Oh, Russell Brand. Just when I’m so used to hearing you say intelligent, well-reasoned things that it no longer surprises me when they emit from your disgustingly hot face, you turn around and say something that is painfully incorrect…at least, in my opinion.
This past Saturday, when speaking to a panel of reporters about his new FX series (sidenote: Russell Brand has a new FX series), he addressed the recent controversies, saying: “I think if someone’s job is a comedian and they say something, like in the analysis of the content of their statement, you should recall the bit that they’re a comedian. I’ve noticed a lot of people sort of remove [the fact that they are comedians] from the analysis to sort of create some storm of condemnation.”
Here’s the thing, though: people did not condemn these guys because they forgot that they were comedians. They condemned them because they said hurtful things. Things that would have been bad no matter who said them. If a guy at a party and a guy on a stage tell the same tasteless joke, is the guy on stage automatically exempt from reproach? I don’t think so. (And you can bet the guy at the party fancies himself a “comedian” as well.)
“I don’t know about what Dane Cook or Daniel Tosh said, but I know that they are comedians, and I know they’re nice human beings, so I don’t imagine that they had any intention other than to elicit laughter from their fellow human beings, as is their job…I would imagine that [their act] was well intentioned, whatever happened.”
Unless Dane Cook is even dumber than I think he is, I’m going to assume he made that joke less to make people laugh (because it wasn’t funny) and more to remind people he exists. (No publicity is bad publicity!) And Daniel Tosh made his joke (if you can even call it that—it read more like a hateful rant to me) to wield rape culture (newsflash: it exists) against a woman and put her in her place. Do those sound like good intentions to you? I’m going to go ahead and give Russell Brand the benefit of the doubt and assume he doesn’t know much about either situation, because if he does, he has come to some rather lame conclusions.
(Via Us Magazine)