comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 34 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 34 seconds ago
I thought Rogan specifically said that he "threw the kitchen sink" at Covid, and that he took a load of stuff including ivermectin? Pretty sure he listed it all on a video or something. Not being any kind of Rogan regular or having really gotten into any of the Covid stuff I could be remembering that wrong admittedly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He basically said there are alternate ways to tackle it, like improving your general health and immune system with diet, supplements and yes, if you get covid, medication.
He also felt that the vaccine was legit, but not necessary for 21 year old men.
but again, it isn't about if he was right or wrong, why isn't he allowed to discuss potential alternatives with qualified doctors?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think we're at cross purposes. Robb said Rogan lied by saying he took ivermectin to recover from covid when he actually took loads of other stuff that he didn't mention.
I recall it being exactly the opposite; he posted a video saying he threw everything at it, listing a bunch of stuff that included ivermectin. What then happened was the media went nuts and started saying he was taking horse de-wormer, despite knowing full well it is primarily a very commonly prescribed human medicine, that was later found to have benefits with some animals as well.
That's my recollection of it because I think some geezer from one of the media outlets ended up on his show and Rogan pretty much embarrassed him about the coverage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ivermectin was introduced as an animal dewormer in 1971 and approved for human use in 1986.
You write very well. At least get what you're writing write.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I welcome the correction, though it makes zero difference to whether I've recalled the other events accurately or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? I'd say it shows you'll throw in "facts" you've just made up. Or that your memory has gaps.
comment by Am-Robb-at (U22716)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Am-Robb-at (U22716)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 34 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 34 seconds ago
I thought Rogan specifically said that he "threw the kitchen sink" at Covid, and that he took a load of stuff including ivermectin? Pretty sure he listed it all on a video or something. Not being any kind of Rogan regular or having really gotten into any of the Covid stuff I could be remembering that wrong admittedly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He basically said there are alternate ways to tackle it, like improving your general health and immune system with diet, supplements and yes, if you get covid, medication.
He also felt that the vaccine was legit, but not necessary for 21 year old men.
but again, it isn't about if he was right or wrong, why isn't he allowed to discuss potential alternatives with qualified doctors?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think we're at cross purposes. Robb said Rogan lied by saying he took ivermectin to recover from covid when he actually took loads of other stuff that he didn't mention.
I recall it being exactly the opposite; he posted a video saying he threw everything at it, listing a bunch of stuff that included ivermectin. What then happened was the media went nuts and started saying he was taking horse de-wormer, despite knowing full well it is primarily a very commonly prescribed human medicine, that was later found to have benefits with some animals as well.
That's my recollection of it because I think some geezer from one of the media outlets ended up on his show and Rogan pretty much embarrassed him about the coverage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what Joe Rogan said about Ivermectin - and remember, any responsible podcast host who should take into account his zombie cult will listen to what he says - This doctor was saying ivermectin is 99 percent effective intreating Covid, but you don’t hear about it because you can’t fund vaccines when it’s an effective treatment,”
Two months later, on June 22nd, Rogan hosted Dr. Bret Weinstein and Dr. Pierre Kory, both public champions of ivermectin as a Covid-19 treatment. Kory is the president of the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance, an organization that pushes for the use of ivermectin in Covid-19 treatment; after YouTube demonetized his channel for publicly promoting ivermectin, Weinstein moved to the fringe platform Odysee. In the episode, Weinstein and Kory pushed the claim that the media and government are censoring information about ivermectin in order for Big Pharma to profit off the Covid-19 vaccine. “You have a drug that’s good enough to end the pandemic at any point you wanted,” Weinstein said. “Who decides to prioritize business interests ahead of that? I find it hard to imagine.” Clips from the episode have widely circulated on YouTube and TikTok, with one video on the latter platform garnering 2.6 million views before it was removed for violating TikTok guidelines against medical misinformation.
^^ taken from an article, so not taking claim for that.
If he platforms people who are clearly wrong about Ivermectin during a health crisis then he’s irresponsible at best and guilty of serious medical misinformation at worst.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is all very well and good, but a totally different thing to what you said originally.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what I said originally
‘ And he is a fraud as he pushed ivermectin when it clearly wasn’t effective and didn’t exactly admit to the reality which was his expensive mix of drugs used to treat Covid rather than just ivermectin and as his platforming dangerous quacks very likely cost lives it’s not unfair to say he should have been censored’
And that’s true as I showed you in the above comments that even when he had a chance to move past his stupid and wrong support for ivermectin he double down on it and invited people on to try and prove him right for taking it instead of push for the use of monoclonal antibodies to anyone that could afford it as you can’t be so naive as to think his supporters didn’t go away from the podcast feeling vindicated about Ivermectin instead of seeing what really helped him?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether he did or didn't, or should or should not have advocated for monoclonals over anything is a separate matter. You said he "didn’t exactly admit to the reality which was his expensive mix of drugs used to treat Covid rather than just ivermectin".
But in the very video that triggered the ivermectin debacle, he did exactly that.
Anything else he did or didn't say on such matters I've no idea and am not contesting in the slightest. I also don't know what the average Joe Rogan viewer looks like or thinks given his guests are pretty eclectic. I assume there's a bigger audience for people who want to hear from some sports star or musician or some figure like Elon Musk then there is some obscure scientist talking about a drug that prior to 2020, most had never heard of. So I'd imagine there wasn't as much "vindication" about ivermectin as you might suspect given how marginal any kind of sentiment on the drug there actually is among the public. I also assume the same people who you're imagining might be 'vindicated' about a drug they'd previously never heard of or had any views on could also have seen the video where he "threw the kitchen sink" at covid (or whatever exact words he used) and may have been perfectly capable of *not* jumping to conclusions about one medicine among the list of others he mentioned.
And measuring the impact of someone like Rogan saying or hosting someone who espouses something incorrect is even more complicated when we consider that anytime something contentious does appear on his show, it sparks a deluge of reaction videos & other responses from multiple sources which combined may reach (or will sometimes reach) a larger audience than Rogan's alone. Incidentally, that's exactly how I became aware of who he was years ago; he'd often espouse or host dumb anti-vegan views/guests, which would elicit a ton of reaction across what I'd guess we might call 'vegan YouTube'.
So I don't exactly know how to go about answering your last question. We have some evidence of what happens to public perception/understanding on an issue when they're largely fed a demonstrably filtered and heavily omitted narrative via a given media. In the age of 'reaction video' culture and a media landscape that largely reports on what people are saying on social media, measuring outcomes on public perception seems a hell of a lot harder (topic depending).
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? I'd say it shows you'll throw in "facts" you've just made up. Or that your memory has gaps.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone's memory has gaps. I got one piece of chronology incorrect that doesn't actually matter. You can dine off of that if it makes you feel smarter.
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
People are acting like trial by public opinion is a new thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In general it's obviously not new, but the nature of our media landscape; instant and globally connected social media, makes it much more potent. And the digital landscape in general makes it seemingly quite a bit easier to effectively cull someone from popular arenas that we're a fair bit more dependent on than we used to be.
The TLDR version of that would simply be that damaging allegations (whether true or not) can spread so much faster now, as can non-legally imposed penalties.
If allegations made against someone are indeed true then that's not necessarily a bad thing as it can hasten people or organisation's ability to react and make it harder for bad actors to get away with ongoing malpractice (of whatever variety). But if the allegations are not then someone can go from being a young single mum running a successful, small local business from their home setup to being suicidal within the space of just a few months (Danielle Hindley).
All of which is to simply say that we should tread more cautiously in these circumstances.
Tbf the Mail should be shut down and I really mean that.
It is continually at the bottom of the list for accuracy and authenticity, not just in Britain, but in Europe.
Absolute joke of a publication and they know exactly what they're doing. They've got worse under the Tories too, thank God their owners don't have any connections to them.
It's a wonder CH4, the BBC, YouTube and various news outlets aren't so bothered about our government and banks are making the lives of the middle class miserable whilst pocketing millions.
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 4 minutes ago
It's a wonder CH4, the BBC, YouTube and various news outlets aren't so bothered about our government and banks are making the lives of the middle class miserable whilst pocketing millions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I never understand comments like this.
What are you suggesting they should do?
comment by Jalisco Red - Losing My Reguilón (U4195)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 4 minutes ago
It's a wonder CH4, the BBC, YouTube and various news outlets aren't so bothered about our government and banks are making the lives of the middle class miserable whilst pocketing millions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I never understand comments like this.
What are you suggesting they should do?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And what does it have to do with Russell Brand?
https://twitter.com/rumblevideo/status/1704584927834960196?t=4CvMixYHfKl1SWrdtpleuA&s=19
comment by spyro-12 (U21947)
posted 8 minutes ago
https://twitter.com/rumblevideo/status/1704584927834960196?t=4CvMixYHfKl1SWrdtpleuA&s=19
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fantastic marketing ploy there. Might start my own video service and publically declare that Brand is allowed to broadcast on it for free speech reasons. Gonna go on my Sunday league side's twitter and announce that we'd welcome innocent Greenwood playing for us as well
What a surprise, now that the BBC and CH4 have managed to tarnish Brand a rapist (true or not) they've finally decided to correlate his misogyny with his political opinions
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66842630
I guess that means anybody who questions the narrative is a rapey misogynist.
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 9 minutes ago
What a surprise, now that the BBC and CH4 have managed to tarnish Brand a rapist (true or not) they've finally decided to correlate his misogyny with his political opinions
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66842630
I guess that means anybody who questions the narrative is a rapey misogynist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good article, thanks
I have actually interacted with Dr Carol Jasper a couple of times on Twitter. Nice to see her comments here.
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 12 minutes ago
What a surprise, now that the BBC and CH4 have managed to tarnish Brand a rapist (true or not) they've finally decided to correlate his misogyny with his political opinions
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66842630
I guess that means anybody who questions the narrative is a rapey misogynist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly Busby. He went against the media narrative. Exposed so many people and had the platform for millions to listen to it and they had to shut him down.
Who is they? Do they have secret meetings? And exactly what harm has he done to the MSM? How have they suffered from his YouTube channel? If they don't "bring him down" what is he actually going to achieve?
comment by Jalisco Red - Losing My Reguilón (U4195)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 9 minutes ago
What a surprise, now that the BBC and CH4 have managed to tarnish Brand a rapist (true or not) they've finally decided to correlate his misogyny with his political opinions
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66842630
I guess that means anybody who questions the narrative is a rapey misogynist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good article, thanks
I have actually interacted with Dr Carol Jasper a couple of times on Twitter. Nice to see her comments here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s cool
comment by Amadou Bakayoko (U1734)
posted 26 seconds ago
Who is they? Do they have secret meetings? And exactly what harm has he done to the MSM? How have they suffered from his YouTube channel? If they don't "bring him down" what is he actually going to achieve?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And why wait so long? Why not shut him down as his platform is growing, rather than waiting until the horse has bolted?
I'm beginning to think this New World Order isn't all it's cracked up to be. Their global depopulation programme really isn't going to plan.
"I'm beginning to think this New World Order isn't all it's cracked up to be"
I do think people give government and politicians far too much credit, I'd imagine for the best part they're no more organised than most large organisations.
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 1 day, 22 hours ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - I taught Szoboszlai how to cushion half volleys (U6374)
posted 1 minute ago
Bone of their livelihood have been ruined.
If you have to make things up and embellish, it's probably not a very good point.
You can put utter guesswork in the same bracket.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What have I made up?
Depp was totally cancelled. Mendy went from Man City left back to being suspended for a year and playing for Lorient.
Woods had loads of contracts and sponsors cancelled, because he had an affair.
Crews has shows cancelled, and has basically been banished from Hollywood for his views on racism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depp hasn't been cancelled, he hasn't been in many movies lately because virtually all of his films in the past decade have been flops. Other than the Harry Potter spin off he wasn't dropped from any films either.
Mendy was suspended pending an investigation but he was still getting paid.
Woods didn't just "have an affair" and sponsors have been dropping players for bad PR for as long as they've existed. He's also worth $1BN so bringing up money lost is laughable.
"Depp hasn't been cancelled, he hasn't been in many movies lately"
Yeah, ones he produced, because Disney cancelled him, based on lies.
"Mendy was suspended pending an investigation but he was still getting paid."
What don't you understand about the fact he's now playing for Lorient? He could've been a treble winner and a WC finalist.
Unlikely, City would have sold him ages ago.
Yeah he could have, but what's the alternative? He was accused by multiple women and there was clearly enough believable evidence to take him to court when many rape cases never even get that far.
If I wanted someone's views not to be heard, I am sure the FIRST thing I would do would be to give him worldwide attention, bringing his views to millions and millions more than had even heard of him or knew what nonsense he was currently spouting.
Even you Busby, probably didn't even know that Brand had a youtube channel and was spouting conspiracy theories, but like most of us found out about his nonsense BECAUSE the media have gone after him for being raapey.
The MSM are ENABLING Brand's alternative views on the world to reach a larger audience.
Unless you think constant worldwide attention is not giving him any attention?
Or are you stupid?
So it may be that it is actually about his raapey behaviour after all.
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 14 minutes ago
Yeah he could have, but what's the alternative? He was accused by multiple women and there was clearly enough believable evidence to take him to court when many rape cases never even get that far.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like Busby said his career went down the bin due to false accusations but while he was on trial the media had a field day with a black Muslim guy.
Compare that the suicidal Phil Scofield and Gylfi Sigguardson coverage. If you can't see it then you never will.
Good point, what ever happened Gylfi Sigguardson, people seem more outraged by Brand (whom the BBC & CH4 happily encouraged and flaunted to the public) than a nonce.
What about facking hitler? What about Peter Tobin? The guy may have killed over 100 people that we don't even know about. Where is the outrage this week about that? Why more outrage at Brand?
Sign in if you want to comment
Russell Brand
Page 12 of 14
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14
posted on 20/9/23
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 34 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 34 seconds ago
I thought Rogan specifically said that he "threw the kitchen sink" at Covid, and that he took a load of stuff including ivermectin? Pretty sure he listed it all on a video or something. Not being any kind of Rogan regular or having really gotten into any of the Covid stuff I could be remembering that wrong admittedly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He basically said there are alternate ways to tackle it, like improving your general health and immune system with diet, supplements and yes, if you get covid, medication.
He also felt that the vaccine was legit, but not necessary for 21 year old men.
but again, it isn't about if he was right or wrong, why isn't he allowed to discuss potential alternatives with qualified doctors?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think we're at cross purposes. Robb said Rogan lied by saying he took ivermectin to recover from covid when he actually took loads of other stuff that he didn't mention.
I recall it being exactly the opposite; he posted a video saying he threw everything at it, listing a bunch of stuff that included ivermectin. What then happened was the media went nuts and started saying he was taking horse de-wormer, despite knowing full well it is primarily a very commonly prescribed human medicine, that was later found to have benefits with some animals as well.
That's my recollection of it because I think some geezer from one of the media outlets ended up on his show and Rogan pretty much embarrassed him about the coverage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ivermectin was introduced as an animal dewormer in 1971 and approved for human use in 1986.
You write very well. At least get what you're writing write.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I welcome the correction, though it makes zero difference to whether I've recalled the other events accurately or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? I'd say it shows you'll throw in "facts" you've just made up. Or that your memory has gaps.
posted on 20/9/23
comment by Am-Robb-at (U22716)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Am-Robb-at (U22716)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 34 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 34 seconds ago
I thought Rogan specifically said that he "threw the kitchen sink" at Covid, and that he took a load of stuff including ivermectin? Pretty sure he listed it all on a video or something. Not being any kind of Rogan regular or having really gotten into any of the Covid stuff I could be remembering that wrong admittedly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He basically said there are alternate ways to tackle it, like improving your general health and immune system with diet, supplements and yes, if you get covid, medication.
He also felt that the vaccine was legit, but not necessary for 21 year old men.
but again, it isn't about if he was right or wrong, why isn't he allowed to discuss potential alternatives with qualified doctors?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think we're at cross purposes. Robb said Rogan lied by saying he took ivermectin to recover from covid when he actually took loads of other stuff that he didn't mention.
I recall it being exactly the opposite; he posted a video saying he threw everything at it, listing a bunch of stuff that included ivermectin. What then happened was the media went nuts and started saying he was taking horse de-wormer, despite knowing full well it is primarily a very commonly prescribed human medicine, that was later found to have benefits with some animals as well.
That's my recollection of it because I think some geezer from one of the media outlets ended up on his show and Rogan pretty much embarrassed him about the coverage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what Joe Rogan said about Ivermectin - and remember, any responsible podcast host who should take into account his zombie cult will listen to what he says - This doctor was saying ivermectin is 99 percent effective intreating Covid, but you don’t hear about it because you can’t fund vaccines when it’s an effective treatment,”
Two months later, on June 22nd, Rogan hosted Dr. Bret Weinstein and Dr. Pierre Kory, both public champions of ivermectin as a Covid-19 treatment. Kory is the president of the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance, an organization that pushes for the use of ivermectin in Covid-19 treatment; after YouTube demonetized his channel for publicly promoting ivermectin, Weinstein moved to the fringe platform Odysee. In the episode, Weinstein and Kory pushed the claim that the media and government are censoring information about ivermectin in order for Big Pharma to profit off the Covid-19 vaccine. “You have a drug that’s good enough to end the pandemic at any point you wanted,” Weinstein said. “Who decides to prioritize business interests ahead of that? I find it hard to imagine.” Clips from the episode have widely circulated on YouTube and TikTok, with one video on the latter platform garnering 2.6 million views before it was removed for violating TikTok guidelines against medical misinformation.
^^ taken from an article, so not taking claim for that.
If he platforms people who are clearly wrong about Ivermectin during a health crisis then he’s irresponsible at best and guilty of serious medical misinformation at worst.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is all very well and good, but a totally different thing to what you said originally.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what I said originally
‘ And he is a fraud as he pushed ivermectin when it clearly wasn’t effective and didn’t exactly admit to the reality which was his expensive mix of drugs used to treat Covid rather than just ivermectin and as his platforming dangerous quacks very likely cost lives it’s not unfair to say he should have been censored’
And that’s true as I showed you in the above comments that even when he had a chance to move past his stupid and wrong support for ivermectin he double down on it and invited people on to try and prove him right for taking it instead of push for the use of monoclonal antibodies to anyone that could afford it as you can’t be so naive as to think his supporters didn’t go away from the podcast feeling vindicated about Ivermectin instead of seeing what really helped him?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether he did or didn't, or should or should not have advocated for monoclonals over anything is a separate matter. You said he "didn’t exactly admit to the reality which was his expensive mix of drugs used to treat Covid rather than just ivermectin".
But in the very video that triggered the ivermectin debacle, he did exactly that.
Anything else he did or didn't say on such matters I've no idea and am not contesting in the slightest. I also don't know what the average Joe Rogan viewer looks like or thinks given his guests are pretty eclectic. I assume there's a bigger audience for people who want to hear from some sports star or musician or some figure like Elon Musk then there is some obscure scientist talking about a drug that prior to 2020, most had never heard of. So I'd imagine there wasn't as much "vindication" about ivermectin as you might suspect given how marginal any kind of sentiment on the drug there actually is among the public. I also assume the same people who you're imagining might be 'vindicated' about a drug they'd previously never heard of or had any views on could also have seen the video where he "threw the kitchen sink" at covid (or whatever exact words he used) and may have been perfectly capable of *not* jumping to conclusions about one medicine among the list of others he mentioned.
And measuring the impact of someone like Rogan saying or hosting someone who espouses something incorrect is even more complicated when we consider that anytime something contentious does appear on his show, it sparks a deluge of reaction videos & other responses from multiple sources which combined may reach (or will sometimes reach) a larger audience than Rogan's alone. Incidentally, that's exactly how I became aware of who he was years ago; he'd often espouse or host dumb anti-vegan views/guests, which would elicit a ton of reaction across what I'd guess we might call 'vegan YouTube'.
So I don't exactly know how to go about answering your last question. We have some evidence of what happens to public perception/understanding on an issue when they're largely fed a demonstrably filtered and heavily omitted narrative via a given media. In the age of 'reaction video' culture and a media landscape that largely reports on what people are saying on social media, measuring outcomes on public perception seems a hell of a lot harder (topic depending).
posted on 20/9/23
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? I'd say it shows you'll throw in "facts" you've just made up. Or that your memory has gaps.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone's memory has gaps. I got one piece of chronology incorrect that doesn't actually matter. You can dine off of that if it makes you feel smarter.
posted on 20/9/23
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
People are acting like trial by public opinion is a new thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In general it's obviously not new, but the nature of our media landscape; instant and globally connected social media, makes it much more potent. And the digital landscape in general makes it seemingly quite a bit easier to effectively cull someone from popular arenas that we're a fair bit more dependent on than we used to be.
The TLDR version of that would simply be that damaging allegations (whether true or not) can spread so much faster now, as can non-legally imposed penalties.
If allegations made against someone are indeed true then that's not necessarily a bad thing as it can hasten people or organisation's ability to react and make it harder for bad actors to get away with ongoing malpractice (of whatever variety). But if the allegations are not then someone can go from being a young single mum running a successful, small local business from their home setup to being suicidal within the space of just a few months (Danielle Hindley).
All of which is to simply say that we should tread more cautiously in these circumstances.
posted on 20/9/23
Tbf the Mail should be shut down and I really mean that.
It is continually at the bottom of the list for accuracy and authenticity, not just in Britain, but in Europe.
Absolute joke of a publication and they know exactly what they're doing. They've got worse under the Tories too, thank God their owners don't have any connections to them.
posted on 20/9/23
It's a wonder CH4, the BBC, YouTube and various news outlets aren't so bothered about our government and banks are making the lives of the middle class miserable whilst pocketing millions.
posted on 20/9/23
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 4 minutes ago
It's a wonder CH4, the BBC, YouTube and various news outlets aren't so bothered about our government and banks are making the lives of the middle class miserable whilst pocketing millions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I never understand comments like this.
What are you suggesting they should do?
posted on 20/9/23
comment by Jalisco Red - Losing My Reguilón (U4195)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 4 minutes ago
It's a wonder CH4, the BBC, YouTube and various news outlets aren't so bothered about our government and banks are making the lives of the middle class miserable whilst pocketing millions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I never understand comments like this.
What are you suggesting they should do?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And what does it have to do with Russell Brand?
posted on 20/9/23
https://twitter.com/rumblevideo/status/1704584927834960196?t=4CvMixYHfKl1SWrdtpleuA&s=19
posted on 20/9/23
comment by spyro-12 (U21947)
posted 8 minutes ago
https://twitter.com/rumblevideo/status/1704584927834960196?t=4CvMixYHfKl1SWrdtpleuA&s=19
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fantastic marketing ploy there. Might start my own video service and publically declare that Brand is allowed to broadcast on it for free speech reasons. Gonna go on my Sunday league side's twitter and announce that we'd welcome innocent Greenwood playing for us as well
posted on 22/9/23
What a surprise, now that the BBC and CH4 have managed to tarnish Brand a rapist (true or not) they've finally decided to correlate his misogyny with his political opinions
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66842630
I guess that means anybody who questions the narrative is a rapey misogynist.
posted on 22/9/23
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 9 minutes ago
What a surprise, now that the BBC and CH4 have managed to tarnish Brand a rapist (true or not) they've finally decided to correlate his misogyny with his political opinions
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66842630
I guess that means anybody who questions the narrative is a rapey misogynist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good article, thanks
I have actually interacted with Dr Carol Jasper a couple of times on Twitter. Nice to see her comments here.
posted on 22/9/23
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 12 minutes ago
What a surprise, now that the BBC and CH4 have managed to tarnish Brand a rapist (true or not) they've finally decided to correlate his misogyny with his political opinions
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66842630
I guess that means anybody who questions the narrative is a rapey misogynist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly Busby. He went against the media narrative. Exposed so many people and had the platform for millions to listen to it and they had to shut him down.
posted on 22/9/23
Who is they? Do they have secret meetings? And exactly what harm has he done to the MSM? How have they suffered from his YouTube channel? If they don't "bring him down" what is he actually going to achieve?
posted on 22/9/23
comment by Jalisco Red - Losing My Reguilón (U4195)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 9 minutes ago
What a surprise, now that the BBC and CH4 have managed to tarnish Brand a rapist (true or not) they've finally decided to correlate his misogyny with his political opinions
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66842630
I guess that means anybody who questions the narrative is a rapey misogynist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good article, thanks
I have actually interacted with Dr Carol Jasper a couple of times on Twitter. Nice to see her comments here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s cool
posted on 22/9/23
comment by Amadou Bakayoko (U1734)
posted 26 seconds ago
Who is they? Do they have secret meetings? And exactly what harm has he done to the MSM? How have they suffered from his YouTube channel? If they don't "bring him down" what is he actually going to achieve?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And why wait so long? Why not shut him down as his platform is growing, rather than waiting until the horse has bolted?
I'm beginning to think this New World Order isn't all it's cracked up to be. Their global depopulation programme really isn't going to plan.
posted on 22/9/23
"I'm beginning to think this New World Order isn't all it's cracked up to be"
I do think people give government and politicians far too much credit, I'd imagine for the best part they're no more organised than most large organisations.
posted on 22/9/23
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 1 day, 22 hours ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - I taught Szoboszlai how to cushion half volleys (U6374)
posted 1 minute ago
Bone of their livelihood have been ruined.
If you have to make things up and embellish, it's probably not a very good point.
You can put utter guesswork in the same bracket.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What have I made up?
Depp was totally cancelled. Mendy went from Man City left back to being suspended for a year and playing for Lorient.
Woods had loads of contracts and sponsors cancelled, because he had an affair.
Crews has shows cancelled, and has basically been banished from Hollywood for his views on racism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depp hasn't been cancelled, he hasn't been in many movies lately because virtually all of his films in the past decade have been flops. Other than the Harry Potter spin off he wasn't dropped from any films either.
Mendy was suspended pending an investigation but he was still getting paid.
Woods didn't just "have an affair" and sponsors have been dropping players for bad PR for as long as they've existed. He's also worth $1BN so bringing up money lost is laughable.
posted on 22/9/23
"Depp hasn't been cancelled, he hasn't been in many movies lately"
Yeah, ones he produced, because Disney cancelled him, based on lies.
"Mendy was suspended pending an investigation but he was still getting paid."
What don't you understand about the fact he's now playing for Lorient? He could've been a treble winner and a WC finalist.
posted on 22/9/23
Unlikely, City would have sold him ages ago.
posted on 22/9/23
Yeah he could have, but what's the alternative? He was accused by multiple women and there was clearly enough believable evidence to take him to court when many rape cases never even get that far.
posted on 22/9/23
If I wanted someone's views not to be heard, I am sure the FIRST thing I would do would be to give him worldwide attention, bringing his views to millions and millions more than had even heard of him or knew what nonsense he was currently spouting.
Even you Busby, probably didn't even know that Brand had a youtube channel and was spouting conspiracy theories, but like most of us found out about his nonsense BECAUSE the media have gone after him for being raapey.
The MSM are ENABLING Brand's alternative views on the world to reach a larger audience.
Unless you think constant worldwide attention is not giving him any attention?
Or are you stupid?
So it may be that it is actually about his raapey behaviour after all.
posted on 22/9/23
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 14 minutes ago
Yeah he could have, but what's the alternative? He was accused by multiple women and there was clearly enough believable evidence to take him to court when many rape cases never even get that far.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like Busby said his career went down the bin due to false accusations but while he was on trial the media had a field day with a black Muslim guy.
Compare that the suicidal Phil Scofield and Gylfi Sigguardson coverage. If you can't see it then you never will.
posted on 22/9/23
Good point, what ever happened Gylfi Sigguardson, people seem more outraged by Brand (whom the BBC & CH4 happily encouraged and flaunted to the public) than a nonce.
posted on 22/9/23
What about facking hitler? What about Peter Tobin? The guy may have killed over 100 people that we don't even know about. Where is the outrage this week about that? Why more outrage at Brand?
Page 12 of 14
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14