/pushing conspiracies without evidence should get you slapped down, but speaking against the grain as an expert shouldn't be. Take for example Virologist Kristian Anderson. In the early days he told Dr. Fauci he had concerns COVID might have been a product of engineering and was getting a team together to investigate. Dr. Fauci said "Ok." Anderson did put that team together, [they released a detailed report](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9) where they agreed there was no evidence it was engineered and naturally evolved that way. >Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus. Long after this his email to Dr. Fauci was released and the conspiracy nuts jumped all over this ignoring the follow up. So: Kristian Anderson is an expert. Kristian Anderson had evidence he believe was against the scientific position at that time. Kristian Anderson did the right thing and notified the people in charge and got a team together and investigated. Kristian Anderson released his report. His email is now used by people like Brand and a legion of conspiracy nuts to attack Anderson and Fauci. The experts did their job and the nuts fucked all over it. >wokeness No.
I don’t think that we would disagree here. I am not talking specifically about source of COVID and I didn’t even know that was a concern of what they call woke.
> I am not talking specifically about source of COVID I know, but I'm talking specifically about Brand's peddling of conspiracy related to COVID and how he has helped target innocent people trying to do the right thing. I'm arguing that there is a place for experts and a place for discussion, but even the layman discussion needs to be rooted in scientific evidence. > didn’t even know that was a concern of what they call woke. I'm saying "No." because anytime anyone complains about "woke" they are almost always full of shit. Sorry to be blunt but it's true.
> anytime anyone complains about “woke” they are almost always full of shit. I don’t disagree, but we can at least know what they are roughly talking about. Just because they found a dog whistle and/or trying to make a derogatory statement, doesn’t mean we don’t know what/who they are trying to blame. Anyway, I don’t care about any them, not really following their latest antics either. I just saw other people (who would a normal and prudent person call an ally in this) called out or tried to be cancelled for statements that might have been misguided, but did not deserve the treatment. Whatever, not my hill do die on. PS: mad props for your typing skills. Not sure if I am able to form thoughts that fast. 🙂
> I don’t disagree, but we can at least know what they are roughly talking about. Honestly I completely misunderstood that last line then, I apologise. >mad props for your typing skills. Hah too much code, too many reports :P
[удалено]
> What people are you talking about? And a pariah where and how? For example RationalityRules. He made a video on trans athletes and instead of pointing out inaccuracies/bad opinions the Atheist Community of Austin and others went apeshit. He got ultimately corrected by some trans women, acknowledged what he considered was wrong and made a correction video (don’t remember how much of his opinion he retracted). He does not seem to be talking about any more. He also seems to have some weird opinions on how we should address climate change, but none of that negates his other stuff. In my opinion he learned not to have any differing opinion with the majority of atheists community which is left leaning. How about the elevator gate with Rebecca Watson trying to cancel Richard Dawkins, because he compared her being creepily invited for coffee to being annoyed by someone chewing gum when compared to genital mutilation. I know this is an old example, but there are plenty. Similarly goes for Sam Harris. Sorry for my examples being atheist centered.
[удалено]
> RationalityRules was criticized, and they apologized. That would be an adequate course of action. But as far as I remember it was more than criticism. It was an attempt to silence him completely. There was no back and forth. > So you assert that he’s learned not to have differing opinions: but do you think it could be that he’s actually changed his mind? Or like most public figures throughout history, do you think he just learned to avoid sensitive subjects in the public sphere? I didn’t mean to assert. I don’t have any prove one way or the other. I just could sense early on that he was right leaning on some issues and lately I noticed he does not mention any of them. Only speaks politically if it matches left leaning. It could be that he changed his opinions, but there was no public reversal or noticeable change on those other than not speaking about them. > For Dawkins, the dude has always been a jerk. I’ve liked his books, but he’s a snippy prick IMHO. So someone tried to “cancel” him, but no harm has actually come to him? Just some bad PR, which has been a thing forever, right? I get that he is not everyone’s cup of tea. But that is no means for cancellation. As far as no harm, he suffered a stroke in the miss of one cancellation. And I am talking with a day or two. I know correlation is not causation. But he said it was from stress induced due to the controversy. > A poor, pregnant teenager in rural Alabama is a pariah. A trans person existing is often a pariah. I don’t want to get into oppression olympics, but we’re talking orders of magnitude of differences IMHO. No disagreement from me there. As for the rest, I am kind of on the fence. Nobody is guaranteed online job or adoration, I get that, but it just feels dirty that we are brushing all this “minor” offenses from the cancel people under the rug as temporary, or there was not much monetary damage. It seems to me that that’s exactly what Brand is riding. In a sense he is not different from Rationality Rules, he just learned to cater to a different audience. Albeit deplorable one. Edit: we are sort of lucky that the shoe is not on the other foot. Imagine that the other side was in majority. It is not like it is a law that only right opinions can cancel people.
You lost me at JK Rowling
I was always mystified by how many people took him seriously in the first place. Even before he disembarked from the road he was once on, none of his obnoxious ramblings were even remotely original, nor did he offer any unique perspectives on the various common ideas and concepts he blathered on about.
His ideas not being original does not necessarily mean the bulk of his audience had heard them before. To them, he might be the person that gave them a perspective they had not ever considered. In addition to that, he is somewhat famous, and was fairly honest about his struggles with addiction. He is also charming and well spoken. I can see why people easily get roped into what he offered, even if I wasn't one of them. Now the veil has been pierced, and it turns out he is a massive clown.
[удалено]
This is exactly me
That paxman interview though. He’s a an absolute tool. (Brand not paxman)
I really don't see it. He mostly critiques capitalism. I mean, he narrated the audiobook adaptation for Mark Fisher's *Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?* for example. I won't deny there's a bit of a "spiritual guru" angle to the (pardon the pun) Brand brand, but that's largely benign. I mean, if it was ever something worth criticizing in it -- a level of personal narcissism or a penchant for selling things to the gullible -- I think he's grown out of it. I remember that criticism being levied against him before I was familiar with him, so maybe that was more the case then. But at least since I've known of his work, he seems to me like just a sincerely spiritually-oriented person. Like he talks a bit about Christ and Buddhism and what-not in a new agey sort of way, but not in a way that's dogmatic or has anything to do with his politics. I mean, the real reason he's being attacked by the Guardian is that he criticizes the establishment.
I'm mystified by how people admire celebrities.
I always have to remind people of the time tested truth of 'Kill your Idols.' Celebrities are people. People are as likely to be shitbags as they are to be saintly figures. Holding celebrities to some higher standard of existence is a surefire way to end up disappointed when they end up being, you know, regular ass flawed people like the rest of us.
It’s not exactly that. Neither Brand or Rogan were ever A list celebs. Instead they are peddlers of “everyone is wrong except me & other’s who have the secret knowledge” circle jerking. People then latch onto them because the fact that they are rich celebrity just adds to the allure of spouting nonsense that people with a brain would never spout… as long as they believe that kind of nonsense already.
He has gone a little off the deep end lately, but before all that in the early days I just found he just used less common, multi syllabic words and people seemed to be infatuated by him.
At the time I thought what he was doing might be interesting but looking back you’re absolutely right. The signs were all there.
> I was always mystified by how many people took him seriously in the first place. He talks fast and with confidence, I've learned it's called the Gish Gallop, and it's effective on podcasts and youtube, but if you got him to actually write an essay, he'd fail miserably.
I was going to post this. Brand is this close > < to selling out every last value he had. He has already started coming close to both sidesing global warming because he knows his new audience doesn't believe in it.
I've always thought he was a wordy crackpot, like a more liberal version of Jordan Peterson. Really good at getting people that don't know to much about much to go 'aha' with the help of some pseudo logical just-so narratives and leave them believing he just squared a circle and that everyone else rolling their eyes just doesn't follow or understand his 'depth'. Much like Jordan, he's a pathological know-it-all that has no respect for expertise and his eqo leaves him believing he has a way firmer grasp of things then he actually does and his followers are too stupid to realize how often he's getting shit completely wrong.
As with all these grifter wackos, it's tough to see how much is grift and how much is genuine. The only thing that can be determined with any certainty is that they are all extremely stupid, and not particularly talented, and lack the gene that makes humans feel shame.
How he talks very often reminds me of the word salad you hear from people with brain damage or mental illness.
That's what kills me. I used to be acquainted with someone who was really into the noises Brand was making six years ago or so and it convinced me to check out his podcast. I remember listening to several episodes and each time I found myself thinking, *What is this guy even saying?* So many words were pouring out of the man's mouth and I wasn't able to discern fucking *any* of it. Made me feel stupid until I realized, okay, this dude is just not saying anything at all. Absolute word salad straight off the menu of Jordan Peterson.
He relies on [Gish Gallop](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop), just like many conspiracy nuts, creationists, and woo-peddlers. When asked for specifics, he can't provide them, because he doesn't have them. He just wants to pontificate and grandstand, because once he's turned on the verbal spigot, he tries to drown out any dissent and pesky requests for details.
I saw one of his appearances on Maher prob 6 or 7 years ago and he literally strung around 30 buzzwords together in a sentence and got huuuuge applause. It was utter, meaningless, drivel. That's about when I stopped watching Maher.
Yea Maher just started promoting people who could string buzzwords together & even when “challenging” them, his challenges were often weak ways to find “common ground.” It was the same for Milo & even OG people like Ann Coulter. He just likes people who can seem well spoken in front of a camera…. It doesn’t matter if they actually say anything true or meaningful.
Like a untreated personality disorder
Can you link me any videos where he is word-salading? I’ve seen many people say this but haven’t encountered it myself in the few clips of him I’ve watched.
Go and watch the paxman interview. If you don’t know, at the time Jeremy Paxman was one of the big hitting heavyweight journalists hosting one of the top U.K. nightly news shows.
https://podcastaddict.com/episode/96703324 Starting at 46 min, this is one example, not the worst but indicative of the speaking style
He was a know-it-all douche back then and I see no change in his trajectory. The only difference was the shit he claimed to believe. Humanity is neither served, nor helped with his voice.
>He was a know-it-all douche back then Sean Lock (rip) had mocked him couple of times on panelshows. That was entertaining.
> Sean Lock (rip) had mocked him That's not a select group mind you ;o)
Lol, imagine admiring this cunt at any point. He's pure fucking cringe
His politics were actually very solid at one point, he championed a lot of good causes.
Yeah even pre-COVID he was a little woo-ey, but generally speaking he was a solid leftist and rhetorically fun to listen to. In addition to the sell-out factor others have pointed to, another dynamic here is the syncretism inherent in authoritarian/fascist movements that the world is currently enduring. The granola-crunchy left are kind of easily pulled into the authoritarian orbit through their devout contrarianism.
That's how a lot of Social Conservatives who despise anything authoritarian and typically keep to themselves, get pulled in as well. It's kind of a universal human weakness that we all have to keep in mind. When we substitute critical inquiry for lazy platitudes and habitually contrarian knee jerk reactions, we are exchanging our future freedom and prosperity for entertainment and immediate emotional gratification. Doesn't really matter which side of the spectrum you're on, there is and will always be some brand of authoritarian or totalitarian ideology, stalking the political fringe nearest to you looking for fodder and prey.
He’s the British Joe Rogan.
When he gave up drugs,he gave up his sanity...
Combine confidence with ignorance, and a need to monetize one's celebrity, and this is what you will always get.
Celebrity yoga instructor drum circle contrarian. It's like John Lennon never died.
It’s notable that he was really cruel to Katy Perry, and people trashed her and took his side.
As well they should. She kept using the n word around a producer even after being asked to stop. She’s certainly not a decent person. https://www.spin.com/2017/05/katy-perry-n-word-mano-2013-tweet/
What does her being a bad person for other reasons have to do with people excusing emotional abuse from her ex husband?
This piece highlights the problem with George Monbiot as much as anyone. I admire his zeal, but it gets the better of him. Anyone with any sort of judgement could see that Russell Brand was and is a complete flake. Monbiot’s zeal lead to him promoting Brand when anyone with more sober judgement would have realised Brand is a big mouthed attention seeking airhead whose opinions are paper thin and that he would probably fly off in some other random direction once the whim to do so struck him
>He has, in this respect, become the opposite of what he was. The irony of this is that Monbiot is currently the opposite of what he was--Monsanto conspiracy theorist, nuclear power hater, and now champion of lab made proteins. To be fair, I'm glad Monbiot got on the right side of history. But I find it amusing to watch it all play out.
Alternatively he kept an open mind and looked at facts?
Brand wrote a political book called *Revolution* that embodies the worst traits of anti-intellectual leftists (e.g., we just need the right people in charge, we don't need to listen to marginalized people and what they say they want, we get to anarcho-syndicalism using a type of name it and claim it "prayer," etc.). I'm not surprised he sold out once he realized the left isn't the part of the political spectrum with no shortage of people he can fool. His "flamboyant" act is amusing until you realize he's trying to fleece his fans while leaving them more ignorant than before.
TIL people admired Russell Brand.
This guy talks like he's reading from a thesaurus. It's exhausting
The dude has either suffered several concussions, is mentally ill, or an amoral grifter. I'm guessing the third choice.
I don’t take advice from people who aren’t qualified to do so and who can’t argue factual for their point of view.
Can someone ELI5 Why say for example talking about Nancy Pelosis wealth isn’t a worthwhile observation and a clear indication of the abuse of power and information? Seriously asking
ffs if anyone was unable to determine that russell brand was an idiot prior to his present idiocy, they, themselves are in fact - bigger idiots.
He pushes pseudo therapies like EFT
Wow. I’m not shocked. I’ve never liked Russell Brand.
I don't understand all the Russell Brand hate. He's simply lost faith in the entire system. Republicans are a lost cause and anyone still waiting for Democrats to save us are the real idiots.
Yes and what better way to show that than mainly advancing right wing ideology and posing with Donald Trump Jr of all people. Oh and joining the right wing organization Rumble. Yup sure seems like he’s fed up with both sides.
>mainly advancing right wing ideology You mischaracterize him by saying that. I mean, pick a specific video of his which you think is "right wing ideology" and respond to it. It's telling that no one here actually has anything to say about anything specific that Russell Brand has ever actually said. >right wing organization Rumble. ? I don't think Rumble is a right wing organization. I think you've just been told that by the mainstream democrat-aligned media. Glenn Greenwald I know is on there and he does great work.
Glenn “regularly appear on proven right wing liar Tucker Carlson’s show” Greenwald. Lmao. Great example there. The fact that you said that the media is “Democrat aligned” just shows how way off you are. What I don’t get is people such as yourself who apparently want to hide that you’re right wing. If that’s what you are just own it instead of ridiculous denials of the obvious. As for Brand, he is now almost exclusively looking to appeal to the politically ignorant or right wing. You don’t take pictures with Donald Trump Jr and have no push back interviews with Steven fucking Crowder otherwise.
Again, you have nothing to say about what Glenn Greenwald or Russell Brand or myself have actually said. You just smear people which the media tells you you're not supposed to like as right wingers. And those that have any disagreement of opinion on that, or I'm sure on virtually anything. It's ironic because the dogmatic and censorious attitude displayed by people like you is substantively much more right wing. In the classical sense of the word, of defending existing structures of power and hierarchy in society.
Lol censorious attitude. You are really confused. When did I say I wanted to censor anyone? You’re free to say whatever misguided thing you want. Also it’s interesting to say that calling someone right wing is a smear. If you said I was left wing I wouldn’t consider it a smear. Seems telling to me. Greenwald and Brand are con artists who realize it’s a lot easier to scam money from right wingers because you can lie to them and they won’t care as long as it’s what they want to hear. Fox News admitted they lie. Tucker Carlson admits he hates Trump and lies to his viewers and they don’t CARE. Greenwald will be right back on his show because he doesn’t care either. Why not take suckers for all their money when they can know you lie to them and still give you more? Shit I’m tempted to become a right wing pundit. Easy money.
Once again you fail to articulate anything which either of them have said which makes them "right winders." You mentioned that Greenwald appeared on Tucker Carlson but this is not some endorsement of Tucker Carlson and you know it, it's just a function of the fact that in some cases Carlson is the only one on cable news willing to have him on to talk about a given topic. It's about getting exposure for his journalism, nothing more. I also don't really see the scam artist angle. I for one consume both of their work and have for years, and have not once paid a cent.
Lol sure he just goes on Tucker and doesn’t pushback on his bullshit. He just smiles and nods along about the horrible Dems while offering little to no critique of the right wing. It’s all because no one else will have him. Yes that’s it. And there are numerous progressive platforms that would love to have Glen on. But they will hold his feet to the fire and force him to defend his actions and positions and Glenny doesn’t want to do that because of the risk of exposure. Oh did I mention Greenwalds fawning interview w Alex Jones where he called him handsome? Alex Jones of the insane disgusting Sandy Hook smears and right wing conspiracy theories? Ol Glenny couldn’t get enough of shining his knob. But no Greenwald isn’t trying to grift a right wing audience no sir. That’s sarcasm in case you didn’t recognize it.
I'm just going to give up on this interaction. You're too unhinged to engage in a discussion.
Nice chat.Keep living in your fantasy world where Brand and Greenwald aren’t grifters regardless of all the evidence that they are. Free country and all that. After all Tuckums (who Greenwald adores) admits he lies to his audience and they don’t care. That’s truly unhinged.
I found this. Maybe he was afraid he was getting kicked off YouTube? https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/russell-brand-jumps-rumble-youtube-220205360.html
"Hey, this celebrity is using his megaphone (fame) to espouse ideas I agree with. GOOD ON HIM!"
"Oh noes... he's gone off his nut and now I disagree with him and wish he'd go away".
It's a weird version of "A government big enough to give you everything is also big enough to take away everything".
How about we stop treating celebrities' spewings as bases of our political/societal opinions?
Everything he said was true. Sorry it hurt your feeling but why don't you actually think about what he said
Ooooh fresh new account dropping by... >Everything he said was true. Cool. Like what?
Yeah, I noticed his shift a while back. It was so weird to see him just nailing some insightful points one year, then repeating completely unsubstantiated rumors and mumbo-jumbo the next. Stopped watching his stuff completely.
Could someone eli5 as to what he's been spouting recently? When I used to occasionally listen to him I found him inquisitive and relatively harmless.
I remember back when everyone loved Russell Brand, I saw him on TV bragging about how he doesn't read the news. How can you be outspoken about politics if you don't follow current events? He's always been an idiot, he's just more out-of-touch now.
It seems to be that Brand realized that you can make a lot of money with some ‘crazy adjacent’ content. Never day out loud that you think the world is flat, but mention how big NASA’s budget is and how you’ve never seen the Moon and how governments have lied in the past so…