Re: Random Thoughts

[das_boot]

How well recognised is Russell Brand to a US audience? Know he's been in a number of Hollywood films but don't know how public a figure he is in the US mainstream.

One of our big television channels did an expose of him and allegations of sexual assault and rape. For anyone with a passing interest in the UK comedy scene, this was pretty much an open secret, along with allegations against other mid-high tier comedy acts (Stephen K Amos, David Walliams, David Jason are all names widely discussed).

What's infuriating is that normally sensible people are coming out with "presumption of innocence" type messaging. I get not wanting to add fuel to the fire when accusations are unproven, and that legally speaking, they are right but surely the most prudent thing to do is stay silent. I honestly can't believe any journalists or commentators in the public space have not heard these rumours about Brand, if I, as a lowly punter, have known about them for years. That he's been pushing an anti MSM message (after years of profiteering from the MSM, but hey ho) doesn’t mean this is a set up job by them, for all the flaws of the media.

Conversely there's a "believe victims" trope played out that equally annoys me as it's so naive. Why can't we, regardless of personal or political affinity agree that such accusations need to be taken extremely seriously. That doesn’t mean all allegations should be believed unquestionably but surely should not be dismissed as media slurs either.

It also highlights massively the lack of faith in the competence of the authorities to properly investigate such allegations fairly and effectively that too often complainants have to rely on the media, and how these open secrets can be allowed to circulate without criminal investigation. Trial by media isn't right, for obvious reasons, but clearly the shambles of repeated failings by the plod over decades haven't helped matters at all.

I watched that and absolutely was not surprised by this. I’ve definitely heard rumours before and honestly thought it was something that had already been made public knowledge. I kind of feel like there have been enough female comedians (Kathryn Ryan, notably mentioned a big name in comedy where it was an open secret that they were a sex offender waiting to be caught in an interview with Louis Theroux) who have alluded to this kind of behaviour over the years.

I think part of the discourse has to be that you need to look at these women and realise how powerless they must have felt compared to him. This is someone who made absolutely no secret of what he liked to get up to with sexual partners within his “comedy” shows and I expect in addition to the “no one would believe me” aspect of sexual assault survivors, there’s also the addition that when someone is THAT open about liking rough sex, that it would be argued that they knew what they were getting themselves into, which is an absolutely faulty narrative and almost implies that consent cannot be withdrawn, which it absolutely can.

While the allegations from the girl who was only 16 at the time is wildly concerning, there’s also a huge ethical question that he was picking up folk from AA meetings. It shows total predatory behaviour.

[tokenBG1009]

How well recognised is Russell Brand to a US audience? Know he's been in a number of Hollywood films but don't know how public a figure he is in the US mainstream.

One of our big television channels did an expose of him and allegations of sexual assault and rape. For anyone with a passing interest in the UK comedy scene, this was pretty much an open secret, along with allegations against other mid-high tier comedy acts (Stephen K Amos, David Walliams, David Jason are all names widely discussed).

What's infuriating is that normally sensible people are coming out with "presumption of innocence" type messaging. I get not wanting to add fuel to the fire when accusations are unproven, and that legally speaking, they are right but surely the most prudent thing to do is stay silent. I honestly can't believe any journalists or commentators in the public space have not heard these rumours about Brand, if I, as a lowly punter, have known about them for years. That he's been pushing an anti MSM message (after years of profiteering from the MSM, but hey ho) doesn’t mean this is a set up job by them, for all the flaws of the media.

Conversely there's a "believe victims" trope played out that equally annoys me as it's so naive. Why can't we, regardless of personal or political affinity agree that such accusations need to be taken extremely seriously. That doesn’t mean all allegations should be believed unquestionably but surely should not be dismissed as media slurs either.

It also highlights massively the lack of faith in the competence of the authorities to properly investigate such allegations fairly and effectively that too often complainants have to rely on the media, and how these open secrets can be allowed to circulate without criminal investigation. Trial by media isn't right, for obvious reasons, but clearly the shambles of repeated failings by the plod over decades haven't helped matters at all.

Brand is... like C-List celebrity? People have probably heard of him, but couldn't name a reason why. Heard his name in passing kind of thing. Probably more famous for being married to Katy Perry. I think he was also a bit of a firebrand when he was spouting liberal talking points as well. That's where I remember learning about him.

The general consensus I've seen from people who have a passing knowledge of him and heard of the allegations has been "Yeah, no shit."


==================================
When we moved into our current place in 2021 the landlords were like "Yeah, we don't raise the rent." They didn't raise the rent when her sister lived here before us. They've now raised the rent two years in a row. I'm pissed. It isn't a back breaking amount, but it's annoying as piss.

[Spectral Knight]

I think part of the discourse has to be that you need to look at these women and realise how powerless they pmust have felt compared to him.

Totally agree. That RB has pushed himself as "outside the mainstream" in recent years ignores how big a profile he had, certainly in the UK (and even as a C-lister in the US, he's been in massive blockbusters like the Despicable Me series) and he's not short of a few bob, particularly in regards to the litigation he's not been shy of in the past in respects of public mentoning of his behaviour, from all accounts.

(And whilst I have enjoyed some of Daniel Sloss' work, part of his ability to be able to come out publicly discussing RB's reputation is he's also doing VERY well, and is pretty insulated from potentially damaging legal costs that others on the scene that haven't been able to go public aren't, let alone the complainants)

This is someone who made absolutely no secret of what he liked to get up to with sexual partners within his “comedy” shows and I expect in addition to the “no one would believe me” aspect of sexual assault survivors, there’s also the addition that when someone is THAT open about liking rough sex, that it would be argued that they knew what they were getting themselves into, which is an absolutely faulty narrative and almost implies that consent cannot be withdrawn, which it absolutely can.

Honestly... this I'm not so sure about. Comedians often tell jokes from a perspective of a persona different from their own, or tell totally OTT ridiculous jokes that would be horrific if talked about in normal discourse. Part of the reason why it can be funny is because of how taboo they can go. I don’t think Brand is a creep because of his stage persona, I think he's a creep because of the many allusions to him being a sex offender from a multitude of sources over the years.

I thought Dispatches use of RB's routines wasn't particularly useful in this respect, as I don't believe it actually helped the women's testimonies at all. It gives cynics an excuse to defend him, particularly the allusions to lines he said to them that he also used in his live shows. I don't disbelieve the women, but I've seen it framed by some right eejits as a hatchet job using some of his routines as evidence. But, broadly speaking, I don't think you can use comedy performances as evidence of behavioral patterns in this way. Some of the most critical comments of the scumbags in the industry comes from people who can tell appalling (albeit very, very funny) jokes.

While the allegations from the girl who was only 16 at the time is wildly concerning, there’s also a huge ethical question that he was picking up folk from AA meetings. It shows total predatory behaviour.

Yeah, at the very least I have no doubts he's been extremely inappropriate at the very, very least. I know technically legal (at least in the UK) but 30+ year old men shouldn't be anywhere near 16 year olds romantically or sexually. It's a massive power imbalance that throws up red flags regardless, particularly if they're still at school. I think, honestly, it's wrong enough for me that I see it as noncing, and everything else becomes easier to believe frankly.

[Milkshake08]

I dunno, if you like to frequently joke about screwing teenagers and giving it to them rough, I have a hard time thinking that doesn't at the very least imply you're at least somewhat into it and approving, because otherwise why would it be funny to anyone you or anyone else?

But yeah, Brand is semi famous in the US, mostly for dating Katy but also from films he's been in (like Sarah Marshall and Despicable Me) and awards shows he's hosted. He pivoted pretty hard right a few years ago and I think his fame in the US plummeted shortly before that. I've been hearing accusations about him for years, even back when he was dating Perry so it's disheartening and unsurprising seeing so many media personalities saying they presume his innocence when they could just not say anything at all. They WANT to show victims they are powerless, guys. Teaches women to "stay in their place."

[EvilMonkeyPope]

Do you prefer Gamvok or Havit for Gambit x Havok?

[Cable]

Do you prefer Gamvok or Havit for Gambit x Havok?

You know that Hambit is the right answer.

[Spectral Knight]

I dunno, if you like to frequently joke about screwing teenagers and giving it to them rough, I have a hard time thinking that doesn't at the very least imply you're at least somewhat into it and approving, because otherwise why would it be funny to anyone you or anyone else?

I don't find Brand's stand-up routines (especially those) particularly funny myself as I don't think he's that good a comedian, but for context there's comedians I do enjoy who have said far worse things. These can be funny because it is both ridiculously awful / disgusting / outrageous and it either obviously farcical, or has a kernal of truth in it that everyone would rather it didn't. There does need to be recognition that both obvious falsehoods and uncomfortable truths can be the basia of comedy and jokes about taboo topics don't necessarily imply one or the other.

On the whole I don't think telling horrendous jokes implies any sort of behaviour at all, and it's naive framing by the (otherwise very thorough) documentary producers.

In Brand's case, there is (seemingly) a correlation but I don't think it's as simple as horrible jokes are made by people who behave horribly and it's one of the things I hate about external critique of comedy.

[Blackcyclops]

Ehhhh…I don’t know. It might be naive to just blindly assume “it’s just jokes”. What kinds of jokes a person chooses to tell, does say something about that person in some regard. No comedian, that I’ve ever heard talk about their process, says they pull jokes from out of nowhere. They create humor from their observations or their life. How we interpret observations is filtered through our lived experiences and out beliefs.

So yeah, when a Black comic makes a joke about racism. I’ve never met, read, or listened to one who says things that don't have some basis in their beliefs or experiences. So when someone finds it appropriate to make outrageously vulgar jokes, they might find value in the shock but just believing that shock is worth it and fine, says things about them as well.

People aren’t divorced from their context and their personal history. So it didn’t shock me that Cosby made jokes about drugging women…and then proceeded to drug dozens of women.

[P-90]

Telling and/or laughing at jokes about terrible things does not in any way mean that a person secretly involved in the subject matter or even just agrees with the sentiment of the joke. Jokes and humour are used as a social coping mechanism for situations and events that most people find difficult to deal with, the very idea of certain things are so unbelievable and difficult to fathom that humour and jokes are used as a release valve. Sharing jokes with others, especially in a group situation such as at a comedy show, releases the tension and awkwardness people feel and creates a shared bond. It's why you get people telling jokes and funny stories at funerals, why people who deal with difficult situations on a daily basis can seem to have a dark morbid sense of humour, because if they don't joke about the things they experience and there's no release, it can break a person.

As for Brand, I've not really followed his career, he's done a couple of things I've enjoyed (Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Get Him To The Greek spring to mind)

[Spectral Knight]

Ehhhh…I don’t know. It might be naive to just blindly assume “it’s just jokes”. What kinds of jokes a person chooses to tell, does say something about that person in some regard. No comedian, that I’ve ever heard talk about their process, says they pull jokes from out of nowhere. They create humor from their observations or their life. How we interpret observations is filtered through our lived experiences and out beliefs.

These are two different things though, of course comedians and comedy writers observe real life, that's a given. They also importantly observe other people. Their politics, their biases, their predisposition to risque content - what does Joe Bloggs find offensive but still funny, versus just offensive etc. They also observe the world around them, politics, societyz the media, the many contradictions of our lives, nature, the weather...
Even within a comedian's set there can be variances between personal observational humour and nonsense surrealism or just daft silliness.

What I'm arguing is that joking about the darkest of things isn't a predictor for any kind of behaviour. There's far too many variables, not to mention the fluidity of a comedian's act. The same comic might tell taboo jokes in a one man stand-up show in a comedy club with awful jokes but also be able to switch up that act to be a family friendly prime time TV presenter. Freddy Quinne goes to some horrific places in his comedy and on DMT, but also gets media appearances on morning TV discussing the most inane things, and with, quite rightly, two different approaches.

Fundamentally it's about knowing your/the audience, and your ability as a comedian to navigate that. That also needs flexibility to get it wrong. The reason why new material nights or WIP shows exist is to navigate what context works - some stuff might sound good on paper and die on its arse in a live environment. And that might mean jokes about taboo content fails - which by the nature of refinement will get pulled from the set and replaced by stuff that does land more frequently.

So when someone finds it appropriate to make outrageously vulgar jokes, they might find value in the shock but just believing that shock is worth it and fine, says things about them as well.

But what does it say about them? What judgement are you making about a comedian who jokes about taboo subjects?

At their core, even "shock" comedians still want to make people laugh. They might tailor their content to specific audiences, but the goal isn't to shock alone, but to get the laugh so that their audience pays to see them again, recommended them etc. They might use shocks or shocking content to get the laugh, but comedians who just want to piss off or upset their audience won't last long in the game that's for sure.

People aren’t divorced from their context and their personal history. So it didn’t shock me that Cosby made jokes about drugging women…and then proceeded to drug dozens of women.

I disagree - I still think you could find 9 other comedians who have made jokes about drugging women who've NEVER drugged women and would think such an act was the most abhorrent thing in the world.

Jokes about drugging women isn't intrinsically funny either, but funny jokes can be told about drugging women, or pretty much anything.

[Anna Raven]

I just don't like it when the comedian seems like they are "punching down" on someone. If the comic is in on the joke , like "hey I identify with you guys, because I'm such and such race, and you guys have it tough just like we do" that's fine. But when your jokes make others feel bad, and there's no real effort to forge a kinship there, that's when I think it steps over the line. Is it cause for "cancellation"? Of course not, but I as a consumer have the right to express my dissatisfaction. Once I have done that, if the comic can still draw a full crowd, then so be it. I am not in favor of anyone being blacklisted or unable to say book a venue because of their remarks.

Now having actual criminal misdeeds on their record, that's a whole other matter.

[Blackcyclops]

Well it could say any number of things about them, I’m not making a judgement, you’re assuming I am and then reacting to that as though I’m criticizing you. Which was never my point. My point is that like anything else in a person’s life, the choices you make are informed by your perspective and history. People aren’t ahistorical and someone devoid of their desires, kinks, beliefs, etc., to say otherwise isn’t just naive, it’s foolish. And comedians are no different. Or comedic writers since not every comedian writes their own jokes.

What you choose to make into a joke, is informed by your history and isn’t magically placed in a person’s head. What you choose to observe, how you interpret that observation, how you choose what to refine or not refine, etc, all those things are informed by who you are as a person. I mean how is it that background influences everything else but not what kinds of jokes you make? Like cmon now…nobody’s saying it’s some direct 1-for-1 things either. Just because a woman makes a joke about having an abortion, doesn’t mean she had one. But I guarantee the direct of the joke (as Anna pointed to) more likely that not points toward their feelings on the matter. Similarly, comedians who push the envelope prolly feel one way about freedom of speech that is much different than a comedian who finds such things vulgar or should be illegal.

I don’t really know the point of your paragraph on comedians who make shocking jokes. Like it’s understood they want to make people laugh, it’s kind of in the name. And some people find transgressive material funny in and of itself…there’s a reason why some people still find fart/poop jokes funny. So I’m not even sure why you felt the need to explain that one.

@Anna: I agree 100%…directionality of a joke is key for me as well.

[Spectral Knight]

I don't think you were criticising me at all

I'm not arguing that your history or experiences don't influence a comedian's writing.
My point to Milkshake was that I simply don't think a comedian's writing, alone, is enough to make assumptions about their experiences, or indeed their predisposition to inappropriate and/or illegal behaviour, and you disagreed on that basis, and that the jokes they tell "say something about that person in some regard", but I don't know what it does or can say without massive pre-judgements. I think you're wrong on this.

[das_boot]

Seeeee I would see your point if it wasn’t for the fact that he states it in not only his shows, but also his memoir about being a sex addict— there’s a reference to spitting in a woman’s face after she slapped him during sex, and I’m pretty sure that he’s been very open and candid about his love of the rougher side of sex too. I be can totally see your point about him talking about rough sex being seen as just “part of his act”, but in this instance I think he was, as Dispatches stated— “hiding in plain sight”.

I think the main take away from this is that he knew he could get away with it because so far it’s a relatively small number of his previous sexual partners who’ve spoken out, and he’ll be able to call on several more who will say everything between them was consensual and they can’t see that he would ever behave the way he did to the survivors of his assault.

More to the point, when your defenders are Andrew Tate, Elon Musk and whatshisname that owes the Sandy Hook survivors a tonne of money in damages, he should surely be taking a good long look at himself and realising that he’s clearly done a wrong

[Milkshake08]

Spectral, I agree that shocking or uncouth humor doesn't necessarily predict behavior. I still think, when it comes to CERTAIN things, the tyes of people that use shocking humor related to, say, pedophilia or racism, have frequently been shown to be comfortable with those things themselves. As BC said, your jokes are informed by your own opinions/tastes/observations. I just think if you make a bunch of jokes about screwing minors, well, you're probably being informed by your own opinion that it's gonna "shock" your audience but also be kinda funny because, hey, it's not THAT big of a deal in the long run. And how the joke is delivered and received makes a huge difference. I didn't see Brand joking about screwing babies, he talks about screwing teenagers. Why would one be shocking and funny but not the other? I don't think I'd take it very seriously if it was the first, right? Book of Mormon the Broadway musical has baby rape jokes. Many people find those funny, but it's because of the context of the show that it isn't taken very seriously.

That said, I'm not trying to police comedy. Everyone has different opinions on what's funny, and I like dirty or shocking humor sometimes myself. I still think it may say something about the comedian depending on how the joke is told, the tone, and who their perceived audience is.

[P-90]

Anyone else seen the pic of Iman Vellani cosplaying as Jubilee?

[Spectral Knight]

@ Das, I think the memoirs stand out in Brand's as more evidential than any routine is. That is an off stage view that, essentially is written to be "non-fiction"...that said I do think there is a correlation between *his* routines, and his behaviour, but I am very conscious of how often people prescibe opinions or patterns of behaviour based on a routine, and usually how stupid it is to do so. For example Alfie Brown got caught in a Twitter controversy for old footage that surfaced of a routine part which repeatedly used the N word. Alfie is a great comic now but it was a shit routine and his then inexperience showed. It wasn't funny enough to make the use of the word acceptable and it was awkward. It didn't bomb as such, but it obviously didn't work as it should have done and it's easy to imagine him dying on stage if he used it now. But, he pulled the bit from his sets as it didn't work, yet the Twitter storm was Alfie Brown is a racist. Which actually, as poor and ill-advised as the routine was, he was actually trying to make a point about racism with it. It failed, it didn't work, so he consigned it to the bin and forgot about it.

To be 100% clear, i think Brand is a wrong-un, but the hiding in plain sight messaging and theme of the investigation, was for me no more powerful with the act lines or the radio skits. It - to my mind - actually detracted from the testimonies of the complainants a little. I agree that his behabiour was far too often indulged by the media, and probably made him cocksure about his seemingly abuse of power. I am much more horrified by the use of show runners and the like to "introduce" young women to him than about his content.

@ Milkshake, I totally disagree on the most part around the comfort to make jokes about something is indicative of the comfort around that behaviour. Where i think you are spot on is "how the joke is delivered and received makes a huge difference". But I'd go further, in that it makes ALL the difference.

There's a whole host of awful, often tragic, topics that Ive heard very, very funny jokes about including racism (including up to genocide) and paedophilia. That doesn't make those topics funny at all, but I generally think funny jokes can be crafted and delivered about pretty much anything. Not every comedian can do it and care should be taken - I think it was Nico Yearwood who made a point that if you go to the line as it were you best damn make sure you bring the audience with you.

[Milkshake08]

Basically, Spectral, I think we agree we're just using different language to do so. I'm probably not expressing myself as well as I want to. My main point is I think the delivery and audience make the difference and I guess to me, Brand's delivery always implied he doesn't find certain bad behaviors to be bad in his own opinion.



@P-90, yeah! She looked great! She was with the star of Never Have I Ever as well, who was dressed as a ninja turtle but at first glance I thought she was doing savage Rogue cosplay and I was so disappointed when it wasn't lol

[Blackcyclops]

I’ll piggyback off of Milkshake’s point to maybe assist her (no mansplaining, I promise).

Like myself, Shakes isn’t saying that a person has to have some direct connection to the majority they make jokes about (although it’s actually very common, see Jewish comedians making Jewish jokes, blue-collar white guys from the South making this jokes, etc). Instead, we’re saying that what a person picks to joke about AND how, definitely says something about them.

If I see a white guy, like Gary Owen for example, making jokes that could in a normal situation be seen as racist but doing so in a way that signals (as Anna alluded) “it’s cool yall”, then absolutely I would be shocked if it came out he had A secret Nazi collection and thought KKk were right. Why? Because while he tells jokes that are provocative and out of their context could be offensive, the way and type of joke he tells is making fun but in a way that isn’t meant to harm his particular audience (not punching down).

Conversely, if a white guy comes out telling jokes that sound like they’re the inner thoughts of someone who thinks slavery was a choice and generally hateful stuff about Black people but hey some people find it funny, I’m really going to assume that he holds some backwards thoughts about Black people. He might not be as hateful as his jokes but there is something about a person who chooses to tell THOSE kinds of jokes THAT way, that more times than not points to something about their ideology and beliefs.

And sure you can deny it and point to a comedian or so who it isn’t true about, but in my 39 years on Earth, more times than not when something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, even when it’s funny, they’re at the very least a goose and not a porcupine.

[Spectral Knight]

And the question I still have with the statement that "what a person picks to joke about AND how, definitely says something about them" is what exactly does it say about them?

I think that absolutely simplifies the artform of comedy.

Don't get me wrong, there are absolute cretins in comedy, and unfortunately, far too many unfunny comedians (at least to my taste) - but if I don't find a joke particularly funny, that's on me and / or the audience.

A GOOD comedian that can use provocative comedy will know where the lines are for the context they're in and the audience they're performing too - a primetime appearance will not have the same gags as a circuit show would, or what a corporate gig would have, and even on a circuit show, they'll likely vary their routines based on if it's WIP or not, or where they are on the bill. A headline slot on their own tour show has more opportunity to go in the direction they want to go, rather than if they're supporting another act or in the middle slot with much more experienced or prominent acts either side.
But, even the best comedians will get sometimes get it wrong... and that's part of their process - getting it wrong helps refine the act to get the best reaction.

If you're considering a bulk of a comedian's entire body of work, and it's all pretty grim, that's different, but individual 'bits' - nah, I don't buy that you can draw conclusions that if they've got jokes or routines about the worst things it says anything about them on a personal level.

[EvilMonkeyPope]

Would any of you like a Bluesky invite code? I currently have one to donate.

[BardicOne]

UFC/WWE merger is leading to roster cuts. None are a real surprise so far but I do hope everyone cut finds work somewhere.

Also I think I am going to have to just buy my father a new hard drive because his Windows 10 has gone insane. Options aren't there, apps don't load. Yet two different scanners can't find any malware to blame.

[Anna Raven]

UFC/WWE merger is leading to roster cuts. None are a real surprise so far but I do hope everyone cut finds work somewhere.

Also I think I am going to have to just buy my father a new hard drive because his Windows 10 has gone insane. Options aren't there, apps don't load. Yet two different scanners can't find any malware to blame.

For your hard drive, try a system restore or system reboot first. Just back up any important data first.

Now if his hard drive is actually too slow or too small, that's another matter.

Regarding the WWE/UFC merger, I imagine even more than roster cuts, they are going to layoff a lot of behind the scenes people, which is even more heartbreaking.

Did you see that botch on AWE between Moxley and Rey Fenix? That ref is apparently catching a lot of heat, because it's the second time he's failed to protect a concussed wrestler from taking more hits.

[Spectral Knight]

Think they've already made some backstage releases, I think some digital and media execs went last week.

Of the releases, very few am I disappointed about. Elias was becoming a big fan fav until they messed with his gimmick and added his "brother", Mustafa Ali who is an amazing ring worker (shame his character has been... inconsistent to say the least), and Emma, who since coming back wasn't really given much to work with at all despite being a great talent.

Ziggler and Shelton Benjamin are both workhorses, and can go, but individually there's been nothing there for them creatively for years. Benjamin probably got two more years from simply being in the Hurt Business, and once that faction (which should have had a longer run) folded, he must have know the release wasn't far away.

More annoying is they've (apparently) let GYV go. Fantastic heat generating tag team being made lackeys in Schism and seriously constraining Zack Gibson is one of NXT's stupidist booking decisions. I've seen Gibson cause chaos on the mic with his promos. If Dirty Dom heat is loud, double it. Honestly I saw him get drowned out using a mic'd up loud speaker. I really think he could be a main event star as a heel somewhere, and as good as he is with James Drake as a tag specialist, he's got all the skills to be a decent solo act somewhere, as long as he gets mic time, he's that good. (I do wonder if the Scouse accent held him back though, as I've seen some Americans really struggle with it in other contexts)

[Anna Raven]

I thought Mustafa Ali was about to wrestle Dom for the NXT title... Guess that's not happening anymore.

Also I don't understand how Elias, Riddle, and Rick Boogs never became a faction.