Jeremy Paxman vs Russell Brand
Discussion
superkartracer said:
mattnunn said:
superkartracer said:
As bad as the system is, people eat and have roofs over their heads, what does he want? War... bring it on and see how the general populous beg for the old system to return.
The French revolution was not a war, the Bolshevik revolt was not a war (well perhaps a bit), the various overnight revolutions in Eastern Europe were not wars. The balance of wealth and power is sooooo heavily in the hands of so few that a true social revolution that actually was built on a solid support from the masses and a shared vision of the future would be over in seconds and fairly bloodless, in my opinion.Anyway - This is a man who masturbated another man in a toilet cubicle for a TV show
Mr_B said:
The fatal flaw being he wants change , but has no idea or answers to anything. Everyone wants change in some way, but it's a bit pointless when you don't know what you want to change to.
Yes. Excellent and comprehensive analysis. Why isn't Russel Brand laying out a grandiose plan to solve all of the ills in Western society?So pointless of him to highlight problems that we should collectively work to solve when he hasn't even first bothered to draft a master plan at home in his study.
I mean, come on.
Smiler. said:
mattnunn said:
superkartracer said:
As bad as the system is, people eat and have roofs over their heads, what does he want? War... bring it on and see how the general populous beg for the old system to return.
The French revolution was not a war, the Bolshevik revolt was not a war (well perhaps a bit), the various overnight revolutions in Eastern Europe were not wars. The balance of wealth and power is sooooo heavily in the hands of so few that a true social revolution that actually was built on a solid support from the masses and a shared vision of the future would be over in seconds and fairly bloodless, in my opinion.We're a civilized nation capable of a civilized social revolution, there would be no vacuum here.
mattnunn said:
Smiler. said:
mattnunn said:
superkartracer said:
As bad as the system is, people eat and have roofs over their heads, what does he want? War... bring it on and see how the general populous beg for the old system to return.
The French revolution was not a war, the Bolshevik revolt was not a war (well perhaps a bit), the various overnight revolutions in Eastern Europe were not wars. The balance of wealth and power is sooooo heavily in the hands of so few that a true social revolution that actually was built on a solid support from the masses and a shared vision of the future would be over in seconds and fairly bloodless, in my opinion.We're a civilized nation capable of a civilized social revolution, there would be no vacuum here.
I do agree about the balance of wealth though.
Brand just wants to be popular. He offers nothing of substance to the debate. He's more like a constantly barking dog.
scherzkeks said:
Mr_B said:
The fatal flaw being he wants change , but has no idea or answers to anything. Everyone wants change in some way, but it's a bit pointless when you don't know what you want to change to.
Yes. Excellent and comprehensive analysis. Why isn't Russel Brand laying out a grandiose plan to solve all of the ills in Western society?So pointless of him to highlight problems that we should collectively work to solve when he hasn't even first bothered to draft a master plan at home in his study.
I mean, come on.
Very much this. This kind of nonsense is pretty prevalent in any politics thread on Pistonheads. Dare suggest a system, be it for governance, taxation, anything that differs from the norm and you're scoffed at for not having some kind of 1000 page documentation on the exact workings of it.
Brand wants society to change its way of thinking and the status quo. He is suggesting what we should be trying to tackle and giving a rough view as to how. Similar to what he did in front of a select committee about rehabilitation for drug addicts. If I remember correctly there were people here criticising him for that because he didn't have a fully budgeted proposal or some such nonsense, whereas what he was doing in presenting an alternative approach was extremely valuable and based on both noble and pragmatic principles
Smiler. said:
mattnunn said:
Smiler. said:
mattnunn said:
superkartracer said:
As bad as the system is, people eat and have roofs over their heads, what does he want? War... bring it on and see how the general populous beg for the old system to return.
The French revolution was not a war, the Bolshevik revolt was not a war (well perhaps a bit), the various overnight revolutions in Eastern Europe were not wars. The balance of wealth and power is sooooo heavily in the hands of so few that a true social revolution that actually was built on a solid support from the masses and a shared vision of the future would be over in seconds and fairly bloodless, in my opinion.We're a civilized nation capable of a civilized social revolution, there would be no vacuum here.
I do agree about the balance of wealth though.
Brand just wants to be popular. He offers nothing of substance to the debate. He's more like a constantly barking dog.
But it's OK, he was a junkie once, so he's, you know, 'down with the people'....
BJG1 said:
scherzkeks said:
Mr_B said:
The fatal flaw being he wants change , but has no idea or answers to anything. Everyone wants change in some way, but it's a bit pointless when you don't know what you want to change to.
Yes. Excellent and comprehensive analysis. Why isn't Russel Brand laying out a grandiose plan to solve all of the ills in Western society?So pointless of him to highlight problems that we should collectively work to solve when he hasn't even first bothered to draft a master plan at home in his study.
I mean, come on.
Very much this. This kind of nonsense is pretty prevalent in any politics thread on Pistonheads. Dare suggest a system, be it for governance, taxation, anything that differs from the norm and you're scoffed at for not having some kind of 1000 page documentation on the exact workings of it.
Brand wants society to change its way of thinking and the status quo. He is suggesting what we should be trying to tackle and giving a rough view as to how. Similar to what he did in front of a select committee about rehabilitation for drug addicts. If I remember correctly there were people here criticising him for that because he didn't have a fully budgeted proposal or some such nonsense, whereas what he was doing in presenting an alternative approach was extremely valuable and based on both noble and pragmatic principles
When you dare to suggest how it may change, that's when I'll pay attention and give him some credit. That's not answers to everything, but sticking your neck out and saying on maybe just one thing what you think would be a change for good.
Stating the obvious without even being willing to give a single example of how you may even start to go about it is just pointless, and usually done by people who immediately tell you they are unwilling to suggest a change, but merely that someone else should and take the flak.
BJG1 said:
I don't think he's an idiot, not by a long shot. His issues with our current form of governance are well-founded and I don't think not having a fully-fledged idea of what to replace it with is too big a deal. I don't really agree with a lot of what he says but I'd rather people with his passion and will for change were in charge than the current jerk-circle of Etonian prats.
I completely agree with this. Mark Benson said:
While living in LA, in a $2.5m house.
But it's OK, he was a junkie once, so he's, you know, 'down with the people'....
Finally an explanation as to why every Daily Mail article about anyone includes an outline survey and valuation of their property portfolio, because without that information we just don't know whether to take their opinions seriously or not.But it's OK, he was a junkie once, so he's, you know, 'down with the people'....
Mr_B said:
Stating the obvious without even being willing to give a single example of how you may even start to go about it is just pointless, and usually done by people who immediately tell you they are unwilling to suggest a change, but merely that someone else should and take the flak.
He does discuss having a very small form of governance which is in charge of collecting and redistributing wealth. I agree he could probably have more of a grasp of a system but I don't think there's much wrong with what he said and I think it's refreshing to see that sort of voice being given air time. Seems to be something he's just getting in to, other subjects where he has more experience he is far more precise. See the London Riots, Woolwich Murders and Drug Rehabilitation. 
Mark Benson said:
While living in LA, in a $2.5m house.
But it's OK, he was a junkie once, so he's, you know, 'down with the people'....
You see this gets thrown around a lot. It's like people see he's a modern day celebrity with millions in the bank so anything he says will be complete rubbish. But it's OK, he was a junkie once, so he's, you know, 'down with the people'....
I don't buy that. The fact he's a wealthy individual doesn't mean I should brush everything he says off as complete crap and dismiss it.(Not saying you are either.)
It comes across as jealousy.
He's highlighted some very good points and admits he himself doesnt know how to deal with them but it's plainly obvious the system we have in place doesn't know either.
Edited by MrMagoo on Thursday 24th October 13:05
Mr_B said:
Like I said , everyone wants change and everyone has an opinion on what's wrong with this and that. Brand saying it on TV is hardly different to what everyone thinks much of their daily life. I think the same as him and no doubt you do too, so apart from being on TV and saying what everyone thinks at some point, hardly that great a thing.
When you dare to suggest how it may change, that's when I'll pay attention and give him some credit. That's not answers to everything, but sticking your neck out and saying on maybe just one thing what you think would be a change for good.
Stating the obvious without even being willing to give a single example of how you may even start to go about it is just pointless, and usually done by people who immediately tell you they are unwilling to suggest a change, but merely that someone else should and take the flak.
Did you listen to the interview in the link? I think he was quite clear about suggesting possible changes and how we might go about securing them, he also made it perfectly clear that he didn't have all the answers to every conceivable detailed question and didn't consider himself qualified or able to sit in that seat.When you dare to suggest how it may change, that's when I'll pay attention and give him some credit. That's not answers to everything, but sticking your neck out and saying on maybe just one thing what you think would be a change for good.
Stating the obvious without even being willing to give a single example of how you may even start to go about it is just pointless, and usually done by people who immediately tell you they are unwilling to suggest a change, but merely that someone else should and take the flak.
People genuinely interested in the kind of social change Brand is talking about could do worse than read up on the Occupy website there are many and varied very bright and well qualified people who hold a desire for social change.
Like I said above I'm not into summary execution but the one guy who needs to be shot in any situation is the one who stands up and says he's knows exactly what to do and we should all follow him aka Ze Politician.
he's not funny
he is a knob
he was not very good at getting his point across
but
he was entirely correct
the problem is: as he didn't quite manage to get across, not rich people or profit per-se. It is a political system which is set up for the benefit of those in power and that doesn't think either long term or socially, (this is different from socialist before you all start ranting on about lefties).
i also dont vote. this doesn't mean i can't have a say, as i pay tax, (proportionaly alot more than some of the people and companies of influence) and therefore am entitled to complain about how the country is run.
if you give me three different flavoured piles of s
t iwhy do need to eat one that tastes a little less stty to me instead of asking for somthing a little more palatable do i?
i've said it a million times but we need an abstention box to tick on the ballot paper.
he is a knob
he was not very good at getting his point across
but
he was entirely correct
the problem is: as he didn't quite manage to get across, not rich people or profit per-se. It is a political system which is set up for the benefit of those in power and that doesn't think either long term or socially, (this is different from socialist before you all start ranting on about lefties).
i also dont vote. this doesn't mean i can't have a say, as i pay tax, (proportionaly alot more than some of the people and companies of influence) and therefore am entitled to complain about how the country is run.
if you give me three different flavoured piles of s
t iwhy do need to eat one that tastes a little less stty to me instead of asking for somthing a little more palatable do i?i've said it a million times but we need an abstention box to tick on the ballot paper.
mattnunn said:
Beware anyone who claims to have the answers to anything, most of the time they'll be a politician.
A politician usually has an answer for everything. Brand didn't have an answer for anything. He just wants a platform to moan from and I'm a little unsure why Newsnight gave him one, although the very existence of this thread probably answers that.BJG1 said:
He does discuss having a very small form of governance which is in charge of collecting and redistributing wealth.
Sounds like this episode of Family Guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Petermattnunn said:
The French revolution was not a war, the Bolshevik revolt was not a war (well perhaps a bit), the various overnight revolutions in Eastern Europe were not wars. The balance of wealth and power is sooooo heavily in the hands of so few that a true social revolution that actually was built on a solid support from the masses and a shared vision of the future would be over in seconds and fairly bloodless, in my opinion.
The problem is however, that neither his, nor any other of the liberal left, is a vision shared by the masses. It just seems that way because the media is largely of the same persuasion. I certainly would not stand along side him or any of his sort. Come the revolution I will be shoulder to shoulder with HM and her armed forces and the legal government of the day. It certainly would be over in seconds, but not in the way Mr Brand et al would like.mattnunn said:
Mr_B said:
Like I said , everyone wants change and everyone has an opinion on what's wrong with this and that. Brand saying it on TV is hardly different to what everyone thinks much of their daily life. I think the same as him and no doubt you do too, so apart from being on TV and saying what everyone thinks at some point, hardly that great a thing.
When you dare to suggest how it may change, that's when I'll pay attention and give him some credit. That's not answers to everything, but sticking your neck out and saying on maybe just one thing what you think would be a change for good.
Stating the obvious without even being willing to give a single example of how you may even start to go about it is just pointless, and usually done by people who immediately tell you they are unwilling to suggest a change, but merely that someone else should and take the flak.
Did you listen to the interview in the link? I think he was quite clear about suggesting possible changes and how we might go about securing them, he also made it perfectly clear that he didn't have all the answers to every conceivable detailed question and didn't consider himself qualified or able to sit in that seat.When you dare to suggest how it may change, that's when I'll pay attention and give him some credit. That's not answers to everything, but sticking your neck out and saying on maybe just one thing what you think would be a change for good.
Stating the obvious without even being willing to give a single example of how you may even start to go about it is just pointless, and usually done by people who immediately tell you they are unwilling to suggest a change, but merely that someone else should and take the flak.
People genuinely interested in the kind of social change Brand is talking about could do worse than read up on the Occupy website there are many and varied very bright and well qualified people who hold a desire for social change.
Like I said above I'm not into summary execution but the one guy who needs to be shot in any situation is the one who stands up and says he's knows exactly what to do and we should all follow him aka Ze Politician.
Someone mentioned his contribution to the drugs debate, something I'd be more willing to listen to him on and have since he was suggestion some action and not merely saying there needs to be a revolution in the way we deal with drugs.
As it was , all I really got was the impression who wanted to go back to a Labour 90% tax rate for the rich, something I'm always a bit suspicious of from people that have already made a wedge of cash and set for life while keeping himself in the public eye/ earning while doing so, strangely at a time when there is a book or tour to promote.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff