• athos77@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    He has had a number of days to organize his rebuttal and you know what he hasn’t done? He has never denied that he had a relationship with a 16-year-old when he was 37. He also apparently thinks that a ‘consensual relationship’ gives him free rein to do what he pleases - because he also has not said that these incidents never happened, just that the relationships were ‘consensual’.

    So you know what? idgaf what his excuses are, I don’t care what he claims. And while I have sympathy for the abuse he’s gone through, you work through that on your own, in your twenties - you don’t take it out on other people in your late thirties. There’s a point where you move from abusee to abuser, and Brand has long since crossed that line.

    • tegs_terry
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well, that kind of reductive thinking is massively helpful. Do all the abusees who are over thirty know about the rules you’ve made up? People don’t realise how simple the matter is!

      I’m not even defending the guy, I’m asking for people to avoid tunnel vision and take in the full facts, when they are all available.

      • athos77@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I may not know the full facts, but I do know that Brand isn’t saying “These things never happened”, and that’s enough for me.

        • tegs_terry
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Enough for what, exactly? Keelhauling? Chemical castration? Written warning? What level of censure do you deem appropriate based on that fact?