Russell Brand preaching revolution on Paxman Last Night

wretcheddomain

BlurstMonkey wrote: »

It pains me to think how many women I know that call him a genius, the brunt of this impression coming from the fact that he's half way articulate, and after that I won't say where else.

If people don't understand something, they can't undermine it and a good deal of people will assume the person knows what they're talking about. I guess that's where this problem stems from.

In the same way, if I were to waffle about nuclear physics in a technical way which nobody here could understand, they might be of the impression I know what I'm talking about and it'd take an expert of some sort to dismiss me.

Unfortunately, too many people respect others due to the use of fancy words or so-called articulateness and automatically make an assumption they're worth listening to.

AlanG

I loved the way he said to get rid of the Government by revolution. Then when asked who would tax all the rich people he wanted an elected administration – but don’t call them government, call them something else. So basically a revolution to change the meaning of the word Government.

wretcheddomain

AlanG wrote: »

I loved the way he said to get rid of the Government by revolution. Then when asked who would tax all the rich people he wanted an elected administration – but don’t call them government, call them something else. So basically a revolution to change the meaning of the word Government.

And who would elect this new 'elected administration'? You guessed it, the same people who elected the 'current administration' ~ the same people will naturally gravitate to parliament no matter what Brand claims.

beezowdoodoo

endacl wrote: »

Randy Bustle = John Lennon? Seriously?!?

They're coming from the same place, both 'harmless' entertainers who went on to use their platforms for good.

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Oh give over!

He talked about the redistribution of wealth implying he was a 'tacit' supporter of socialist ideals yet forgot to mention that his own personal wealth was built on the back of non-socialist principles. In other words, he undermines his own credibility.

As for the accusations of incoherency, I wholeheartedly endorse them. He tends to throw out words which attempt to make himself look smart but ultimately it's just a load of waffle. There's very little substance behind the words, just ends up a stockpile of emotional blather.

And no, there will be no revolution in the UK. Maybe he started taking drugs again?

His ideas are simplistic, mediocre, pseudointellectual garbage that only proto-socialists and thirteen year old kids would find in any way appealing.

Just because someone is a hypocrite doesn't detract from their argument. 'It's just a load of waffle' is not an adequate criticism of his words, what he says is true on a very basic level.

While there is no revolution happening in the UK, there were riots that brought the country to a standstill for a week, the Red Cross is feeding their poor of the UK for the first time since WW2 and the number of children with rickets is on the increase.

As for your criticism of his simplicity, the simpler the idea the better.

You're just a someone who's left compassion behind.

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Hypothetically, if I had a wealth of €20 billion accrued through capitalism and then started preaching about the values of Socialism, how seriously would you take me?

In other words, while the concept of socialism cannot be attacked, we can certainly attack my hypocrisy in this regard.

In the same way, we can attack the hypocrisy of Brand, the only difference here is that Brand is waffling here and doesn't really have any points that deserve further contemplation.

His point still stands, the current operations of western capitalism are unjust and cannot continue without leading to collapse.

4zn76tysfajdxp

beezowdoodoo wrote: »

Just because someone is a hypocrite doesn't detract from their argument.

...


Doesn't it...?

opr

It's amazing that within a country that has been buggered by successive governments, seen massive corruption within the ruling classes, accepted huge burdens of debt are so derogatory to what he's saying. All within a time where instead of looking for change we're finding ways to propogate the current system largely at the expense of the people.

Yes he talks about things in broad stokes while providing little in the way of answers but he freely admits that all he's trying to do is draw attention to the issues while others far more qualified than him are available to paint in the picture. Still all you need to do is read through the majority of replies to this thread to understand why no revolution is coming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uuYjUxf6Uk

Opr

Savoir.Faire

He really needs to visit a good barber. How can you take a man seriously with a mop like that? It's almost as unruly and ill-conceived as his half-baked ideas and opinions.

Dravokivich

Savoir.Faire wrote: »

He really needs to visit a good barber. How can you take a man seriously with a mop like that? It's almost as unruly and ill-conceived as his half-baked ideas and opinions.

you could always close your eyes, or not look at someone, if their appearance makes it harder for you to listen.

Karl Stein

So you can't have an opinion on income/power/wealth distribution if you're poor because you'll be labelled a begrudger and you can't have one if you're rich/famous because you're a hypocrite.

So the very valid points he raises get buried under the accusations of hypocrisy, former drug addiction, promiscuity and whatever else you're having yourself.

Excellent.

strobe

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Says the multi-millionaire.

I find the guy annoying as hell, but he was out protesting and marching and writing letters and campaigning and whathaveyou since he was 15. Long before he made his entertainment industry money.

Such a bolox dismission (if that's a word - when you dismiss something?) anyway. Nothing says you can't still be concerned about people without money when you have it. Just like no reason you can't be concerned about or speak out on behalf of slaves when you have your freedom, or victims of abuse when you're not one etc etc.

If more people with wealth continued voicing concerns and having empathy for the plight of those less so when they made thier cash, rather than having a "well ****everyone else now, I got mine" attitude, the world would probably be a better place.

wretcheddomain

I agree with Paxman; his facetiousness doesn't exactly give the impression he's all that serious about the simple points he raises. I mean, who doesn't raise those points anyway? It's almost a tautology.

Joshua J

Well if the boring clones in grey suits talked with as much passion, honesty and lucidity that Russell does then maybe there'd be less voter apathy.

wretcheddomain

Joshua J wrote: »

Well if the boring clones in grey suits talked with as much passion, honesty and lucidity that Russell does then maybe there'd be less voter apathy.

Passion? It was drama. Big difference.

Honesty? Meh, we learned nothing.

Lucidity? It was obscurantism dressed in words.

Less voter apathy? For the aforementioned reasons, I think not.

ScumLord

wretcheddomain wrote: »

He talked about the redistribution of wealth implying he was a 'tacit' supporter of socialist ideals yet forgot to mention that his own personal wealth was built on the back of non-socialist principles. In other words, he undermines his own credibility.

We all have to play the game of capitalism, we have no choice. It doesn't mean you can't highlight what's wrong with the system and want it to change.

It's all too easy for someone in his position to cry for revolution. It's usually people in his position that want revolution for the masses below them. Most people who have families want stability and won't be jeopardizing what they have for the promise of a better world. Things will have to get a hell of a lot worse before the families take the risk of revolution.

Joshua J

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Passion? It was drama. Big difference.

Honesty? Meh, we learned nothing.

Lucidity? It was obscurantism dressed in words.

Less voter apathy? For the aforementioned reasons, I think not.

I think you're way off the mark but whatever, I respect your personal opinion.

endacl

Dravokivich wrote: »

you could always close your eyes, or not look at someone, if their appearance makes it harder for you to listen.

It's the torrent of bollickology that makes it hard to listen.

YFlyer

endacl wrote: »

Randy Bustle = John Lennon? Seriously?!?

They both practice transcendental meditation.

Russell Brand is a promoter of the David Lynch Foundation.

Aotearoa

i never understand why people have a pop at people who don't vote.

i dont vote either. but its not out of apathy,its out of a disconnect between me and the options available and the system being flawed.
if you voted fine gael based on endas 5 point plan- which he hasn't delivered on-you are complicit in that shower of clowns being in power.

its easy to denigrate brand and his ilk but to be fair he made a lot of valid points and in an incredibly eloquent and erudite manner.he is better spoken than any politician i can think of in our government.

my Grandad didn't vote in the last election and summed up his reason brilliantly :

"they are all pimples on the same arse"

Aotearoa

iDave wrote: »

Saw it last night. Talking incoherent rubbish, don't know why Paxman bothered.

if you genuinely thought that was incoherent i am surprised.
he articulated his points almost flawlessly.

Femme_Fatale

Temptamperu wrote: »

I don't know why people don't like Brand. Hes a smart and articulate individual who has over come much adversity in life to get where he is now.

Oh maybe I know, jealousy is an awful thing.

Relax the knee and just ponder for a few moments... Yes, there are other reasons for finding someone unappealing besides jealousy.

There is nothing wrong with being passionate about social justice even if you're middle-class or wealthy and living in the west and thus enjoying the fruits of capitalism. IMO, ethically and morally it's the way people should be. It's a damn sight preferable to being a heartless greedy **** (e.g. some of the vile attitudes on the thread about distribution of wealth in the U.S.)

I'd take him seriously if he put some of his money towards education programmes for deprived kids in localities near where he grew up (grassroots is where to start making a difference IMO) rather than hanging out in vapid Lala-land with Katy ****ing Perry.

To be fair, I used to dislike him for his cockiness, but he seems to have more humility these days - so credit to him for that.

wretcheddomain

Aotearoa wrote: »

he articulated his points almost flawlessly.

Direct quotes from the first 70 seconds:

Brand:
I look elsewhere for alternatives that might be of service to humanity…alternate being alternate political systems.

Paxman:
They being?

Brand:
Well, I’ve not invented it yet Jeremy, I had to do a magazine last week.

Paxman:
How do you imagine the people get power?

Brand:
Well, I imagine there are hierarchical systems preserved for a generations.

Notes:
1. He talks about looking for alternative systems in the world but in response to Paxman he says he hasn't 'invented' the system. That's not coherency.

2. The statement 'I had to do a magazine' makes no sense i.e. it's incoherent.

3. Look at Paxman's last question there and tell me if that answer satisfies that question. If it does, you'll have to square it with his later comments of revolution and then installing an administrative centre which is the same as a government but only not called a government.

4. The part of the sentence "preserved for a generations" makes no sense.

Maybe we can agree, therefore, that Mr. Brand is incoherent but you believe his points were articulated 'flawlessly'. I think that reflects more on your lack of understanding of articulation than even that of Mr. Brand.

Aotearoa

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Direct quotes from the first 70 seconds:

Brand:
I look elsewhere for alternatives that might be of service to humanity…alternate being alternate political systems.

Paxman:
They being?

Brand:
Well, I’ve not invented it yet Jeremy, I had to do a magazine last week.

Paxman:
How do you imagine the people get power?

Brand:
Well, I imagine there are hierarchical systems preserved for a generations.

Notes:
1. He talks about looking for alternative systems in the world but in response to Paxman he says he hasn't 'invented' the system. That's not coherency.

2. The statement 'I had to do a magazine' makes no sense i.e. it's incoherent.

3. Look at Paxman's last question there and tell me if that answer satisfies that question. If it does, you'll have to square it with his later comments of revolution and then installing an administrative centre which is the same as a government but only not called a government.

4. The part of the sentence "preserved for a generations" makes no sense.

Maybe we can agree, therefore, that Mr. Brand is incoherent but you believe his points were articulated 'flawlessly'. I think that reflects more on your lack of understanding of articulation than even that of Mr. Brand.

without getting into a tit for tat , i think you need to separate where he is being serious and being funny. he is saying "i had to do a magazine last week " to joke about why he didn't have time to invent a utopian society.

johnnymt

Aotearoa wrote: »

without getting into a tit for tat , i think you need to separate where he is being serious and being funny. he is saying "i had to do a magazine last week " to joke about why he didn't have time to invent a utopian society.

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Direct quotes from the first 70 seconds:

Brand:
I look elsewhere for alternatives that might be of service to humanity…alternate being alternate political systems.

Paxman:
They being?

Brand:
Well, I’ve not invented it yet Jeremy, I had to do a magazine last week.

Paxman:
How do you imagine the people get power?

Brand:
Well, I imagine there are hierarchical systems preserved for a generations.

Notes:
1. He talks about looking for alternative systems in the world but in response to Paxman he says he hasn't 'invented' the system. That's not coherency.

2. The statement 'I had to do a magazine' makes no sense i.e. it's incoherent.

3. Look at Paxman's last question there and tell me if that answer satisfies that question. If it does, you'll have to square it with his later comments of revolution and then installing an administrative centre which is the same as a government but only not called a government.

4. The part of the sentence "preserved for a generations" makes no sense.

Maybe we can agree, therefore, that Mr. Brand is incoherent but you believe his points were articulated 'flawlessly'. I think that reflects more on your lack of understanding of articulation than even that of Mr. Brand.

I presume fourth point was a dig at schools like Eton being a conveyor belt to corridors of power in the UK.

Aotearoa

AlanG wrote: »

I loved the way he said to get rid of the Government by revolution. Then when asked who would tax all the rich people he wanted an elected administration – but don’t call them government, call them something else. So basically a revolution to change the meaning of the word Government.

for any society or ideal you will need referees or gatekeepers for want of a better word.

he wants the current knob ends out,the way the current knob ends are elected changed and the methods for which the current knob ends stay in power to be changed.

its striking that balance between having an all encompassing inclusive society while keeping trouble makers and rule makers equally honest.

you will always need a "government" of some sort but how they govern and how they become in a position to govern is the issue. i can't believe people are getting tied up in the semantics of the word.

TeddyTedson

It's very refreshing to see him just talk straight up while being himself.
In fairness that's all he ever tries to be.
I find it irritating as hell to see politicians in debates put on this false anger act.

Aotearoa

johnnymt wrote: »

I presume fourth point was a dig at schools like Eton being a conveyor belt to corridors of power in the UK.

exactly. his problem is under it all he is a comedian. it he had of played it straight laced for the duration of the interview then maybe there would be less room for people to misconstrue the message.

by the way I'm not being condescending (thats when you talk down to people)

wretcheddomain

Amazing how people call him highly articulate and giving a 'flawless' presentation but yet when you highlight any of the errors he actually makes when you make an effort to *listen*, you get blamed for ignoring his comedic value.

The IQ of boards.ie as a whole has increased by 1.

Legs.Eleven

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Russell Brand can do my head in when he does stand up, but reading his articles for the Guardian is always great. I was shocked at how articulate and intelligent he came across the first time I read one.

BlurstMonkey wrote: »

It pains me to think how many women I know that call him a genius, the brunt of this impression coming from the fact that he's half way articulate, and after that I won't say where else.

I think you have to read his articles in The Guardian to see the man has a brain in his head.

This article on Thatcher is nothing short of brilliant:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/09/russell-brand-margaret-thatcher



I get the accusations of hypocrisy etc. but most of what he said in that video was spot on.

Aotearoa

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

I think you have to read his articles in The Guardian to see the man has a brain in his head.

This article on Thatcher is nothing short of brilliant:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/09/russell-brand-margaret-thatcher



I get the accusations of hypocrisy etc. but most of what he said in that video was spot on.

fantastic article.

Legs.Eleven

Aotearoa wrote: »

fantastic article.

One of the few articles I've read in recent memory that had me riveted. His articulateness is more obvious when he writes.