SatNav, two things I'd put to you:
1. As I said above, I don't think the key criticism of Rogan is that he is 'ideologically wrong'. It's that he gives a huge platform to cranks, pseudoscientists and occasionally extremists without having the research to hand or to bring in counterbalancing expertise to correct objective falsehoods. Having no malicious motivation and saying 'Hey, I'm no expert' is all very well, but if the function is to give a sympathetic hearing to dangerous lies, that's still something to be concerned about. Rogan not being an expert is fine. Treating charlatans as if they were experts is the issue.
2. The same thing came up with Andrew Tate: some of his content is socially harmful, and some of it isn't. Guess what: it's the former we're worried about! The non-dangerous content doesn't make explicit advocacy of misogyny or erosion of trust in science-based public health somehow more benign. Actually, it probably makes it more dangerous, because it means the harmful messages are intertwined into a more mainstream and reasonable sounding medium.
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 4 hours, 28 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - I taught Szoboszlai how to cushion half volleys (U6374)
posted 27 minutes ago
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uwWUb5hyFmQ&pp=ygUac3Rld2FydCBsZWUgcnVzc2VsbCBicmFuZCA%3D
Stewart Lee destroying Russel Brand is quality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He had his number didn't he? 😂
Stewart Lee is someone who divides what's funny and what isn't. Some get him and some don't.
I quite like him as it goes. Very unique.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like Stewart lee, but he isn’t really all that funny. Great observational and pointed humor but he’s not really laugh out loud funny from what I’ve seen. Appreciate his barbed and clever delivery though.
Stewart Lee is not at all funny! Brand is to an extent but seems a bit of an oddball.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 hours, 54 minutes ago
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 15 minutes ago
Does Brand play for Manchester United? No
So why this pointless article? Ffs 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It took the same amount of time as your pointless reply.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well considering you stated on the “that kiss” article that you had no interest in abusers that had no ties to Man Utd and yet since have done another Rubiales article then this one!
Seems you speak with fork tounge old boy!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've just looked on your page, and none of your first five articles are bout Man United. And I speak with a forked something or other.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WTF are you waffling on about?
Where have I ever said I had no interest in taking the mickey out of Liverpool old boy?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You said it was a pointless article as it wasn't about Manchester United. Just like your five.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by Barefoot (U19770)
posted 19 minutes ago
Stewart Lee is not at all funny! Brand is to an extent but seems a bit of an oddball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Point made earlier that different comedic styles suit different people. Maybe you like the surrealist stuff? Others like the alternative or observational stuff of Lee.
Is what it is.
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by Barefoot (U19770)
posted 19 minutes ago
Stewart Lee is not at all funny! Brand is to an extent but seems a bit of an oddball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Point made earlier that different comedic styles suit different people. Maybe you like the surrealist stuff? Others like the alternative or observational stuff of Lee.
Is what it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
True mate. All subjective!
My favourite comedians are James Corden and Keith Lemon. No one comes close to them
Stewart Lee is great and incredibly bright. I particularly enjoy his sketch on William Wallace.
If people think Brand's '
"Ooooooooo, I've got my winkey out, what do you say to that fine noble sir"
type of comedy is better I don't really know what to say.
Stewart Lee on immigration and Paul Nuttal is genius comedy. Makes anti immigration types look like absolute d!ckheads.
comment by Amadou Bakayoko (U1734)
posted 2 minutes ago
My favourite comedians are James Corden and Keith Lemon. No one comes close to them
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now you're talking!!!!!!!!
comment by Amadou Bakayoko (U1734)
posted 3 minutes ago
My favourite comedians are James Corden and Keith Lemon. No one comes close to them
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You remind me of James Corden.
comment by Robbing Hoody - I taught Szoboszlai how to cushion half volleys (U6374)
posted 3 minutes ago
Stewart Lee is great and incredibly bright. I particularly enjoy his sketch on William Wallace.
If people think Brand's '
"Ooooooooo, I've got my winkey out, what do you say to that fine noble sir"
type of comedy is better I don't really know what to say.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Being bright doesn't make you funny, although it helps at times.
I did see Lee mock Corden once. I wouldn't criticise anyone for mocking Corden but again, it wasn't funny.
comment by Robbing Hoody - I taught Szoboszlai how to cushion half volleys (U6374)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Amadou Bakayoko (U1734)
posted 3 minutes ago
My favourite comedians are James Corden and Keith Lemon. No one comes close to them
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You remind me of James Corden.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks
I think the bloke is an absolute prat, but he has been found guilty of nothing.So why does the law allow any woman to cry rape and stay anonymous but the bloke get his name all over the news, effectively ending his career even if proven to be innocent.
The law has to change so that all parties remain anonymous until proven guilty. Or otherwise
comment by gone but never forgotten (U21659)
posted 2 minutes ago
I think the bloke is an absolute prat, but he has been found guilty of nothing.So why does the law allow any woman to cry rape and stay anonymous but the bloke get his name all over the news, effectively ending his career even if proven to be innocent.
The law has to change so that all parties remain anonymous until proven guilty. Or otherwise
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree. I remember just a few years ago the witch hunt against our poor Jimmy. Just because he was dead so couldn't defend himself. He shouldn't have been named cos he was never convicted of anything. They also completely ignored all the good work he did for charity. They ruined the poor bloke's reputation.
comment by Amadou Bakayoko (U1734)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by gone but never forgotten (U21659)
posted 2 minutes ago
I think the bloke is an absolute prat, but he has been found guilty of nothing.So why does the law allow any woman to cry rape and stay anonymous but the bloke get his name all over the news, effectively ending his career even if proven to be innocent.
The law has to change so that all parties remain anonymous until proven guilty. Or otherwise
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree. I remember just a few years ago the witch hunt against our poor Jimmy. Just because he was dead so couldn't defend himself. He shouldn't have been named cos he was never convicted of anything. They also completely ignored all the good work he did for charity. They ruined the poor bloke's reputation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All them people he fixed it for too, they never got to have their say
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 11 hours, 29 minutes ago
SatNav, two things I'd put to you:
1. As I said above, I don't think the key criticism of Rogan is that he is 'ideologically wrong'. It's that he gives a huge platform to cranks, pseudoscientists and occasionally extremists without having the research to hand or to bring in counterbalancing expertise to correct objective falsehoods. Having no malicious motivation and saying 'Hey, I'm no expert' is all very well, but if the function is to give a sympathetic hearing to dangerous lies, that's still something to be concerned about. Rogan not being an expert is fine. Treating charlatans as if they were experts is the issue.
2. The same thing came up with Andrew Tate: some of his content is socially harmful, and some of it isn't. Guess what: it's the former we're worried about! The non-dangerous content doesn't make explicit advocacy of misogyny or erosion of trust in science-based public health somehow more benign. Actually, it probably makes it more dangerous, because it means the harmful messages are intertwined into a more mainstream and reasonable sounding medium.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A few questions that I would put back to you in that case:
1. How many episodes of his have you watched? Or are you just unhappy that he gives a platform to people that you label as cranks? By doing so, you’re just exemplifying one of my previous points by the way.
2. You are worried about the things that you worry about. Remember saying to me that I was a daily Mail style obsessive regarding genitalia because we were talking about the trans issue. That’s an issue that you think is perfectly fine, a hunky dory surface manifestation not to be worried about, I disagree.
3. Did you watch his episode with Candace Owens? I’m going to go out on a limb here and presume that you didn’t. Well, he destroyed her on climate change. She doesn’t believe in it and he made her look like a fool. I suspect that you wouldn’t be unhappy with that? He did similar to Steven Crowder. Did you watch that episode? Again I presume not. Again he obliterated him and made him look like a bit of a fool.
What you’re ultimately saying is that it’s fine with the content that you agree with and do not find dangerous but are not happy with him providing a platform to people who you vehemently disagree with and label as cranks or dangerous.
Well guess what? You do not get to decide that, thankfully. They have full freedom of speech over in America and as polite as you generally are, when push comes to shove you certainly can be rather intolerant of alternative views; It comes out on occasions like this.
"I think they're hardcore lefties and hardcore lefties don't know what the f*** to do with me 'cause I look like a Trump supporter."
ah, there's a lot of things that don't line up with the fact that I support universal basic income. I support universal health care. My family was poor when I was young. We were on welfare. I'll never forget that. I'll never forget being on food stamps as a kid. I'll never forget wondering if we were gonna have enough food to eat.
Regarding cranks, he has offered a hell of a lot of money to be donated to charity for a vaccine expert to come on his show and give them the opportunity to obliterate RFK I think it was and his anti-vaccine stance.
The person in question has refused. Cowardice, I would say given that Rohan’s shows are available in full as standard. Take time, prepare, arm yourself with facts and go on there and destroy them. Make it so undeniable that vaccines were necessary and end it? I could probably do it myself with some simple undeniable facts and timings showing the effectiveness of vaccines. Lockdowns I lean the other way entirely.
Why would Rogan offer this if not to be reasonable?
SatNav, you always seem to think that if I heavily criticise something, I want to close down the person's freedom of speech. (Is it possible that in your own conservative mind, it's natural to associate disapproving of things with proscribing them? For instance, when it comes to gender identity, you're more inclined toward restricting individuals' freedoms, aren't you?)
I don't want Joe Rogan banned. I just hold an opinion that he has a malign influence on our discourse. That's not based on his entire output. I've already stated I don't think he's a committed ideologue of one colour or another, and so I'm sure there are things he airs I will agree with and guests I would find interesting. I'm also not opposed to broadcasting interviews with people who hold bigoted views or espouse pseudoscience. But the responsible thing to do when interacting with any interviewee (and especially such people) is putting in enough prior research to rigorously challenge them, and to point out logical fallacies / flaws in arguments / a body of scientific evidence. I've listened to enough of Rogan's interviews on topics covering race and the pandemic to have formed a view that he doesn't do that consistently.
You're right to assume that I don't listen to all of his podcasts. You were right to assume that I didn't watch every Andrew Tate video too. Do you think it's possible that you might have ever offered a critical opinion on an individual (say, a writer or politician on the left) without first listening to and reading the majority of their recent speeches and articles? It's important to be humble enough to accept we don't know enough to ever form a final judgement - and it's useful for me, along with everyone else, to be reminded of this from time to time. But we also need to make constant (interim) assessments of things to make it through a day. To decide what content we will find valuable to consume. To think about whether the ideas we interact with are useful or unhelpful. Making no judgements easily bleeds into apathy and cynicism, which I believe are the most corrosive forces in our current political culture.
Finally, I think it's crass to label a scientist a coward for being unwilling to debate someone like RFK jr. Particularly if it's a discussion moderated by a 'just asking questions' guy. There has been much written about what happens when an expert shares a stage with a snake oil salesman who is possibly a more effective communicator. Many people would be very concerned if that debate went ahead. It suggests this is an issue in which there are two valid opinions, which simply isn't the case when you have peer-reviewed science debating a charlatan.
"Do you think it's possible that you might have ever offered a critical opinion on an individual (say, a writer or politician on the left) without first listening to and reading the majority of their recent speeches and articles? It's important to be humble enough to accept we don't know enough to ever form a final judgement - and it's useful for me, along with everyone else, to be reminded of this from time to time."
-----------------------------------------------------
RR you could have just used my template that I have been offering you for years.
Best politician in the world if he is saying something I agree with, overrated and far too small and weak for politics if he is saying something I disagree with. I have never listened to anything he has said.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 13 minutes ago
SatNav, you always seem to think that if I heavily criticise something, I want to close down the person's freedom of speech. (Is it possible that in your own conservative mind, it's natural to associate disapproving of things with proscribing them? For instance, when it comes to gender identity, you're more inclined toward restricting individuals' freedoms, aren't you?)
I don't want Joe Rogan banned. I just hold an opinion that he has a malign influence on our discourse. That's not based on his entire output. I've already stated I don't think he's a committed ideologue of one colour or another, and so I'm sure there are things he airs I will agree with and guests I would find interesting. I'm also not opposed to broadcasting interviews with people who hold bigoted views or espouse pseudoscience. But the responsible thing to do when interacting with any interviewee (and especially such people) is putting in enough prior research to rigorously challenge them, and to point out logical fallacies / flaws in arguments / a body of scientific evidence. I've listened to enough of Rogan's interviews on topics covering race and the pandemic to have formed a view that he doesn't do that consistently.
You're right to assume that I don't listen to all of his podcasts. You were right to assume that I didn't watch every Andrew Tate video too. Do you think it's possible that you might have ever offered a critical opinion on an individual (say, a writer or politician on the left) without first listening to and reading the majority of their recent speeches and articles? It's important to be humble enough to accept we don't know enough to ever form a final judgement - and it's useful for me, along with everyone else, to be reminded of this from time to time. But we also need to make constant (interim) assessments of things to make it through a day. To decide what content we will find valuable to consume. To think about whether the ideas we interact with are useful or unhelpful. Making no judgements easily bleeds into apathy and cynicism, which I believe are the most corrosive forces in our current political culture.
Finally, I think it's crass to label a scientist a coward for being unwilling to debate someone like RFK jr. Particularly if it's a discussion moderated by a 'just asking questions' guy. There has been much written about what happens when an expert shares a stage with a snake oil salesman who is possibly a more effective communicator. Many people would be very concerned if that debate went ahead. It suggests this is an issue in which there are two valid opinions, which simply isn't the case when you have peer-reviewed science debating a charlatan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you’re criticising just for the sake of it? And if it were up to you, you wouldn’t change a thing?
Restricting individuals’ freedoms? No, absolutely not. That is as poor a characterisation I have read of my general commentary.
Cowardice and labelling a scientist a coward are not the same thing. I understand your point about being an effective orator Vs your typical scientist but surely there is someone who is both? Surely part of one’s obligations is to put to bed these anti-vax theories categorically and once and for all.
Joe Rogan and Andrew state don’t really belong in the same category. I understand why you’re making that reference but one is an interviewer with many interesting guests and topics and the other is well…Andrew Tate….
So you’re criticising just for the sake of it? And if it were up to you, you wouldn’t change a thing?
Restricting individuals’ freedoms? No, absolutely not. That is as poor a characterisation I have read of my general commentary.
Cowardice and labelling a scientist a coward are not the same thing. I understand your point about being an effective orator Vs your typical scientist but surely there is someone who is both? Surely part of one’s obligations is to put to bed these anti-vax theories categorically and once and for all.
Joe Rogan and Andrew state don’t really belong in the same category. I understand why you’re making that reference but one is an interviewer with many interesting guests and topics and the other is well…Andrew Tate….
---------------------------------------------------------------
There's a lot of space between "criticising for the sake of it" and intolerance of free speech, isn't there? On this microcosmic scale, I think it's healthy for human beings to talk with the people around them about what they consider of worth and of harm, and hopefully from the sum of these billions of conversations we move forward a bit. And I think it's faintly ridiculous that you bring 'intolerance' and freedom of speech into the conversation.
On your own views, I was left with the impression that you were opposed to trans women using women's public toilets, and generally with people being allowed to have themselves legally identified by their chosen, as opposed to biological, gender. Please correct me if I have mis-remembered that. If you do stand by either of those views, the issue here isn't whether they are reasonable or not. I raise it not as a moral purity test, but because it's a yardstick of where one stands on how far the state has the right to intervene.
On scientists vs pseudoscientists, many greater minds than mine have thought long and hard about this and written essays far longer than my longest forum posts, and many have concluded that even if you have a scientist who is a good communicator, these 'debates' are a bad thing. Even if you win the debate, you concede it is up for debate, which legitimises the pseudoscience. Similarly, most historians refuse to share a platform with Holocaust deniers. It's not a 'marketplace for ideas' situation where you have an opponent who is not there in good faith and not engaging in empirical truth. You may disagree, but it's a well established and widely held view. The scientist isn't a coward.
Rogan/Tate: I wasn't comparing their content. I was commenting on the similarities between the line of argument you have taken here - "how much have you actually listened to?" - and what I recall (again, apologies if I misremembered) you saying about people judging Tate based on limited consumption of his content.
Talk about trial by media, a lot of people have found him guilty simply because they don’t find him funny.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 17 minutes ago
So you’re criticising just for the sake of it? And if it were up to you, you wouldn’t change a thing?
Restricting individuals’ freedoms? No, absolutely not. That is as poor a characterisation I have read of my general commentary.
Cowardice and labelling a scientist a coward are not the same thing. I understand your point about being an effective orator Vs your typical scientist but surely there is someone who is both? Surely part of one’s obligations is to put to bed these anti-vax theories categorically and once and for all.
Joe Rogan and Andrew state don’t really belong in the same category. I understand why you’re making that reference but one is an interviewer with many interesting guests and topics and the other is well…Andrew Tate….
---------------------------------------------------------------
There's a lot of space between "criticising for the sake of it" and intolerance of free speech, isn't there? On this microcosmic scale, I think it's healthy for human beings to talk with the people around them about what they consider of worth and of harm, and hopefully from the sum of these billions of conversations we move forward a bit. And I think it's faintly ridiculous that you bring 'intolerance' and freedom of speech into the conversation.
On your own views, I was left with the impression that you were opposed to trans women using women's public toilets, and generally with people being allowed to have themselves legally identified by their chosen, as opposed to biological, gender. Please correct me if I have mis-remembered that. If you do stand by either of those views, the issue here isn't whether they are reasonable or not. I raise it not as a moral purity test, but because it's a yardstick of where one stands on how far the state has the right to intervene.
On scientists vs pseudoscientists, many greater minds than mine have thought long and hard about this and written essays far longer than my longest forum posts, and many have concluded that even if you have a scientist who is a good communicator, these 'debates' are a bad thing. Even if you win the debate, you concede it is up for debate, which legitimises the pseudoscience. Similarly, most historians refuse to share a platform with Holocaust deniers. It's not a 'marketplace for ideas' situation where you have an opponent who is not there in good faith and not engaging in empirical truth. You may disagree, but it's a well established and widely held view. The scientist isn't a coward.
Rogan/Tate: I wasn't comparing their content. I was commenting on the similarities between the line of argument you have taken here - "how much have you actually listened to?" - and what I recall (again, apologies if I misremembered) you saying about people judging Tate based on limited consumption of his content.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You brought up Tate prior to my intervention but again it wasn’t that their content is similar you brought him up as another example of partly harmful content. My point is that there’s a world of difference between the two that I don’t think it’s right to mention them in the same breath. Not that Joe Rogan is Sam Noam Hitchens or anything.
Apologies, it was my assumption that you would prefer to have change to something that you define as a ‘malign influence on discourse’, if you’re prepared to have it continue but accordingly continue to complain about it, then so be it.
The public toilet matter is slightly different to individuals’ rights as it is also a public matter. I have no issue with someone choosing to identify as whatever they feel like but when it comes into the public domain, that’s when other factors start to come into play and may (or may not) affect one’s individual freedoms (there are many examples of this already so I’m sure you don’t need any providing) state intervention likewise has come into play a lot in recent years but I think we should getting into that on this thread lol - neither of us have the time!
Your choice of language is what reads as rather intolerant mate: charlatan, snake oil salesmen, cranks et cetera. You notably skipped over my reminder of when you compared me to a daily mail reader (as a deliberate pejorative) and said that I was “obsessed with genitalia” this is what leads me to find you rather intolerant, perhaps unwelcoming is a better choice of phrase, tolerant by itself is hardly good either as in you tolerate something.
I would accept the point of not wanting to engage with pseudoscientists as to not give oxygen to fuel their fire, if it were not at the same time clearly obvious that they already have a huge audience (from people like Rogan for one) so not wanting to debate with them for this reason is pretty pointless and redundant. Myself personally, always prefer to confront things head-on. I genuinely would happily go on Rohan’s show and point out a few things that clearly demonstrate that vaccines helped us an awful lot and I would win, convincingly.
YouTube have now revoked any potential earnings Brand can make from the platform.
Taking Russell Brand out of the equation, this cancel culture and trial by social media has to stop.
There are plenty of examples of people being cancelled when they were actually the victims, or simply being honest about their history.
comment by clapfreesince2003 (U22207)
posted 1 minute ago
Talk about trial by media, a lot of people have found him guilty simply because they don’t find him funny.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the whole point, it will likely go away after 2024 but his reputation will forever be tainted.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I can't remember them doing any investigation like this for Prince Andrew.
Sign in if you want to comment
Russell Brand
Page 5 of 14
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 18/9/23
SatNav, two things I'd put to you:
1. As I said above, I don't think the key criticism of Rogan is that he is 'ideologically wrong'. It's that he gives a huge platform to cranks, pseudoscientists and occasionally extremists without having the research to hand or to bring in counterbalancing expertise to correct objective falsehoods. Having no malicious motivation and saying 'Hey, I'm no expert' is all very well, but if the function is to give a sympathetic hearing to dangerous lies, that's still something to be concerned about. Rogan not being an expert is fine. Treating charlatans as if they were experts is the issue.
2. The same thing came up with Andrew Tate: some of his content is socially harmful, and some of it isn't. Guess what: it's the former we're worried about! The non-dangerous content doesn't make explicit advocacy of misogyny or erosion of trust in science-based public health somehow more benign. Actually, it probably makes it more dangerous, because it means the harmful messages are intertwined into a more mainstream and reasonable sounding medium.
posted on 18/9/23
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 4 hours, 28 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - I taught Szoboszlai how to cushion half volleys (U6374)
posted 27 minutes ago
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uwWUb5hyFmQ&pp=ygUac3Rld2FydCBsZWUgcnVzc2VsbCBicmFuZCA%3D
Stewart Lee destroying Russel Brand is quality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He had his number didn't he? 😂
Stewart Lee is someone who divides what's funny and what isn't. Some get him and some don't.
I quite like him as it goes. Very unique.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like Stewart lee, but he isn’t really all that funny. Great observational and pointed humor but he’s not really laugh out loud funny from what I’ve seen. Appreciate his barbed and clever delivery though.
posted on 18/9/23
Stewart Lee is not at all funny! Brand is to an extent but seems a bit of an oddball.
posted on 18/9/23
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 hours, 54 minutes ago
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 36 seconds ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 15 minutes ago
Does Brand play for Manchester United? No
So why this pointless article? Ffs 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It took the same amount of time as your pointless reply.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well considering you stated on the “that kiss” article that you had no interest in abusers that had no ties to Man Utd and yet since have done another Rubiales article then this one!
Seems you speak with fork tounge old boy!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've just looked on your page, and none of your first five articles are bout Man United. And I speak with a forked something or other.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WTF are you waffling on about?
Where have I ever said I had no interest in taking the mickey out of Liverpool old boy?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You said it was a pointless article as it wasn't about Manchester United. Just like your five.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 18/9/23
comment by Barefoot (U19770)
posted 19 minutes ago
Stewart Lee is not at all funny! Brand is to an extent but seems a bit of an oddball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Point made earlier that different comedic styles suit different people. Maybe you like the surrealist stuff? Others like the alternative or observational stuff of Lee.
Is what it is.
posted on 18/9/23
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by Barefoot (U19770)
posted 19 minutes ago
Stewart Lee is not at all funny! Brand is to an extent but seems a bit of an oddball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Point made earlier that different comedic styles suit different people. Maybe you like the surrealist stuff? Others like the alternative or observational stuff of Lee.
Is what it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
True mate. All subjective!
posted on 18/9/23
My favourite comedians are James Corden and Keith Lemon. No one comes close to them
posted on 18/9/23
Stewart Lee is great and incredibly bright. I particularly enjoy his sketch on William Wallace.
If people think Brand's '
"Ooooooooo, I've got my winkey out, what do you say to that fine noble sir"
type of comedy is better I don't really know what to say.
posted on 18/9/23
Stewart Lee on immigration and Paul Nuttal is genius comedy. Makes anti immigration types look like absolute d!ckheads.
posted on 18/9/23
comment by Amadou Bakayoko (U1734)
posted 2 minutes ago
My favourite comedians are James Corden and Keith Lemon. No one comes close to them
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now you're talking!!!!!!!!
posted on 18/9/23
comment by Amadou Bakayoko (U1734)
posted 3 minutes ago
My favourite comedians are James Corden and Keith Lemon. No one comes close to them
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You remind me of James Corden.
posted on 18/9/23
comment by Robbing Hoody - I taught Szoboszlai how to cushion half volleys (U6374)
posted 3 minutes ago
Stewart Lee is great and incredibly bright. I particularly enjoy his sketch on William Wallace.
If people think Brand's '
"Ooooooooo, I've got my winkey out, what do you say to that fine noble sir"
type of comedy is better I don't really know what to say.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Being bright doesn't make you funny, although it helps at times.
I did see Lee mock Corden once. I wouldn't criticise anyone for mocking Corden but again, it wasn't funny.
posted on 18/9/23
comment by Robbing Hoody - I taught Szoboszlai how to cushion half volleys (U6374)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Amadou Bakayoko (U1734)
posted 3 minutes ago
My favourite comedians are James Corden and Keith Lemon. No one comes close to them
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You remind me of James Corden.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks
posted on 18/9/23
I think the bloke is an absolute prat, but he has been found guilty of nothing.So why does the law allow any woman to cry rape and stay anonymous but the bloke get his name all over the news, effectively ending his career even if proven to be innocent.
The law has to change so that all parties remain anonymous until proven guilty. Or otherwise
posted on 18/9/23
comment by gone but never forgotten (U21659)
posted 2 minutes ago
I think the bloke is an absolute prat, but he has been found guilty of nothing.So why does the law allow any woman to cry rape and stay anonymous but the bloke get his name all over the news, effectively ending his career even if proven to be innocent.
The law has to change so that all parties remain anonymous until proven guilty. Or otherwise
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree. I remember just a few years ago the witch hunt against our poor Jimmy. Just because he was dead so couldn't defend himself. He shouldn't have been named cos he was never convicted of anything. They also completely ignored all the good work he did for charity. They ruined the poor bloke's reputation.
posted on 18/9/23
comment by Amadou Bakayoko (U1734)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by gone but never forgotten (U21659)
posted 2 minutes ago
I think the bloke is an absolute prat, but he has been found guilty of nothing.So why does the law allow any woman to cry rape and stay anonymous but the bloke get his name all over the news, effectively ending his career even if proven to be innocent.
The law has to change so that all parties remain anonymous until proven guilty. Or otherwise
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree. I remember just a few years ago the witch hunt against our poor Jimmy. Just because he was dead so couldn't defend himself. He shouldn't have been named cos he was never convicted of anything. They also completely ignored all the good work he did for charity. They ruined the poor bloke's reputation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All them people he fixed it for too, they never got to have their say
posted on 19/9/23
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 11 hours, 29 minutes ago
SatNav, two things I'd put to you:
1. As I said above, I don't think the key criticism of Rogan is that he is 'ideologically wrong'. It's that he gives a huge platform to cranks, pseudoscientists and occasionally extremists without having the research to hand or to bring in counterbalancing expertise to correct objective falsehoods. Having no malicious motivation and saying 'Hey, I'm no expert' is all very well, but if the function is to give a sympathetic hearing to dangerous lies, that's still something to be concerned about. Rogan not being an expert is fine. Treating charlatans as if they were experts is the issue.
2. The same thing came up with Andrew Tate: some of his content is socially harmful, and some of it isn't. Guess what: it's the former we're worried about! The non-dangerous content doesn't make explicit advocacy of misogyny or erosion of trust in science-based public health somehow more benign. Actually, it probably makes it more dangerous, because it means the harmful messages are intertwined into a more mainstream and reasonable sounding medium.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A few questions that I would put back to you in that case:
1. How many episodes of his have you watched? Or are you just unhappy that he gives a platform to people that you label as cranks? By doing so, you’re just exemplifying one of my previous points by the way.
2. You are worried about the things that you worry about. Remember saying to me that I was a daily Mail style obsessive regarding genitalia because we were talking about the trans issue. That’s an issue that you think is perfectly fine, a hunky dory surface manifestation not to be worried about, I disagree.
3. Did you watch his episode with Candace Owens? I’m going to go out on a limb here and presume that you didn’t. Well, he destroyed her on climate change. She doesn’t believe in it and he made her look like a fool. I suspect that you wouldn’t be unhappy with that? He did similar to Steven Crowder. Did you watch that episode? Again I presume not. Again he obliterated him and made him look like a bit of a fool.
What you’re ultimately saying is that it’s fine with the content that you agree with and do not find dangerous but are not happy with him providing a platform to people who you vehemently disagree with and label as cranks or dangerous.
Well guess what? You do not get to decide that, thankfully. They have full freedom of speech over in America and as polite as you generally are, when push comes to shove you certainly can be rather intolerant of alternative views; It comes out on occasions like this.
"I think they're hardcore lefties and hardcore lefties don't know what the f*** to do with me 'cause I look like a Trump supporter."
ah, there's a lot of things that don't line up with the fact that I support universal basic income. I support universal health care. My family was poor when I was young. We were on welfare. I'll never forget that. I'll never forget being on food stamps as a kid. I'll never forget wondering if we were gonna have enough food to eat.
Regarding cranks, he has offered a hell of a lot of money to be donated to charity for a vaccine expert to come on his show and give them the opportunity to obliterate RFK I think it was and his anti-vaccine stance.
The person in question has refused. Cowardice, I would say given that Rohan’s shows are available in full as standard. Take time, prepare, arm yourself with facts and go on there and destroy them. Make it so undeniable that vaccines were necessary and end it? I could probably do it myself with some simple undeniable facts and timings showing the effectiveness of vaccines. Lockdowns I lean the other way entirely.
Why would Rogan offer this if not to be reasonable?
posted on 19/9/23
SatNav, you always seem to think that if I heavily criticise something, I want to close down the person's freedom of speech. (Is it possible that in your own conservative mind, it's natural to associate disapproving of things with proscribing them? For instance, when it comes to gender identity, you're more inclined toward restricting individuals' freedoms, aren't you?)
I don't want Joe Rogan banned. I just hold an opinion that he has a malign influence on our discourse. That's not based on his entire output. I've already stated I don't think he's a committed ideologue of one colour or another, and so I'm sure there are things he airs I will agree with and guests I would find interesting. I'm also not opposed to broadcasting interviews with people who hold bigoted views or espouse pseudoscience. But the responsible thing to do when interacting with any interviewee (and especially such people) is putting in enough prior research to rigorously challenge them, and to point out logical fallacies / flaws in arguments / a body of scientific evidence. I've listened to enough of Rogan's interviews on topics covering race and the pandemic to have formed a view that he doesn't do that consistently.
You're right to assume that I don't listen to all of his podcasts. You were right to assume that I didn't watch every Andrew Tate video too. Do you think it's possible that you might have ever offered a critical opinion on an individual (say, a writer or politician on the left) without first listening to and reading the majority of their recent speeches and articles? It's important to be humble enough to accept we don't know enough to ever form a final judgement - and it's useful for me, along with everyone else, to be reminded of this from time to time. But we also need to make constant (interim) assessments of things to make it through a day. To decide what content we will find valuable to consume. To think about whether the ideas we interact with are useful or unhelpful. Making no judgements easily bleeds into apathy and cynicism, which I believe are the most corrosive forces in our current political culture.
Finally, I think it's crass to label a scientist a coward for being unwilling to debate someone like RFK jr. Particularly if it's a discussion moderated by a 'just asking questions' guy. There has been much written about what happens when an expert shares a stage with a snake oil salesman who is possibly a more effective communicator. Many people would be very concerned if that debate went ahead. It suggests this is an issue in which there are two valid opinions, which simply isn't the case when you have peer-reviewed science debating a charlatan.
posted on 19/9/23
"Do you think it's possible that you might have ever offered a critical opinion on an individual (say, a writer or politician on the left) without first listening to and reading the majority of their recent speeches and articles? It's important to be humble enough to accept we don't know enough to ever form a final judgement - and it's useful for me, along with everyone else, to be reminded of this from time to time."
-----------------------------------------------------
RR you could have just used my template that I have been offering you for years.
Best politician in the world if he is saying something I agree with, overrated and far too small and weak for politics if he is saying something I disagree with. I have never listened to anything he has said.
posted on 19/9/23
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 13 minutes ago
SatNav, you always seem to think that if I heavily criticise something, I want to close down the person's freedom of speech. (Is it possible that in your own conservative mind, it's natural to associate disapproving of things with proscribing them? For instance, when it comes to gender identity, you're more inclined toward restricting individuals' freedoms, aren't you?)
I don't want Joe Rogan banned. I just hold an opinion that he has a malign influence on our discourse. That's not based on his entire output. I've already stated I don't think he's a committed ideologue of one colour or another, and so I'm sure there are things he airs I will agree with and guests I would find interesting. I'm also not opposed to broadcasting interviews with people who hold bigoted views or espouse pseudoscience. But the responsible thing to do when interacting with any interviewee (and especially such people) is putting in enough prior research to rigorously challenge them, and to point out logical fallacies / flaws in arguments / a body of scientific evidence. I've listened to enough of Rogan's interviews on topics covering race and the pandemic to have formed a view that he doesn't do that consistently.
You're right to assume that I don't listen to all of his podcasts. You were right to assume that I didn't watch every Andrew Tate video too. Do you think it's possible that you might have ever offered a critical opinion on an individual (say, a writer or politician on the left) without first listening to and reading the majority of their recent speeches and articles? It's important to be humble enough to accept we don't know enough to ever form a final judgement - and it's useful for me, along with everyone else, to be reminded of this from time to time. But we also need to make constant (interim) assessments of things to make it through a day. To decide what content we will find valuable to consume. To think about whether the ideas we interact with are useful or unhelpful. Making no judgements easily bleeds into apathy and cynicism, which I believe are the most corrosive forces in our current political culture.
Finally, I think it's crass to label a scientist a coward for being unwilling to debate someone like RFK jr. Particularly if it's a discussion moderated by a 'just asking questions' guy. There has been much written about what happens when an expert shares a stage with a snake oil salesman who is possibly a more effective communicator. Many people would be very concerned if that debate went ahead. It suggests this is an issue in which there are two valid opinions, which simply isn't the case when you have peer-reviewed science debating a charlatan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you’re criticising just for the sake of it? And if it were up to you, you wouldn’t change a thing?
Restricting individuals’ freedoms? No, absolutely not. That is as poor a characterisation I have read of my general commentary.
Cowardice and labelling a scientist a coward are not the same thing. I understand your point about being an effective orator Vs your typical scientist but surely there is someone who is both? Surely part of one’s obligations is to put to bed these anti-vax theories categorically and once and for all.
Joe Rogan and Andrew state don’t really belong in the same category. I understand why you’re making that reference but one is an interviewer with many interesting guests and topics and the other is well…Andrew Tate….
posted on 19/9/23
So you’re criticising just for the sake of it? And if it were up to you, you wouldn’t change a thing?
Restricting individuals’ freedoms? No, absolutely not. That is as poor a characterisation I have read of my general commentary.
Cowardice and labelling a scientist a coward are not the same thing. I understand your point about being an effective orator Vs your typical scientist but surely there is someone who is both? Surely part of one’s obligations is to put to bed these anti-vax theories categorically and once and for all.
Joe Rogan and Andrew state don’t really belong in the same category. I understand why you’re making that reference but one is an interviewer with many interesting guests and topics and the other is well…Andrew Tate….
---------------------------------------------------------------
There's a lot of space between "criticising for the sake of it" and intolerance of free speech, isn't there? On this microcosmic scale, I think it's healthy for human beings to talk with the people around them about what they consider of worth and of harm, and hopefully from the sum of these billions of conversations we move forward a bit. And I think it's faintly ridiculous that you bring 'intolerance' and freedom of speech into the conversation.
On your own views, I was left with the impression that you were opposed to trans women using women's public toilets, and generally with people being allowed to have themselves legally identified by their chosen, as opposed to biological, gender. Please correct me if I have mis-remembered that. If you do stand by either of those views, the issue here isn't whether they are reasonable or not. I raise it not as a moral purity test, but because it's a yardstick of where one stands on how far the state has the right to intervene.
On scientists vs pseudoscientists, many greater minds than mine have thought long and hard about this and written essays far longer than my longest forum posts, and many have concluded that even if you have a scientist who is a good communicator, these 'debates' are a bad thing. Even if you win the debate, you concede it is up for debate, which legitimises the pseudoscience. Similarly, most historians refuse to share a platform with Holocaust deniers. It's not a 'marketplace for ideas' situation where you have an opponent who is not there in good faith and not engaging in empirical truth. You may disagree, but it's a well established and widely held view. The scientist isn't a coward.
Rogan/Tate: I wasn't comparing their content. I was commenting on the similarities between the line of argument you have taken here - "how much have you actually listened to?" - and what I recall (again, apologies if I misremembered) you saying about people judging Tate based on limited consumption of his content.
posted on 19/9/23
Talk about trial by media, a lot of people have found him guilty simply because they don’t find him funny.
posted on 19/9/23
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 17 minutes ago
So you’re criticising just for the sake of it? And if it were up to you, you wouldn’t change a thing?
Restricting individuals’ freedoms? No, absolutely not. That is as poor a characterisation I have read of my general commentary.
Cowardice and labelling a scientist a coward are not the same thing. I understand your point about being an effective orator Vs your typical scientist but surely there is someone who is both? Surely part of one’s obligations is to put to bed these anti-vax theories categorically and once and for all.
Joe Rogan and Andrew state don’t really belong in the same category. I understand why you’re making that reference but one is an interviewer with many interesting guests and topics and the other is well…Andrew Tate….
---------------------------------------------------------------
There's a lot of space between "criticising for the sake of it" and intolerance of free speech, isn't there? On this microcosmic scale, I think it's healthy for human beings to talk with the people around them about what they consider of worth and of harm, and hopefully from the sum of these billions of conversations we move forward a bit. And I think it's faintly ridiculous that you bring 'intolerance' and freedom of speech into the conversation.
On your own views, I was left with the impression that you were opposed to trans women using women's public toilets, and generally with people being allowed to have themselves legally identified by their chosen, as opposed to biological, gender. Please correct me if I have mis-remembered that. If you do stand by either of those views, the issue here isn't whether they are reasonable or not. I raise it not as a moral purity test, but because it's a yardstick of where one stands on how far the state has the right to intervene.
On scientists vs pseudoscientists, many greater minds than mine have thought long and hard about this and written essays far longer than my longest forum posts, and many have concluded that even if you have a scientist who is a good communicator, these 'debates' are a bad thing. Even if you win the debate, you concede it is up for debate, which legitimises the pseudoscience. Similarly, most historians refuse to share a platform with Holocaust deniers. It's not a 'marketplace for ideas' situation where you have an opponent who is not there in good faith and not engaging in empirical truth. You may disagree, but it's a well established and widely held view. The scientist isn't a coward.
Rogan/Tate: I wasn't comparing their content. I was commenting on the similarities between the line of argument you have taken here - "how much have you actually listened to?" - and what I recall (again, apologies if I misremembered) you saying about people judging Tate based on limited consumption of his content.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You brought up Tate prior to my intervention but again it wasn’t that their content is similar you brought him up as another example of partly harmful content. My point is that there’s a world of difference between the two that I don’t think it’s right to mention them in the same breath. Not that Joe Rogan is Sam Noam Hitchens or anything.
Apologies, it was my assumption that you would prefer to have change to something that you define as a ‘malign influence on discourse’, if you’re prepared to have it continue but accordingly continue to complain about it, then so be it.
The public toilet matter is slightly different to individuals’ rights as it is also a public matter. I have no issue with someone choosing to identify as whatever they feel like but when it comes into the public domain, that’s when other factors start to come into play and may (or may not) affect one’s individual freedoms (there are many examples of this already so I’m sure you don’t need any providing) state intervention likewise has come into play a lot in recent years but I think we should getting into that on this thread lol - neither of us have the time!
Your choice of language is what reads as rather intolerant mate: charlatan, snake oil salesmen, cranks et cetera. You notably skipped over my reminder of when you compared me to a daily mail reader (as a deliberate pejorative) and said that I was “obsessed with genitalia” this is what leads me to find you rather intolerant, perhaps unwelcoming is a better choice of phrase, tolerant by itself is hardly good either as in you tolerate something.
I would accept the point of not wanting to engage with pseudoscientists as to not give oxygen to fuel their fire, if it were not at the same time clearly obvious that they already have a huge audience (from people like Rogan for one) so not wanting to debate with them for this reason is pretty pointless and redundant. Myself personally, always prefer to confront things head-on. I genuinely would happily go on Rohan’s show and point out a few things that clearly demonstrate that vaccines helped us an awful lot and I would win, convincingly.
posted on 19/9/23
YouTube have now revoked any potential earnings Brand can make from the platform.
Taking Russell Brand out of the equation, this cancel culture and trial by social media has to stop.
There are plenty of examples of people being cancelled when they were actually the victims, or simply being honest about their history.
posted on 19/9/23
comment by clapfreesince2003 (U22207)
posted 1 minute ago
Talk about trial by media, a lot of people have found him guilty simply because they don’t find him funny.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the whole point, it will likely go away after 2024 but his reputation will forever be tainted.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I can't remember them doing any investigation like this for Prince Andrew.
Page 5 of 14
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10