Draft talk:Russell Brand

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

YouTube

youtube links do not work. 'the left side of the spectrum into the dark abyss of right-wing' is complete arse though. it does not bode well that this is the starting point for an article on him, indicating to me an ignorance of its subject. bitching about censorship on twitter is not the same thing at all, and it ignores all the anti capitalist, non voting 'revolution' nonsense of his naive politics and attention whoring he is known for.

imho brand is only worth listening to when discussing drug addiction. no way im going to trawl through his youtube output - th couple of videos i could stomach was enough for a life time, but enough to diismiss this 'rightward turn' narrative as nonsense AMassiveGay (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Feel better now do you?Field Dreamer (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Needs feedback

I'm an inexperienced editor, any feedback regarding the state of the article currently would be much appreciated. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it's really only missing categories. In drafts, categories are put in comment tags (check out the message at the top of the page), you should add the categories you think this article fits in, some obvious ones are the conspiracy theorists and new age categories, given that you added the navbars. Also, remember that Ratwiki is not only a mobocracy, it's also a do-ocracy, stuff is done by the will of the one that shows up and does stuff (Community standards). If you think the article covers the subject decently enough, move to mainspace. Chances are no-one will have a problem with that. Finally, this is an article about a living person, these are open to more legal trouble than other articles. Personally, I hold back on the snark on these articles, but I don't see anything immediately wrong in this article (except perhaps calling Peterson and friends dickheads, and calling Jimmy Dore a repugnant asshole, I think that can go). I think, once you decide on the categories, you can move this article to mainspace without issue. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

i dont want to be having a go at the work of others constantly, but it does read like brand is only for his youtube stuff. he has had life before youtube, and i would say a life more notable than his youtube channel. i am not just talking of his career on tv /radio as presenter/comedian, or his hollywood efforts of dubious quality. he is known for his social and political activism, which was noteworthy in the uk, more so than youtube. there is plenty about that one could be critical of, and when you factor in his drug addiction and where that led him, there is much to be appalled by.

i think it is important to realise who brand is a person if we are to have an article on him. that he is very much a marmite character. i dont dislike him as person, but small doses go a very long way - i cant stomach him enough to sit through his youtubes. but the thing is, he knows hes not everyones cup of tea. he knows a lot people are repelled by him. he knows he is an attention seeking whore, that he is pretentious and overbearing. and he is very honest about his short comings, about his drug habit and about the more infamous episodes of his life. i dont think it is fair to characterise his works as objectively bad. his schtick might not be your liking, its not mine, some of it is bad and he would agree. but its still subjective opinion. i would prefer to see more critique of the views he expresses. a little deeper than is present. i would like see what his wrong rather than simply told he is wrong about things. not with links to youtube, but in plain english, with context and not simply quote mined. where possible i would like to see what he thinks when you strip away the hyperbole of his delivery. what you call click bait i say is the basis of his act, overtly theatrical. overbearingly so. i might struggle through some his youtube to get a clearer picture of politics now. i cant gel the idea in my head brand as a rightwing demagogue with the social and political activism that he is notable for in the uk. that was very much leftist. anarachistic. the very worst i could say about his views then is that they were dreadfully naive.

as stands it misses so much that is notable about brand that was before youtube, it does him grave disservice. hes always struck as decent enough fella. likeable, if a little hard to take for a lot of people, and despite some of the spectacularly poor choices hes made in the past, when he was, in his words, doing a lot of crack and heroin at the time. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

im going to try and dig up an interview he did for richard herring's podcast. you may find him repellent, but he aint alex jones. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Why are you only applying this kind of thinking to Russell Brand? Like it or not, he lies, constantly. In the present day almost everything he says and does is utter bullshit. I am well aware that he was not as contemptible before, that doesn't change my current opinion of him. And honestly? Sit through any of his current videos, you will see what I mean. His platform in the present day is only devoted to spreading lies, conspiratorial bullshit and falsehoods to a paranoid audience. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

what kind of thinking am i applying here? the article tells me he is spreading lies and bullshit but gives me no details. and his life before is important and notable in its own right in understanding where he is at now, to see where he came from and where is now. looking through the community section on his at the questions hes poses sounds very much like the cynicism and distrust of the authorities in general and feeling that big business and the political parties running the show, vying for power among themselves are all as corrupted as each other working to maintain their own positions with the wider public little more than something to manipulate and exploit for their own ends, to be crushed under foot, or to ignore and disregard completely because the political system is locked up tight. its the kind of world view that you find is held by a great many suffering with addictions and substance abuse, and a great many homeless people, a great many of the dispossessed. this should not surprise you as brand has spent a great deal of time amongst the homeless and amongst drug addicts. it should not surprise you if shared their fatalism. its also not exactly a wrong view of the world to hold at the moment particularly in the us. the danger of this world view is that we disengage with from politics and give up what little influence we have in how our countries are run, believing all sides are terrible why bother voting. this is a criticism of brand's activism. the naivety i mentioned earlier. brand felt that if we refused to vote, and i believe he was referring to the uk political system but i am not certain of that not legitimising a government with our votes it cannot claim a mandate from the electorate and somehow the whole rotton system will be exposed and collapse. thats a nonsense but he was right to hold the whole rotten. system of the uk in contempt. people are not wrong to do that in the us either, which exponentially more rotten. do remember the great white hope of the american left? bernie sanders? do you remember the democratic primaries where he lost to biden? the bernie bros despair about it being biden? they saw us politics as broken - it is broken - and that biden was too wedded to a broken and and sought to maintain and sure up a fundamentally broken system that is harming the american public, to maintain the status quo not the needed reform. they were not wrong thats exactly what biden in. many lamented the failure of the democratic party and vowed to not vote. that was what they were wrong about. all candidates were terrible but not equally as terrible. trump was worse by country mile and bernie bros risked handing him a second term if too many decided to not vote.

i do not believe brand is does nothing but lie. he is not telling lies like alex jones is telling lies. jones know he is lying, profits from his lies, and pushes a far right agenda with an earnestness and conviction that convinces his audience he 100% believes his shit convincing them to believe 100%. hes a nasty piece knowingly spreading lies, knowingly taking advantage of the deficit in trust in news media to make sure its his voice his audience will hear with anything running counter to his message drowned out by cacophony contradictory noise. he tells us who we should be for and who we should be against. who we should hate. this is not brand. im not convinced he is certain of any of the claims he makes nor that he thinks he is telling us the real truth of thing. i believe all that brand is certain of is we should be suspicious of what everyone with power and influence is telling us and be suspicious of their motives when too often that motive is to maintain that power and influence. its a mistake for people to think brand is giving answers because i dont believe he trying to. he is not alex jines. he is not joe rogan. he is a former smack head from essex. the criticism of brands world view is that the trumps of the world do not need to win over the support of their enemies to win. they just need them not to vote for their enemies. the alex jones will ensure people like trump has a base of motivated supporters. while brand world view, is that of the homeless and drug addicts, is in many ways - too many ways, a correct view of the world, it is the world view of the homeless and drug addicts. and the fatalism of drug addicts is not in anyway empowering or inspiring.

what is depressing is why brands view of the world should resonant with so many people. that more and more see the world the way the homeless and drug addicts see the world. that we are all the dispossessed these days. there is a lot to be critical of with brand. but like the way a biden is not as bad a trump, brand is not as a jones. on so many levels. you risk making the same brand makes by not recognising the difference. and the article needs to look outside of youtube to explain who brand is and where he came from. AMassiveGay (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Article is open edit for a reason. Go ahead if you want to change things. We clearly differ in opinion here. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

you asked for feedback, i gave you feedback. you would do well to take a look at the wikipedia article for a rundown in his life and political activism to give a fuller picture than just a gobshite with a youtube you know him as. there is plenty of room for criticism and he does hold some dubious views. just slamming him while presenting a cartoon depiction of him does not tackle disinformation if this is our goal. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate it, I just find it hard to take sometimes. I'll look further into him. ---Ozzyboo (talk)

Politics

I know that this wiki tends to be Americentric on political stuff, but Russell Brand was an anarchist, not a liberal. It doesn't hurt to just call him an anarchist, and not a liberal. --LiamM32 (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

If he was an anarchist then, he's certainly not now. Carthage (talk) 00:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Sexual assault allegations

We should definitely cover the sexual assault allegations. I would add something but I don't have the time. Carthage (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)