UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => shootin' the shit => Topic started by: mrconners on December 17, 2014, 08:21:33 pm
-
Now I know he's an easy target but
http://blog.squandertwo.net/2014/12/an-open-letter-to-russell-brand.html (http://blog.squandertwo.net/2014/12/an-open-letter-to-russell-brand.html)
This bloke seemed genuinely upset, it's from the other channel (taken from the independent) so apologies if its a repost or you have already read it. To me hi appearances on question time are not intellectual arguments but just quick witted sharp comebacks delivered at massive VOLUME.
-
The guy was having paella. For lunch.
-
Russell Brand is a self aggrandising unpleasant cvnt who needs to start a fight with someone tasty when there's no cameras or bouncers about.
-
Aggrandising sums him up perfectly, what a great word.
I would love him to get his fucking face smashed in.
-
Wow your angry.... If you don't like him don't subscribe to the trews. And don't talk to him if you see him in the street....
-
His views are unacceptable since they are not within the limited permissible range of political views. He fails to engage properly in the approved party politics. He challenges accepted norms. He has weird hair.
Fuck that cunt.
-
Aggrandising sums him up perfectly, what a great word.
I would love him to get his fucking face smashed in.
Not read the rest of the thread yet... But yes.. Great word.. Perhaps the word of the year on UKB?
-
+1 psychoman sam... How dare he poke faults In our political system, media and society as a whole.... I just don't understand mrconners venomous hatred...
-
Brand is obviously a waste of space (a touch of the Lenny Bruce is beginning to emerge) but the this guy whining on about his lunch. the anti licence fee rant (only pure libertarianism can protect us from Big State Control).
Long story short its a case of the cunt calling the cunt a cunt.
-
Nothing to do with his views. Its just him and the way he behaves.
Stuart Lee described his interview on paxman as like " a monkey throwing faeces at a foghorn".
I feel he is more interested in self promotion than anything else, but then I suppose that is his job.
The cunt.
-
Well.. I heard Charlie Brooker describe Stewart Lee describing Russell Brand being interviewed by Jeremy Paxman as like watching one of those sage intelligent-looking orangutangs take a shit on a record-player...
But then that is his job. I think. So it must be true.
-
I'd only read about two thirds of what the blogger had written before I posted. What he is gets really clear with the the "celebrity bike" bit. This guy operates somewhere to the libertarian of Sloper and is as sexist as Brand.
Its not great its a nasty little "ME ME ME" rant every bit as pathetic as Brand's.
-
Blog and counter blog.. (I couldn't be arsed to read most of either)..
http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/russell-brand-jo-rbs-open-letter.html?m=1
-
And from Russel Brands facecrack page that popped up on my timeline.
Hello Jo, thanks for your open letter, I do remember you from the melee outside RBS and firstly, I’d like to say sorry for your paella getting cold. It’s not nice to suffer because of actions that are nothing to do with you. I imagine the disabled people of our country who have been hit with £6bn of benefit cuts during the period that RBS received £46bn of public bail-out money feel similarly cheesed off.
I can’t apologise for the RBS lockdown though mate because, I don’t have the authority to close great big institutions – even ones found guilty of criminal activity.
The locking of the doors and your tarnished lunch came about as the result of orders from “the faceless bosses” upstairs after I wandered in on my own while we secretly filmed from across the street - then security swarmed, all the doors were locked and crowds gathered outside. I must say Jo; it felt like RBS had something terrible to hide. But more of that in a minute.
Neither was I there for publicity, although you could be forgiven for thinking that; for many years I have earned my money (and paid my taxes) by showing off. If I needed negative publicity (and, believe me, that’s all talking publicly about inequality can ever get you) I could get it by using the “N word” on telly, or putting a cat in a bin, or having a romantic liaison with the lad from TOWIE.
I was there with filmmaker Michael Winterbottom making a documentary about how the economic crises caused by the banking industry (RBS were found guilty of rigging Libor and the foreign exchange) has led to an economic attack on the most vulnerable people in society. I don’t want to undermine your personal inconvenience Jo, I’d be the first to admit that I’m often more vexed by little things; iPhone chargers continually changing makes me as angry as apartheid - so I can’t claim any personal moral high ground, but a chance to make a film that highlights how £80bn of austerity cuts were made, punishing society’s most vulnerable during the same period that bankers awarded themselves £81bn in bonuses was irresistible.
The mob upstairs at RBS who exiled you with your rapidly deteriorating lunch have had £4bn in bonuses since the crash. Do they deserve our money more than Britain’s disabled? Or Britain’s students who are now charged to learn? Is that fair?
They were some of the questions I was hoping to ask your boss – but we got no joy through the “proper channels” so we decided to just show up.
Not just to RBS, but also to Lloyds, HSBC and Barclays. I know that the regular folk on the floor aren’t guilty of this trick against ordinary people; they’re like anyone, trying to make ends meet. As you point out though, it’s hard to get to the men at the top so we were forced into door-stopping and inadvertent lunch spoiling. The good news is that this film and even this correspondence will reach hundreds of thousands of people and they’ll learn how they’re being conned by the financial industry and turned against one another - that’s got to be a good thing, even if it makes me look a bit of a twit in the process and the national dish of Spain is eaten sub-par.
Now I’ll be the first to admit your lunch has been an unwitting casualty in this well-intentioned quest but I couldn’t resist the opportunity to ask new RBS boss Ross McEwan if he thinks it’s right that he got a £3.2m “golden hello” when the RBS is sellotaped together with money that comes from everyone else’s taxes. I wonder what he would’ve said? Or whether it’s right that Fred “the shred” (he shredded evidence of impropriety) Goodwin gets to keep his £320k a year pension while disabled people have had their independent living fund scrapped.
And it’s not just RBS mate. Lloyds, Barclays, Citibank and HSBC have all been found guilty of market rigging and not one banker has been jailed.
Trillions of public money lost and stolen and no one prosecuted. Remember in the riots when disaffected youth nicked the odd bottle of water or a stray pair of trainers? Criminal, I agree. 1800 years worth of sentences were meted out in special courts, to make an example. Some crime doesn’t pay, but some crime definitely does. My school mate Leigh Pickett, a fireman is being told that he and his colleagues won’t be able to collect their pension until five years later than agreed, five more years of backbreaking, flame engulfed labour – why? Because of austerity.
Put simply Jo, the banks took the money, the people paid the price.
I was there to ask a few questions to the guilty parties, now I know that’s not you, you’re just a bloke trying to make a crust and evidently you like that crust warm - but again, it wasn’t me who locked the RBS, I just asked a few difficult questions and the place went nuts. The people that have inconvenienced homeowners, pensioners, the disabled and ordinary working Brits are the same ones who inconvenienced you that lunchtime. They’ve got a lot to hide, so they locked the doors. You said my “agro demeanor” reminded you of school. Your letter reminded me of school too, when the teacher would say, “because Russell’s been naughty, the whole class has to stay behind”.
I’d never knowingly keep a workingman from his dinner, it’s unacceptable and I do owe you an apology for being lairy.
So Jo, get in touch, I owe you an apology and I’d like to take you for a hot paella to make up for the one that went cold – though you could say that was actually the fault of the shady shysters who nicked the wedge and locked you out, I’d rather err on the side of caution. When I make a mistake I like to apolgise and put it right. Hopefully your bosses will do the same to the people of Britain.
-
Ps - no views - just public service broadcasting.
-
He's annoying as fuck, but what makes it worse is that he occasionally opens up the debate about things which literally never would make the airwaves. Like really important stuff. We need a celebrity arsehole to get us airtime on shit which is super important. We're fucked, basically.
-
Surely the bloke could have eaten his paella outside - urban living etc.
-
Perhaps I've got too mellow my old age (a mind so open it's leaking through my ears), but I find Russell Brand quite likeable these days, and definitely more a source of good than harm. I used to view him as a more meretricious Nathan Barley but now I feel there is a substance behind the stylings. Maybe his reach outweighs his worth, but I feel he genuinely cares and has good intentions. There are people far more deserving of disapprobation anyway, they just have the sense to keep quiet.
-
Brand is a bit of a twunt but as others have said, he is raising issues that most in the media won't raise. The open letter writer is just a pretentious twunt without the redeeming features. Brand's reply leaves his rather silly missive looking what it in fact is, rather silly.
-
Brand is a distraction paid for by the newts
as long as he gets media attention a big chunk of whiny people think that their views are being represented and so don't take any further steps themselves
cunning
-
Russell Brand : End the Drugs War (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04v2zrg/russell-brand-end-the-drugs-war)
-
Brand is a bit of a twunt but as others have said, he is raising issues that most in the media won't raise. The open letter writer is just a pretentious twunt without the redeeming features. Brand's reply leaves his rather silly missive looking what it in fact is, rather silly.
Yep.
Overall, he is at least bringing politics back into the lives of many, who were otherwise disinterested.
And, these TV/media debates are pointless if not confrontational. Can you imagine an hour of "Well, basically I agree with 90% of what the other party say, but I'm going to make a huge deal of the few minor points on which we differ"....
With the added rider that the existing bunch of clones, care little about the well being of anything other than their retirement plan.
-
as long as he gets media attention a big chunk of whiny people think that their views are being represented and so don't take any further steps themselves
cunning
and he promotes not voting...
-
Perhaps I've got too mellow my old age (a mind so open it's leaking through my ears), but I find Russell Brand quite likeable these days, and definitely more a source of good than harm.
I tend to agree with this. Is he a dick? Surely. He's a narcissistic, overpaid celebrity with a tendency to addiction, aggression and excess. In terms of his impact on the world, he's just a very gentle and silly satirist. The fact that so many people seem to be genuinely stirred by him (either fans or detractors) says more about the issues he's tackling than about him.
-
Don't particularly like him - as people have said, on the plus side at least he's getting people talking about these issues.
Where it all falls down as both his encouraging people not to vote, which essentially is boycotting any hope of change, and he doesn't actually provide any possible answers. Complaining about the status quo, but not offering up a way of overturning it. Without that, it's just hot air really.
Which is a shame.
There was a Huff Post today I think saying basically "Russell, you're pretty much spouting the Green Party's policies - get behind them", which IMHO would actually be a massive plus. Not that i think they'd win, but if all his fans actually voted (and voted for a non-main, non-UKIP party), you would actually get some tangible change.
-
Russel was responsible for this... gets my vote.
(https://paulinadelapassionfruit.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/katy-perry-13-sml_1517820i.jpg?w=500)
-
Where it all falls down as both his encouraging people not to vote, which essentially is boycotting any hope of change, and he doesn't actually provide any possible answers. Complaining about the status quo, but not offering up a way of overturning it.
Yup...
-
If a UKB poster had posted Brand's reply as their own work on the 'Inequality' thread, plenty of you would be lavishing the wad karma and saying how great it was.
Perhaps I've got too mellow my old age (a mind so open it's leaking through my ears), but I find Russell Brand quite likeable these days, and definitely more a source of good than harm.
I tend to agree with this. Is he a dick? Surely. He's a , overpaid celebrity with a tendency to addiction, aggression and excess. In terms of his impact on the world, he's just a very gentle and silly satirist. The fact that so many people seem to be genuinely stirred by him (either fans or detractors) says more about the issues he's tackling than about him.
Yep this :agree: Except:
narcissistic - like a lot of climbers.
aggressive - a trait lauded in many sportspeople.
tendency to addiction - plenty of climbing addicts on here.
excess - ???
There appear to be a lot of people trying to find personal faults with Brand - it's not difficult is it. They should stick to attacking his arguments (Sloper), and if major faults can't be found with them then he's saying something worth listening to at least.(despite coming across as an idealistic bellend...)
Snobbishness perhaps from academics and professionals who wish their arguments could be so well publicised and their opinions heard by so many?
-
Well i'm going to go a bit against the tide here...i actually quite like the guy.
As for the no voting issue i'm pretty much the same. i vote every time, so far every time all i've managed is just a big cross through the paper to void. Not a single person or party so far worthy of my vote. As Richard Prior says in Brewsters Millions 'none of the above'.
I even thought that thing with him and JRoss (debacle) was quite amusing.
-
Don't particularly like him - as people have said, on the plus side at least he's getting people talking about these issues.
Where it all falls down as both his encouraging people not to vote, which essentially is boycotting any hope of change, and he doesn't actually provide any possible answers. Complaining about the status quo, but not offering up a way of overturning it. Without that, it's just hot air really.
I can see how not voting can be a way of changing things in a system where none of the options are worth voting for. It could create an environment that encourages other options to the fore. So far, unfortunately, one of those others is ukip. But another option is - like you say - the greens. At the moment there isn't the belief that voting green is 'worth it'. If massive numbers of people, say 70%+, turned their back completely on all options it would in effect be a vote of no-confidence in the UK political system. Already around 40% of people don't vote. Out of the chaos of mass rejection of the current system something more representative 'could' emerge - such as that proposed by the greens and a bunch of other disparate groups. Or not.
-
I've no time for the don't vote, spirituality, 12 step bollocks; but his reply to the city contractor/blogger's muddled outpourings is really pretty spot on.
-
If a UKB poster had posted Brand's reply as their own work on the 'Inequality' thread, plenty of you would be lavishing the wad karma and saying how great it was.
Perhaps I've got too mellow my old age (a mind so open it's leaking through my ears), but I find Russell Brand quite likeable these days, and definitely more a source of good than harm.
I tend to agree with this. Is he a dick? Surely. He's a , overpaid celebrity with a tendency to addiction, aggression and excess. In terms of his impact on the world, he's just a very gentle and silly satirist. The fact that so many people seem to be genuinely stirred by him (either fans or detractors) says more about the issues he's tackling than about him.
Yep this :agree: Except:
narcissistic - like a lot of climbers.
aggressive - a trait lauded in many sportspeople.
tendency to addiction - plenty of climbing addicts on here.
excess - ???
There appear to be a lot of people trying to find personal faults with Brand - it's not difficult is it. They should stick to attacking his arguments (Sloper), and if major faults can't be found with them then he's saying something worth listening to at least.(despite coming across as an idealistic bellend...)
Snobbishness perhaps from academics and professionals who wish their arguments could be so well publicised and their opinions heard by so many?
His pitifull wankerish offerings are difficult to oppose with a degree of cognecy as they are so logically flawed and riddled with factual error, that said I do my best to close with, engage and kill the enemy.
A good case can be put simply, with straightforward language and clear references, brand like so many lefty fuckwits (see Chomsky) feel the need to dress up shit ideas in convoluted language: so in short, it is proper and correct so say Russell brand is a cvnt.
-
Never ceases to amaze me how happy you seem to be making a complete fool of yourself by just trundling out low grade personal abuse Tom. Brand's comments about the siege incident in Sydney and the media bullshit around it has given his credibility here a further boost. He certainly has far more credibility than you are ever likely to have despite many of the criticisms of him (including some you have made in the past) being fundamentally right!
-
I find myself agreeing with a lot of what Brand says, that's probably just one of the many things that makes me a cunt.
-
His pitifull wankerish offerings are difficult to oppose with a degree of cognecy as they are so logically flawed and riddled with factual error, that said I do my best to close with, engage and kill the enemy.
A good case can be put simply, with straightforward language and clear references, brand Sloper like so many lefty fuckwits (see Chomsky) feels the need to dress up shit ideas in convoluted language: so in short, it is proper and correct so say Russell brand Sloper is acting like a cvnt.
That's got to be one of your weakest ever replies Sloper and could easily pass for a description of your own style of debate.
-
Brand has an exceptionally simple contrary approach, which is obviously going to be in line with some of the population's views. his political craft to my eye, is as complex as peter kay's approach to comedy. actually that's unfair on peter kay.
i just wonder what, if anything, brand would have to say if all the cool kids became pro establishment
-
Just so I can be part of the crowd, I'll concede that I find his mode of speech a little irritating (but no more so than politicians). Now I'm part of the gang I also have to concede that I watched a few Trews vids last night and it was very hard to disagree with a lot of what he says, especially with regard to the dissembling use of language by politicians / the media, and the general encouragement to get people to engage with politics, albeit via different routes than voting. Am I a swivel eyed loon???
-
Brand has many faults, for sure. But what is truly pitiful is that we need someone like him to move the political debate away from the one framed by the identikit, paid-by-the-same-master, corrupt bunch of ****s we are given the choice to vote for.
I've two friends who wanted to make a difference and went into politics with one of the mainstream parties - both quickly realised that they are a total waste of time for anyone who actually wants to change things for the better. One quickly sacked it off, the other has stuck it out and has to be happy with tiny incremental gains, but don't ask his opinion of the self serving w**kers above him in his party apparatus.
-
With respect to the confusing language utilised by political and social commentators, that whole embroglio is epiphenomenal.
-
I find it hilarious/despairing that people seem to think that not voting is in some way going to action change or register your dislike of the current system. HELLO -35% of voters currently don't vote in general elections. Its like being round our mate's house and someone says (do you want to order I Chinese or Indian, you don't express an opinion either way, then complain when the takeaway arrives, hoping that by abstaining you would action change in favour of going to the chippy).
And as a result of low voting turnout it lets in mentals like UKIP or the BNP, Golden Dawn, The Blackshirts or whatever they are calling themselves this year. The only way Uncle Russ's idea would work if absolutely nobody voted, a 100% abstention. But as soon as anyone breaks rank then but it wouldn't because as turnout dropped the more and more of an proportional impact those voting for extreme parties (intrinsically people highly motivated to vote) would have.
Also let me remind people with a short memory that only 3 years ago we had a referendum on changing the voting system, and a staggering 60% of people didn't have an opinion enough to be bothered to vote. So you've had your chance.
-
a degree of cognecy
This is great btw.
-
(https://ryanisthinking.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/vote.jpeg?w=1008)
-
There's an interesting section in The Political Economy of the New Right (my current text for reading on the tram to work) which looks at the distribution of voters in the 'center ground' and hence the move of political parties to the center; which necessarily diminishes the difference between them with the concommitant effect of, quite rationally reducing the motivation to actively support a party / vote.
Whether or not this is a good thing in and of itself, it does tend to suppress the swings between chaos and (too much, i.e. authoriatrian) order.
This is not to say that parties (or Labour / conservatives in the UK) therefore actually do overlap, buth rather they need an aspect (venn style) that is compatible with a significant number of view of a group broadly in the middle, as Blair managed so well with his 'triangulation' and focus groups.
I would also suggest that the major battles for the left have either been won or there has been the recognition that they can never be fought successfully and as such the Left has little left to anchor it to its historical roots and that that combined with the lack of mass low skilled employment has few options but to drift towards the center.
That said Russell Brand is still a cvnt.
-
I find it hilarious/despairing that people seem to think that not voting is in some way going to action change or register your dislike of the current system. HELLO -35% of voters currently don't vote in general elections. Its like being round our mate's house and someone says (do you want to order I Chinese or Indian, you don't express an opinion either way, then complain when the takeaway arrives, hoping that by abstaining you would action change in favour of going to the chippy).
No it isn't Dave. It's nothing at all like not expressing an opinion of which appealing takeaway meal to have.
A more accurate takeaway analogy for non-voting would be:
You're round your mate's house and someone says ''right lads do you want to order illegally slaughtered horse-meat masquerading as a burger, mercury-poisoned fish and pesticide-laden chips, or out-of-date salmonella egg fried rice''... then complain when the takeaway arrives, hoping that by abstaining you would action change in favour of going to the nice local resturant that does takeouts of responsibly-sourced wholesome food.
It's a simple and powerful expression of wanting something better and not accepting being told by self-serving corrupt tribes that they're the only show in town.
edit: spoiling the ballot is my prefered choice. Simply not-voting is the lazy person's choice.
-
Don’t get me wrong Dave, I think you’re right and personally I don’t agree with the not voting thing; at the very least spoiling your ballot has to be better than not showing up at all. So for me that’s a black mark for him. But to his credit Brand does seem to be highlighting that there are other ways to engage other than voting once every 5 years e.g. protests, petitions etc. which is possibly a worthwhile message to bring to “the yoof of today”, given that plenty seem disillusioned with politics, for the reasons Dan has mentioned above. It may get some to feel they have a stake, especially in these days of organisation via social media. Obviously these routes are as old as time but lets face it brand "Brand" is probably not selling itself to folk with existing political interest. Again arguably a good thing? I tried to capture that nuance succinctly earlier but probably failed!
-
hoping that by abstaining you would action change in favour of going to the nice local resturant that does takeouts of responsibly-sourced wholesome food.
Isn't that a vote for the Greens then?
-
(https://ryanisthinking.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/vote.jpeg?w=1008)
That's only the start of the story though isn't it...
The current status quo is that the priorities of governments have gradually shifted away from serving the people towards serving corporate profit and self interest. This is blatantly what all major political parties do - even if this isn't their conscious intent. We have a bunch of mediocre self-serving and corporate-serving tossers running the country who aren't respected by the population and who don't represent the people in this country and it's been that way for quite a long time now.
What would be the inevitable opposite reaction by right-minded people to the threat of loony extremists taking power - something better perhaps? It takes disruption to change any deeply embedded habit such as the habit of accepting the status quo.
-
hoping that by abstaining you would action change in favour of going to the nice local resturant that does takeouts of responsibly-sourced wholesome food.
Isn't that a vote for the Greens then?
Yes. However the 'Greens' restaurant is shut on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays becasue they just don't get the custom midweek. And their menu is a bit poor to be honest because for their level of business they can't justify anything better.
-
I'm sure you can see where the extension of this particular metaphor goes: if people stop eating at McLabour and Kentucky Fried Conservatives and instead start dining at the Green Bistro, then either the bistro expands, or the big players notice that that's what people want and change their menu accordingly (hopefully, I still have a little hope, vote Green, please....).
-
Ha, yes. But we're obese as a nation and giving ourselves all sorts of lifestyle diseases simply through our acceptance of the status quo - a status quo it must be said that is created by greater outside interests, just as in politics. Clearly it doesn't work for people to simply be aware of another, possibly healthier, choice. The defacto choice is unhealthy and the defacto choice is created by outside interests.
-
Don’t get me wrong Dave, I think you’re right and personally I don’t agree with the not voting thing; at the very least spoiling your ballot has to be better than not showing up at all. So for me that’s a black mark for him. But to his credit Brand does seem to be highlighting that there are other ways to engage other than voting once every 5 years e.g. protests, petitions etc. which is possibly a worthwhile message to bring to “the yoof of today”, given that plenty seem disillusioned with politics, for the reasons Dan has mentioned above. It may get some to feel they have a stake, especially in these days of organisation via social media. Obviously these routes are as old as time but lets face it brand "Brand" is probably not selling itself to folk with existing political interest. Again arguably a good thing? I tried to capture that nuance succinctly earlier but probably failed!
Protesting and signing petitions is not engaging in politics any more than posting on this thread is cotributing to politics.
You enagge in politics but standing for office, or voting or in the most extreme case, being part of a coup d'etat.
-
A good case can be put simply, with straightforward language and clear references, brand like so many lefty fuckwits (see Chomsky) feel the need to dress up shit ideas in convoluted language: so in short, it is proper and correct so say Russell brand is a cvnt.
To be fair, I think Brand's ideas are no more shit than those of most other youth-TV-presenters-turned-comedians. He's only getting more attention (and being elevated to 'cvnt' status) by talking about things that seem to resonate.
The left has always had a habit of diving into over-elaborate theory, which creates hiding places for charlatans of a general leftish bent. Conversely, the right has always had a habit of appealing to un-examined sentiment or economic benefit as self-evident measures of political right and wrong. Both of which lead to a slurry of pseudo-debate. I'm centre-right (ie leftish by current terminology), so I probably tend to find some bits of the slurry less offensively stinky than the others, but it's still slurry. Both sides have a small number of people who frame the arguments properly and well - they're just not always easy to find.
Brand's language is a parody of the traditional left - he's sending up both sides at once. He doesn't have any great argument to make, which is why it's odd that so many want to take issue.
If people fail to vote because of a spittle-flecked stand-up, we must surely have a problem bigger than that guy?
-
hoping that by abstaining you would action change in favour of going to the nice local resturant that does takeouts of responsibly-sourced wholesome food.
Whereas, if you really want to bring about change, you should go to work in a local kitchen and start learning the skills needed to open a successful, healthy local eatery in later years.
Along the way I guess you might have to work in a few dodgy places, maybe accept some pragmatic commercial compromises, and perhaps even adopt a few 'less than ideal' practices yourself.
By the time you open your business you'll be tired, compromised, dirty-feeling, and you'll have a whole load of friends and enemies from sections of society that you never really thought about before. But you will actually have participated.
Until then, I don't actually mind you whingeing about the toxic horsemeat, but I can't credit you with bringing about change by not speaking up at choosing time.
-
[/quote]
Until then, I don't actually mind you whingeing about the toxic horsemeat, but I can't credit you with bringing about change by not speaking up at choosing time.
[/quote]
I think that this is undesirable point that people feel resistance to: ideally, we wouldn't be confined to this current political system, at least the one with the current party arrangement (restaurant choice), and so on principle abstaining to vote seem like a good thing (a la Brand). But we do currently live in the confines of this political system, which won't be going anywhere quickly (60% didn't vote on referendum for changing in voting system; can't see a revolution happening...) and so taking the pragmatic option of playing the system to a decent outcome (voting Green) effects political change in a positive direction whilst also working to prevent the worst outcome of that system (UKIP/tories).
In an ideal world we'd have a different system, but we don't, so we might as well make the best of it. not voting only makes it worse.
-
So then, cunt or not?
I'm saying cunt and aside all the well reasoned, very interesting points put as to the contrary. I don't think he is the saviour of our political future, that is down to us.
He's just really annoying, in my opinion. And that's the point, as is voting. It's opinions.
Maybe he will change peoples opinions for the better, which is excellent. But for gods sake its the fucking shouting and attention seeking I cant abide.
-
His mouth is his most prominent feature.
-
A good case can be put simply, with straightforward language and clear references, brand like so many lefty fuckwits (see Chomsky) feel the need to dress up shit ideas in convoluted language: so in short, it is proper and correct so say Russell brand is a cvnt.
To be fair, I think Brand's ideas are no more shit than those of most other youth-TV-presenters-turned-comedians. He's only getting more attention (and being elevated to 'cvnt' status) by talking about things that seem to resonate.
The left has always had a habit of diving into over-elaborate theory, which creates hiding places for charlatans of a general leftish bent. Conversely, the right has always had a habit of appealing to un-examined sentiment or economic benefit as self-evident measures of political right and wrong. Both of which lead to a slurry of pseudo-debate. I'm centre-right (ie leftish by current terminology), so I probably tend to find some bits of the slurry less offensively stinky than the others, but it's still slurry. Both sides have a small number of people who frame the arguments properly and well - they're just not always easy to find.
Brand's language is a parody of the traditional left - he's sending up both sides at once. He doesn't have any great argument to make, which is why it's odd that so many want to take issue.
If people fail to vote because of a spittle-flecked stand-up, we must surely have a problem bigger than that guy?
^^^ spot in in many regards: there's no exclusivity of morons for the left see Farage, Griffin, Peter Bone & etc.
What I think is substnatially different is that by and large the right stands for liberal democratic free market economics underpinned by the rule of law; whereas the left has many prominent strands that are contrary to these principles.
-
What about take away paella?
-
What about take away paella?
Middle class food, working class presentation.
Everyone can get on board.
-
I'm sure you can see where the extension of this particular metaphor goes: if people stop eating at McLabour and Kentucky Fried Conservatives and instead start dining at the Green Bistro, then either the bistro expands, or the big players notice that that's what people want and change their menu accordingly (hopefully, I still have a little hope, vote Green, please....).
To go slightly off topic I think the lib dems are a fine example of how no matter how you vote power corrupts and no matter how much you think things will be better its just the same shit with more disappointment.
I have lived in a village that has had greens in charge for over a decade and in which time they started well then did fuck all for 8 years
-
I failed to read any of the open correspondence between the two as the prose was utterly stultifying.
I have a soft spot for Brand. I think he has a few core skills: he is funny, he is intelligent, he is articulate (in his own particular nouveau dialect). All these things make him somebody who is easy to listen to.
However it is really obvious that his political ideas are in their infancy and I do sympathise with him for this. Most people, before taking to the platform, spend a lot of time thinking about their ideas, critiquing them, testing whether they work, tossing them around with friends, and generally refining them so that they stand up. Russel blurted out quite recently that nobody should vote and in doing so set himself off on a rollercoaster ride of activism. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if he no longer thinks it is appropriate to "engage" by not voting, but has trapped himself into that rhetoric by uttering it in the first place (anyone seeing a classic politician's mistake there?).
He is starting to become a little more sophisticated than his original smash-the-state, the-man-is-getting-me-down philosophy and I think this was demonstrated in his lamentably one sided documentary on drugs legislation (probably still on iPlayer).
So no, not a see-you-next-Tuesday, but one to keep an eye on. He certainly does make some good points every now and again e.g. his statement on Question Time that all the debate about immigration is really just a smokescreen for the bigger issues that politicians are too weak to challenge corporations on. It's very easy to blame everything on the people with funny names who are just getting to grips with English isn't it?
-
I have a soft spot for Brand. I think he has a few core skills: he is funny, he is intelligent, he is articulate (in his own particular nouveau dialect). However it is really obvious that his political ideas are in their infancy and I do sympathise with him for this.
...So no, not a see-you-next-Tuesday, but one to keep an eye on.
Titty fucking christ Will that is patronising! 'Nouveau dialect'?! - are you the dusty old headmaster of some home counties grammar school?
Those who despair at poor little Russell's lack of political sophistication should remember that he's stated numerous times on record that he sees 'his role' as being about using his past notoriety and infamy to shine publicity on what he believes to be a worthy cause - i.e. highlighting various aspects of the state which he and many other people see as questionable. And not about trying to become some political sophisticate or MP. Enough of those around already.
-
If he's ever so off the scene then why is he tipping up at the UN to debate drug policy and grilling leaders on what they think? Why is he talking about drugs at all? I thought his gig was corruption and big finance? He's getting interested and he's branching out - I don't see that as a bad thing.
Whether it be on Question Time or his own documentary he is confronting and arguing with people and any observer can see that he is not all that good at it. The one bloke they dragged onto the drugs programme to support criminalisation disagreed with Russell and, instead of his arguments being taken apart, simply got the same rhetoric repeated back at him at a louder volume.
-
Who is the ahead of his time moron that said brand is funny? What a fucknut
-
I have a soft spot for Brand. I think he has a few core skills: he is funny, he is intelligent, he is articulate (in his own particular nouveau dialect). However it is really obvious that his political ideas are in their infancy and I do sympathise with him for this.
...So no, not a see-you-next-Tuesday, but one to keep an eye on.
Titty fucking christ Will that is patronising! 'Nouveau dialect'?! - are you the dusty old headmaster of some home counties grammar school?
Those who despair at poor little Russell's lack of political sophistication should remember that he's stated numerous times on record that he sees 'his role' as being about using his past notoriety and infamy to shine publicity on what he believes to be a worthy cause - i.e. highlighting various aspects of the state which he and many other people see as questionable. And not about trying to become some political sophisticate or MP. Enough of those around already.
Sorry, being an ex junkie commedian doesn't necessarily qualify you as a considered commentator any more than being a fat rcist comedian qualifies you to talk about immigration.
He lacks 'sophistication' because he talks shit, not because of his accent (although I too find this rather grating). As will says, when he meets someone who takes a counter point he doesn't engage in rational well informed debate; rather he rants at a higher volume.
It's all rather predicatable lefty fuckwittery, for example 'the land value tax' yeah sounds great, right up until the moment when you realise that it doesn't work.
-
I have lived in a village that has had greens in charge for over a decade and in which time they started well then did fuck all for 8 years
Bollocks. The greens have worked tirelessly round Newsome and made some great changes right up to the present. Have an opinion, but don't spout crap :spank:
-
Who is the ahead of his time moron that said brand is funny? What a fucknut
funny peculiar, not funny ha ha
is there a definition of "funny" that means cvnt?
maybe they meant "fanny"
-
I have a soft spot for Brand. I think he has a few core skills: he is funny, he is intelligent, he is articulate (in his own particular nouveau dialect). However it is really obvious that his political ideas are in their infancy and I do sympathise with him for this.
...So no, not a see-you-next-Tuesday, but one to keep an eye on.
Titty fucking christ Will that is patronising! 'Nouveau dialect'?! - are you the dusty old headmaster of some home counties grammar school?
Those who despair at poor little Russell's lack of political sophistication should remember that he's stated numerous times on record that he sees 'his role' as being about using his past notoriety and infamy to shine publicity on what he believes to be a worthy cause - i.e. highlighting various aspects of the state which he and many other people see as questionable. And not about trying to become some political sophisticate or MP. Enough of those around already.
He lacks 'sophistication' because he talks shit, not because of his accent (although I too find this rather grating). As will says, when he meets someone who takes a counter point he doesn't engage in rational well informed debate; rather he rants at a higher volume.
It's all rather predicatable lefty fuckwittery, for example 'the land value tax' yeah sounds great, right up until the moment when you realise that it doesn't work.
wow, sounds like someone we all know
p.s. Noam Chomsky is my hero
-
What is it that makes Chomsky your hero? Is it the support for brutal and despotic regimes, was it his denial of the genocide in Cambodia, or is it because like Che he's just a pin up boy for the left?
Besides, what's he ever done on grit?
-
I thought universal grammar was quite good, although it seems to be largely discredited these days. I read a book if his once, Hegemony or Survival. I thought it was drivel. Although I am massively uninformed when it comes to politics.
Of the little I have read, Roberto Unger stands out as one lefty thinker worth listening to. I'm also entertained by his recent efforts to tell some cosmologists to wind their necks in, and get back to doing some proper science.
-
Probably the greatest critic of Chomsky and his ilk is Prof Sokal.
-
I never realised that, I was only vaguely aware that they (Chommer & Sokal) have both slammed social theorists from time to time. I get the feeling that all that science wars shite was of little relevance to those working 'on the ground' in the empirical natural sciences anyway, where most people have just been getting on with finding stuff out for a living.
Off topic, though.
-
Slavoj Zizek is more provocative and funnier than Russel.
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/russell-brand-saves-93-families-from-eviction-with-downing-street-campaign-i-dont-think-wed-be-here-now-without-his-support-9938771.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/russell-brand-saves-93-families-from-eviction-with-downing-street-campaign-i-dont-think-wed-be-here-now-without-his-support-9938771.html)
Seems there's quite a few people on a London housing estate who don't agree with the OP's assertion.
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/russell-brand-saves-93-families-from-eviction-with-downing-street-campaign-i-dont-think-wed-be-here-now-without-his-support-9938771.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/russell-brand-saves-93-families-from-eviction-with-downing-street-campaign-i-dont-think-wed-be-here-now-without-his-support-9938771.html)
Seems there's quite a few people on a London housing estate who don't agree with the OP's assertion.
Passing band wagon symbol here.
-
RB has (apparently) called Ed Balls a 'clicky wristed snidey cvnt', to which Ed Balls called Brand a 'pound shop Ben Elton'.
It made me laugh but it hasn't made me change my view on either.
FFS Someone should tell Ed Balls that his use of the phrase 'dodgy dossier' might not resonate well with the public!
-
to which Ed Balls called Brand a 'pound shop Ben Elton'.
That bit was good though, wasn't it? Hope he bought his adviser a pint for that.
-
Very good
-
to which Ed Balls called Brand a 'pound shop Ben Elton'.
That bit was good though, wasn't it? Hope he bought his adviser a pint for that.
It would be a good put down if Brand hadn't 'coined' it when describing Farage as a pound shop Powell, however as it was Brand's insult to begin with it looks very weak indeed, I'd have calle Brand 'Woolfie Smith on Instagram'.
-
But that wouldn't have been as good
-
I think references to both Woolfie and Ben Elton are likely to draw blank stares from RB's key demographic!
-
I don't care about them I care about me
-
The context of Brand v Balls is very different from the Farage thing.... Brand said in a Xmas special Balls had a Chucky handshake - and this week Balls said he didn't know what that meant and that Brand was normally funnier than that blah blah...
-
I never really liked Brand, it seemed to me like he was a manic talent pissing his life away. Yet I can't help but admire what he has done recently. Sure he is sometimes still incoherent and too tangental and occasionally plain unclear or wrong, but he is trying hard to do 'good' things and seems to be forcing publicity onto real and important issues. I also think he is also spot on about the importance in politics of ordinary voters doing real stuff between voting (and the sad wastefulness of most people's votes in the current UK system.... although like many above I'd say vote for a genuine alternative like the greens, spoil your ballot, etc, rather than not vote).
-
It would be a good put down if Brand hadn't 'coined' it when describing Farage as a pound shop Powell, however as it was Brand's insult to begin with it looks very weak indeed, I'd have calle Brand 'Woolfie Smith on Instagram'.
Surely that was the point? He was taking the piss out of Brand's pre-prepared and rehearsed, "Poundshop Enoch Powell" jibe. That’s what made it funny.
Woolfie Smith on Instagram, give me strength.
-
You've probably got more strength than me.
I was suggesting what Ed Ball's wonl/spad would have said, as you can expect my description of Brand would be slightly more forthright.
-
You've probably got more strength than me.
I hope not! I'm a course of steroids and two courses of antibiotics to the good. I done nothing for weeks and am wasting away.......
Finally on the mend though.
-
Glad to hear it, my strength is slipping too, I'm now down to 35 proof.