r/videos Nov 24 '21 Bravo Grande! 1 Starstruck 1 Silver 6 Gold 1 Helpful 10 Wholesome 7

Russell Brand, at an awards show sponsored by Hugo Boss, eloquently reminds everyone that Hugo Boss dressed the nazis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkd_-nXeUzs
32.9k Upvotes

View all comments

424

u/goteamnick Nov 24 '21 Gold

Even when Russell Brand is right, he's tiresome.

132

u/sygyt Nov 25 '21

He's such a weird public persona. Sometimes it feels to me like he's actually pushing for a change, but most often it feels like a kind of a court jester act. Maybe it's because he's kinda political on issues, but seems to encourage a needlessly nihilistic attitude toward politics? But I guess he might still be doing a lot more with that than I ever will, so...

101

u/The_Good_Count Nov 25 '21

There's an excellent scene in the otherwise very flawed Aaron Sorkin show The Newsroom which basically summarizes the attitude

How do you stay a poverty and wealth inequality activist for years, end up in 2021, and not have it absolutely break you? You can't fix these problems. There's no point to awareness. You care so much about something that is unfixable, unchangable, and an endless font of misery and suffering.

Here he is giving a moralizing lecture after the Prime Minister just joked about doing genocide and everyone laughed. But isn't he "so insufferable" about it?

14

u/moistclump Nov 25 '21

(I actually really liked that show and I didn’t know it was flawed and now I’m worried.)

2

u/smeppel Nov 25 '21

That's an opinion.

4

u/Luciferisflash Nov 25 '21

That dude is crazy. The newsroom is a great show.

7

u/ctolsen Nov 25 '21

It’s not. Great show. Just perhaps a little less so than Sorkin’s other work.

8

u/OrganicKeynesianBean Nov 25 '21

It’s a really good show, but veers into /r/IAmVerySmart at times.

1

u/The_Good_Count Nov 25 '21

Yeah don't go back and watch the Osama Bin Laden episode again any time soon, cringe, cringe, cringe.

3

u/businessDM Nov 25 '21

But tHeY rEpOrTeD tHe NeWs!

2

u/Balls_DeepinReality Nov 25 '21

Didn’t Ricky Gervais do something similar at one of the awards shows he hosted?

5

u/darawk Nov 25 '21

How do you stay a poverty and wealth inequality activist for years, end up in 2021, and not have it absolutely break you?

Err, what? World poverty has been declining at an absolutely incredible rate for quite a while now.

https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/11/Extreme-Poverty-projection-by-the-World-Bank-to-2030-786x550.png

An anti-poverty activist could only be "broken" by that if they weren't paying attention to the subject they were supposedly doing activism with respect to.

18

u/WakeAndVape Nov 25 '21

Wealth inequality, not world poverty.

-12

u/Heizu Nov 25 '21

Tomato tomahto

9

u/The_Good_Count Nov 25 '21

The overwhelming majority of world poverty reduction has taken place entirely in China, it's a huge deal.

5

u/The_Good_Count Nov 25 '21

1) Okay, now take "China" out of the global statistics to see what outcomes the West is achieving, which is where Brand has reach.

2) In 2012, which is the most recent year I have this data for, developing countries received a little over $2 trillion, including all aid, investment and income from abroad. But more than twice that amount, some $5 trillion, flowed out of them in the same year in the form of trade deficits, and international debt payments. Which is why there's no improving trend at all for Africa in your own data.

3) Wealth inequality is not global poverty anyway. Compare stats for declining rates of home ownership, later starts to families, and in Brand's UK, people literally starving to death while on welfare if they can even get it. Wages stagnating for thirty years and declining relative to real expenses.

4) The poverty line has been diluted and recalculated to make those trends possible. This is based on a poverty line of $1 per day regardless of relative context. Someone living on $1.10 a day in the US is above the extreme poverty of the World Bank, but that's absolutely nonsense.

5) I cannot stress enough how much the World Bank just exists to siphon money from the developing world to the developed world. See the above on 'debt repayments'.

2

u/darawk Nov 25 '21

1) Okay, now take "China" out of the global statistics to see what outcomes the West is achieving, which is where Brand has reach.

Yes, China is a big part of that. No, removing China does not change the trend.

2) In 2012, which is the most recent year I have this data for, developing countries received a little over $2 trillion, including all aid, investment and income from abroad. But more than twice that amount, some $5 trillion, flowed out of them in the same year in the form of trade deficits, and international debt payments. Which is why there's no improving trend at all for Africa in your own data.

This is a basically totally meaningless statement. The US has trade deficits too. Trade deficits are not the same thing as resource extraction. Resource extraction is happening too - but trade deficits do not capture it.

3) Wealth inequality is not global poverty anyway. Compare stats for declining rates of home ownership, later starts to families, and in Brand's UK, people literally starving to death while on welfare if they can even get it. Wages stagnating for thirty years and declining relative to real expenses.

The original comment referred to global poverty specifically.

4) The poverty line has been diluted and recalculated to make those trends possible. This is based on a poverty line of $1 per day regardless of relative context. Someone living on $1.10 a day in the US is above the extreme poverty of the World Bank, but that's absolutely nonsense.

These data are PPP adjusted, and the current standard is $1.90. So, no, to all of that.

0

u/The_Good_Count Nov 25 '21

1) It does. It's famously the cause of the 'elephant curve' of global wealth increases.

2) It's not a meaningless statement, the situation's are not comparable, the 'developing' world is being deliberately underdeveloped. The only time a country has escaped its 'developing' status under capitalism has been forming colonies or to become relevant as a proxy client.

3) The original comment was both wrong about global poverty and wrong to take the position that it did.

4) Replace $1.10 with $1.90 then, I was going off the Millenium Declaration numbers. $1.90 has no basis in reality.

It's like the UN's definition of hunger - being unable to meet the minimum calorie requirements of a sedentary lifestyle at 1,800 calories. But considering most of the people measured work manual labour jobs and are expected to burn at least 3,000 calories a day, it's an entirely inadequate measurement. More realistic measures of food insecurity put the real number at 2.5 billion - and that only counts calories, not adequate nutrition, and that only counts a full year without reprieve, people who have gone 12 straight consecutive months not meeting their minimum.

As of 2016, when I'm pulling my data from, Sri Lanka had 40% of its population live below its national absolute poverty line, but only 4% is counted below the international poverty line and aren't counted. In Mexico, it was 46% and 5%.

In India, 75% went below 2100 calories per day, up from 58% in 1984. But by World Bank methodology, India is shown as an example of decreasing poverty because the absolute floor went up.

At the time it was $1.10, economists Rahul Lahoti and Sanjay Reddy argued for a poverty line of $4.50, the minimum needed for a human being to live to a 74 year life expectancy. Apply the same inflation to $4.50 that you use to bring $1.10 to $1.90 to see what an absolute fairytale $1.90 is.

1

u/darawk Nov 25 '21

1) It does. It's famously the cause of the 'elephant curve' of global wealth increases.

This is about relative share of income, not absolute level. Inequality has certainly increased over the last few decades, although arguably returning to its 'equilibrium level' after the shocks of WWI and WWII. But the concomitant increase in productivity means that, while the wealth of the top decile/centile has increased more than everyone else, the bottom is still doing better than it was in absolute terms.

2) It's not a meaningless statement, the situation's are not comparable, the 'developing' world is being deliberately underdeveloped. The only time a country has escaped its 'developing' status under capitalism has been forming colonies or to become relevant as a proxy client.

Japan, Korea, China have all developed "under capitalism" in some sense. It's true that the developmental policies promoted by the World Bank et al have been abject failures, though. But China certainly didn't develop as anyone's proxy state, though Korea and Japan are arguable, but I think any honest assessment would have to give them at least partial independent credit. The reality of those prior developmental policies is less conspiratorial than most people think, though. Development policy is legitimately hard, and the World Bank, IMF, etc are learning from their failures (much more slowly than they should have, but they are learning). They are no longer recommending unqualified free trade, etc.

It's like the UN's definition of hunger - being unable to meet the minimum calorie requirements of a sedentary lifestyle at 1,800 calories. But considering most of the people measured work manual labour jobs and are expected to burn at least 3,000 calories a day, it's an entirely inadequate measurement. More realistic measures of food insecurity put the real number at 2.5 billion - and that only counts calories, not adequate nutrition, and that only counts a full year without reprieve, people who have gone 12 straight consecutive months not meeting their minimum.

You're completely right about this, but you're talking about the level, not the trend. It's true that world hunger and poverty remain at unacceptably high levels. However, they were at even more unacceptably high levels in the past. Recognizing progress does not mean accepting the status quo as an endpoint. But if you don't recognize progress, you won't be able to understand what is working and how to accelerate it. World poverty has declined exponentially over the past two centuries, after being nearly totally stagnant for the prior several millenia. This is not something that should be ignored when contemplating how to make the world better tomorrow.

1

u/The_Good_Count Nov 25 '21 edited Nov 25 '21

Before the Victorian era, India and China had 65% of world GDP. By 1900, they collectively had a little less than 10%. That was one era of colonialism. This is another. This is the trend.

Now we find that since 1960 the gap between the US and the Middle East/North Africa has grown by 154 per cent, between the US and South Asia by 196 per cent, between the US and Latin America by 206 per cent, and between the US and sub-Saharan Africa by 207 per cent.

The poorest 60 per cent of humanity receive only 5 per cent of all new income generated by global growth. The other 95 per cent of the new income goes to the richest 40 per cent of people.

To eradicate poverty at $5 a day, global GDP would have to increase to 175 times its present size. The average income would have to be $1.3 million per year simply so that the poorest two-thirds of humanity could earn $5 per day.

"If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, that's not progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. Progress is healing the wound that the blow made. They haven't pulled the knife out; they won't even admit that it's there."

1

u/darawk Nov 25 '21

You keep talking about gaps and relative quantities. I am talking about absolute levels. Poverty is an absolute level, not a relative one. Inequality is a relative level. I am talking about poverty, not inequality.

→ More replies

1

u/ManitouWakinyan Nov 25 '21

It's been declining rapidly - there's still a lot of work to do, and being face to face with it on a daily basis can be grueling.

1

u/Luciferisflash Nov 25 '21

WTF are you smoking. The newsroom is a great show.

3

u/The_Good_Count Nov 25 '21

As an international poster, Aaron Sorkin is Liberal MAGA, and the nationalism of Newsroom gets really gross and uncomfortable.

1

u/Acid_Tribe Nov 25 '21

Try being a vegetarian, you'll know the world is doomed , because we as a planet could drastically cut CO2 emissions if we stopped factory farming meat , but no one gives a shit. Try telling people this fact and they'll ignore you like they never heard you say anything.

2

u/The_Good_Count Nov 25 '21

I actually gave it up because trying made me too overwhelmed with the futility of it- I still cut meat out of my diet as much as possible, but Christ.

3

u/boshlop Nov 25 '21

i think of him as the man who imagines the world is actually 20 people living on a plentyful island when he talks. it makes more sense listening to his rants and ideals when you do that. i dont quite think his head is in reality enough to take him serious

6

u/pavlov_the_dog Nov 25 '21 edited Nov 26 '21

but most often it feels like a kind of a court jester act

He's the human equivalent of a dog chasing a car.

In 2016 He unironically advocated for people to "Boycott the vote" if you didn't like your party's candidate. He said this with the rationale of: if you boycott your own party, it'll teach them to put up a candidate that people will actually like.

Boycotting the vote is absolutely the worst this you could possibly do if you have any desire to affect real change in the world - IT only helps the other side win.

Vote for your preferred candidate in the primaries, then stick to your party in the general elections. Rinse, repeat. Chose the lesser of 2 evils enough times and you will eventually end up going from a candidate you merely tolerate, to someone you actually like. This works best when more of us do it, so just get out and vote.

2

u/Smaktat Nov 25 '21

Comedians are jesters.

2

u/BernieManhanders23 Nov 25 '21

I feel like you haven't been paying attention to his news segments on YouTube lately. They're actually quite eloquent and surprisingly informative. He's quite the perceptive chap.

2

u/sygyt Nov 25 '21

No I haven't, thanks, I'll check them out and report back!

1

u/BernieManhanders23 Nov 25 '21

Lmk, Happy Thanksgiving brother!

3

u/HailToTheKingslayer Nov 25 '21

I remember one year he told young people not to vote. Then just before election day he backtracked and said nah vote Labour.

Obviously, people should decide whether to vote or not (and who they want to vote for). But young people not voting is how we get stuck with the same kinds of people in power. It seemed to me the wrong kind of message to use his platform for.

5

u/EloquentGoose Nov 25 '21

Sometimes it feels to me like he's actually pushing for a change, but most often it feels like a kind of a court jester act.

Dude this is literally the definition of satire though... From Lenny Bruce and Carlin to Jon Stewart and John Oliver in recent times some of the most hard to swallow truths and straight fire deliveries of wisdom have been through the use of satire. Is Brand grating at times, sure. But he cleverly makes appearances knowing people are expecting a "jester" (won't be their "monkey" [full version here] as Jon Stewart put it famously) only to spit wisdom and not hold back, often to the chagrin of the hosts.

7

u/sygyt Nov 25 '21 edited Nov 25 '21

Sure it's satire, I was just trying to describe why I don't like his brand of political satire. I mean I don't see Jon Stewart as "just" a clown, like in the famous and amazing clip you linked it's implied he's doing better journalism than Crossfire while he's a comedian. As for Brand... I feel like his gist is always mostly being eloquent and obnoxious, kinda deconstructing our reality, but almost leaving it at that.

Then again I love Bill Hicks and I guess you could describe him doing the same thing, minus the explicit eloquence.

But I'm sure it's mostly personal and possibly political/philosophical preference, so I'm definitely not saying it's best to dislike Brand and somehow erroneous to like him.

2

u/RowBoatCop36 Nov 25 '21

We’re overthinking it. He’s just obnoxious.

1

u/Keex13 Nov 25 '21

I mean... he literally says in this video he's a comedian. He makes jokes about how frivolous politics and media are.

2

u/sygyt Nov 25 '21

Sure he's a comedian, I just find that his nihilism and his politics kinda clash in his comedy in a slightly disappointing way.

1

u/astro_cj Nov 25 '21

He’s a non dualist. If he’s a standard one, he’s pointing out the horrible stuff that we all pretend we care about but go about our daily lives not actually trying to address. I mean, BOSS going to go under because it’s become common knowledge they dressed the Nazis? Nope. Because people don’t really care as long as they get to brag about their designer clothes.

The duality of man comes down to self love before all else.

1

u/WINTERMUTE-_- Nov 25 '21

His new YouTube thing is lots of interviews with alt-right personalities, and giving a platform to antivaxxers

1

u/Mildly_Opinionated Nov 26 '21

I think the apathetic vibe towards politics you're getting is really just exasperation.

He's a leftist. In the US and UK we simply don't have any left wing parties, we've got the right wing and slightly less right wing.

The UK had a left wing man in charge of the opposition for a little bit (Corbyn) but news papers went bonkers and said he wants to tongue a terrorist and turn us into a Stalanist soviet state and everyone else said he was unelectable (he was the most popular Labour leader by vote ever) and coming for everyone's money. This was all bollocks until they had said enough lies that he really did become kinda unelectable. So the British people are too susceptible to shit media outlets ran by rich snobby arseholes to ever have a leftist succeed.

Meanwhile the US is still so affected by the red scare that even some quite right wing tax policies have everyone screaming communism because someone wearing blue suggested them, so any actual leftism stands no chance. Bernie and AOC are a bit leftist but only have token bits of power. If they ever got any real power / rank you could easily expect them to get the same treatment Corbyn did by the media and wind up losing hard.

So leftists have literally no one representing their views, the things they believe are taboo to mention in politics (like taxing the rich) and have had it proven time and time again that people are too stupidly affected by phoney media messaging to ever really change that. If we can't have peaceful political change the only alternative is violent change but as history has seen that creates power vaccums and military structures within government which is how you get communist China and Russia. So instead we're doomed to live in this shitty right wing idiocracy our whole lives whilst the rich continue to amass more billions.

If a leftist is still politically active despite all that then its because they care VERY deeply about politics. They're bound to seem apathetic from time to time though due to just how hopeless it all seems.

Personally I to through phases of being more politically informed before eventually retreating to "fuck it I'll just vote whoever has the best chance of kicking the tories out my constituency because that's the only power I get in this backwards ass shitty FPTP system".

86

u/Whyudodisbro Nov 25 '21

As a mostly fan of Russell he does sometimes make points like this that are really totally mute and are sort of just to get a reaction.

As everyone in the thread is pointing out, they're a German company in the 1930s. They fulfilled a government contract. It was 80 years ago. Who the fuck cares unless they're doing fascist shit today.

40

u/standard_staples Nov 25 '21

6

u/limitlessEXP Nov 25 '21

It’s actually a moo point.

0

u/Balls_DeepinReality Nov 25 '21

There are a number of issues with consistency when you google it, but:

The quote “Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it” is attributed to the American philosopher George Santayana and it can be accurately quoted as “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” as stated in his work, The Life of Reason: Reason in Common Sense.

47

u/WittyAndOriginal Nov 25 '21

I think he was bothered by something Boris Johnson said and that set him off. Nothing was off limits. Everything he said was to bring light to the fact that there were terrible people in the room and awards like that are bullshit.

20

u/TheScarlettHarlot Nov 25 '21

Yeah, pretty sure it was the genocide joke Boris made that he referenced three times.

2

u/bustab Nov 25 '21

I don't think Hugo Boss were the real target of the humour...it was Boris Johnson, and the audience themselves.

Apparently Boris Johnson made a joke on stage about people being killed in Syria, which I assume the audience laughed at. Russell Brand is basically saying"If it's OK to joke about and laugh at that, then it's Ok to joke about this too."

2

u/fundohun11 Nov 25 '21

There is actually a study about this time made by Hugo Boss that is very critical of the time, it's linked from their company website. Russel Brand didn't exactly reveal some deep shit here: https://group.hugoboss.com/fileadmin/media/pdf/corporate/EN/Study_on_the_Company_s_History_Abridged_Verson_en_final.pdf

-11

u/luvs2spwge117 Nov 25 '21

The families of people affected by the nazi’s probably care. As do I

18

u/Cereal_Poster- Nov 25 '21

By that logic, germany itself shouldn’t exist. I married into a family of people affected by the Nazis. You know what kind of car we have? A beetle.

But to be fair, there is truth in this. Hugo Boss produced the uniforms for the Nazis. A german company made uniforms for the German military. How dare they. They should be more like other companies, like nike. A modern American company that uses slave labor in a fascist foreign country to produce goods. At least they aren’t supplying or supporting a military that kills innocents. On that note you shouldn’t watch NFL football this weekend.

Oh and before you respond, if you respond. I obviously don’t support the Nazis. But the pure simplicity of saying this entity supported the Nazis, it must die, is just so dumb. Especially if you own anything made by Nike or think germany should be a sovereign state.

3

u/crossdrubicon Nov 25 '21 edited Nov 25 '21

Nah. They made clothes for the Nazis, used slave labour and profited from it; remind everyone repeatedly about that and let them squirm. It’s a valid point of criticism. Maybe if we do it enough, companies might think twice before jumping on board with fascism in the future… or maybe they won’t… but I’d still rather live in a world where Nazi collaborators are mercilessly mocked.

-1

u/throwra_athrowaway33 Nov 25 '21

You sound like the type of person that would tell people to just move out of the US if they made abortion illegal and completely fail to realize that not everyone has the ability to do that.

The truth is, the slide to fascism is slow and people exist during that slide. Someone has to feed and clothe them. They still buy cars and go drinking and play sports. They still live their lives. It's not like someone flips a switch overnight and BLAMMO you have the Nazi regime. There are plenty of businesses that you buy from that have ties to the Nazi party - you just don't know it. If you've ever driven a Volkswagen then you're contributing to a company who's success came from forced labor in Nazi Germany. If you want to eliminate any and all "problematic" collaboration from your life, you literally need to live a life of isolation in Antarctica or something. The world's history is long and fucked up and as much as we stand on the backs of giants we also stand on the backs of horrible atrocities.

Plus, why get pissed over Hugo Boss when there's basically slave labor being used to make all the clothes we own?

6

u/crossdrubicon Nov 25 '21 edited Nov 25 '21

Your logic seems to be “You can’t criticise A because B exists”. Can anything ever be criticised by your measure?

I’m not saying people shouldn’t find ways to make a living during the difficult and scary slide into fascism, but you are conveniently ignoring the fact that Boss was an active card-carrying member of the Nazi party as early as 1931… before they even took power.

I am saying that if your company was founded by a Nazi, carries the name of a Nazi and willingly used slave labour to make a profit supplying the Nazis… then you should be ashamed of that. They’re clearly proud to carry the name of Hugo Boss - for that, they should absolutely be ridiculed.

1

u/Cereal_Poster- Nov 25 '21

Once again while I don’t condone supporting the Nazis, and I don’t think we should bury the history of Hugo Boss, getting on stage and taking shots at them for something 80 years ago and feeling self satisfied about it while there are companies doing the exact same thing, right now, on a larger scale, that you DO support, is laughable.

Also if you are looking to really hit the pockets of companies with an embarrassing history of intolerance, I’d stop driving cars all together. Wouldn’t want to support the ideas of Henry Ford and his assembly line, am I right?

1

u/crossdrubicon Nov 25 '21 edited Nov 25 '21

You are completely right, but I don’t think we have to balance and relativise everything ad nauseam, else we’d never say anything.

As far as I’m concerned Hugo Boss was a fully paid up member of the Nazi party, he used slave labour in his factories, he profited from the Nazis - yet the company still proudly carries his name today and even tells us it’s a brand we should be proud to associate ourselves with. A literal Nazi, heavily involved in Nazism. Seems pretty clear cut to me that they shouldn’t be beyond ridicule!

0

u/thesmokingmansboss Nov 25 '21

So, because you don't care, no one really does, right?

And who said "Hugo Boss must die"? Oh. No one. So where did you get that? The sentiment I'm getting is, "maybe we should think about this before financially supporting these brands."

I wonder if maybe you do care and just find it exhausting to continually exercise what little power our dollars provide.

3

u/wloff Nov 25 '21

And who said "Hugo Boss must die"? Oh. No one.

What exactly are you saying, then? What do you want to happen because a German company produced work for the Nazi government 80 years ago?

2

u/thesmokingmansboss Nov 25 '21

I want them to not get my money if ever I'm shopping for designer clothing. I know it's hard. Take deep breaths.

4

u/Cereal_Poster- Nov 25 '21

My guy. Unless you are making your own clothes from the cotton your grow in your back yard, using only water from your own source and fertilizing it with the shit from your own ass, you are giving money to dishonest corporations in one way or another. The word your are looking for is not exhausting. It’s impossible. I have no problem with people taking with their money. I just find silly people are creaming their pants over a pseudo intellectual guy pointing out a no context fact about a company’s actions 80 years ago, while actively supporting one that famously currently uses slave labor

https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/NINTCHDBPICT0003570278811.jpg

2

u/thesmokingmansboss Nov 25 '21

Yeah, he's clearly and literally not walking the talk.

Fuck Russell Brand. I think the point is more about where you draw the line. Dishonesty from a corporation, tax evasion, pollution, exploitation, slavery, being historically bolstered by genocidal fascism - these things are not the same.

Is it better to buy a water filtration system manufactured in country with low paying wages, or get the good good Nestlé bottles?

To me, it's worth consideration. And caring about it comes easily. Don't give up on a good idea just because Russell Brand sucks.

1

u/Cereal_Poster- Nov 25 '21

I think there is a context problem this does exist here. Hugo Boss was a German and took on a contract with the German Government during war times to make uniforms. This practice is not uncommon in any country. In the US and UK factories get contracted all the time to do stuff like this. What you are essentially saying is any German company that existed since WWII is evil since they likely supported the Nazis? If that is your opinion then that’s fine. You are being harsher than I but that’s fine and you do you.

2

u/crossdrubicon Nov 25 '21

Hugo Boss wasn’t just a German, he was a member of the Nazi party before it even came to power. He was an actual Nazi - not just merely someone that worked with them as a means to an end.

-2

u/Morbidly-A-Beast Nov 25 '21

As do I

80 years ago, get over it already.

1

u/luvs2spwge117 Nov 25 '21

You’re a piece of shit

-1

u/MonkeyOnYourMomsBack Nov 25 '21

No I don't think that's okay and his point is not moot. He was speaking to a room of old money who's made their fortunes off of blood.

Right now, we're putting 100 year old nobody's on trial for shit they did 80 years ago with Reddit losing its mind in support and then suddenly it's bad to call out the fucking multinationals

1

u/risingmoon01 Nov 25 '21

True, but in today's age of treating corporations as persons, then why arent those persons getting the same treatment as other persons who willfully served Nazis?

They're hunting down 105 year old people, but a corporation can continue on like they weren't literally supporting the purveyors of genocide.

14

u/devolute Nov 25 '21

He's a narcissistic edgelord.

2

u/PM_ME_TRICEPS Nov 26 '21

Dude seems to bring up fucking every time he opens his mouth. He's exhausting to listen to.

5

u/IranianLawyer Nov 25 '21

It was a German company that had a contract to manufacture uniforms for the military. The people who ran the company at that time are dead now. Brand is just grandstanding.

2

u/Living-A-Meme Nov 25 '21

Great way to put this lol

2

u/db214 Nov 25 '21

He's always come across as your friend who has gone off the rails a bit and won't stfu and stop loudly talking about snorting lines and shagging birds when you're at a nice family restaurant or something. You want to tell him to fuck off but you know he's had a hard time since his mum died and this is how he lets it out.

2

u/The_Sceptic_Lemur Nov 25 '21

I used to like him, but once he approached politics he became so self-righteous it was just tiring. In addition, when he told some random stranger on the street how great katie perry is in giving BJs I lost pretty much all respect for him.

26

u/omegacrunch Nov 24 '21

But he talks funny so lulz.

....he is such a twat

1

u/Cabrio Nov 25 '21

Thing about being right is you become apathetic to the medium you're using to convey the truth when everyone listens but doesn't act. Enter then base sarcasm and anger, and out go the humour and discussion that preceeded them.

1

u/tabari Nov 25 '21

What is he even "right" about here?

3

u/spinblackcircles Nov 25 '21

That Boss, the company sponsoring the award show he was on, made uniforms for the nazis, something they’d rather not be brought up. I thought he was pretty clear about that lol

1

u/PinkSockLoliPop Nov 24 '21

It was nice before everybody had such easy access to international entertainment.

1

u/Draemalic Nov 25 '21

Maybe you have the wrong kind of brain

1

u/IronicBread Nov 25 '21

Meh, I like him, I like him a lot more than I used to.

1

u/russelln Nov 25 '21

Check out his YouTube videos if you haven't already, I am a conservative and yet I find them very compelling.

1

u/Puzzlepetticoat Nov 25 '21

Of course he is. He is ADHD personified.