Jeremy Paxman vs Russell Brand
Discussion
Rick (Young Ones) made a far better pompous posturing self-important anarchist.
In fact, I am left with the feeling that this was a follow-on from the Young Ones do University Challenge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3HvchF49AM
Perhaps this was an homage to Rick does Newsnight, crossed with Spud (Trainspotting) and his speedy job interview.
In fact, I am left with the feeling that this was a follow-on from the Young Ones do University Challenge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3HvchF49AM
Perhaps this was an homage to Rick does Newsnight, crossed with Spud (Trainspotting) and his speedy job interview.
mybrainhurts said:
FredClogs said:
If you believe in the idea of sovereignty, democracy and the rule of nation states (which I don't) you'd be a bit hypocritical to want to allow corporations the ability to overpower them with cash and influence.
Which companies do you have in mind and which nations have they overpowered?Reality is Google and apple and the like circumvent the need to interact with government completely given the nature of their products, they're buying the world one person at a time rather than over coming power by corruption.
Edited by FredClogs on Tuesday 28th October 19:18
FredClogs said:
All of the military industrial complex (you can put the tinfoil away), most of the energy providers, mining companies (all), big pharma and big agricultural conglomerates, serco, Balfour Beatty etc.. not to mention the alcohol and tobacco industry although the latter is dwindling given that's it's been 60 years since we were told they were killing us and no western government has really ever done anything to dissuade them from profiting from it.
Reality is Google and apple and the like circumvent the need to interact with government completely given the nature of their products, they're buying the world one person at a time rather the over coming power by corruption.
So what you're actually bemoaning are human frailties. Good luck legislating against that... Reality is Google and apple and the like circumvent the need to interact with government completely given the nature of their products, they're buying the world one person at a time rather the over coming power by corruption.
I'm not convinced my or anyone else's lives are overpowered by any of the firms you note to a greater extent...?
FredClogs said:
mybrainhurts said:
FredClogs said:
If you believe in the idea of sovereignty, democracy and the rule of nation states (which I don't) you'd be a bit hypocritical to want to allow corporations the ability to overpower them with cash and influence.
Which companies do you have in mind and which nations have they overpowered?Reality is Google and apple and the like circumvent the need to interact with government completely given the nature of their products, they're buying the world one person at a time rather than over coming power by corruption.
turbobloke said:
FredClogs said:
turbobloke said:
Mr Whippy said:
LucreLout said:
He's just another champagne socialist milking the right on crowd for all they're worth. Idiots, the lot of them.
Is the "right on crowd" really worth that much though?As long as he is raising issues that people might care about that go against the moral grain of society, you can't knock him too much.
Unless you're inferring that all the issues he's raised are actually irrelevant?
Dave
What's not to like?
Peddling wares.
But does it really make him that much money?
A YT channel and a few books?
Shirley he made more money focussing on other pursuits he's done vs the tin-foil hat stuff he does now?
I'd argue that because he's willing to alienate the majority over what many would see as tin-foil hat stuff, then he actually does care about what he is saying, and has given up champagne smug celebrityness in return for a lesser champagne celibrityness lifestyle.
Why would you do that unless you believed in what you were saying?
There is more integrity there than most politician/business types who won't say anything to upset anyone in case it hurts their image/bottom line.
But while "champagne socialist" keeps being thrown around willy nilly, which is meaningless in a capitalist society any way, then I guess people would rather just join the crowd and be popular and say he's a c**t rather than read past all the stupid stuff on top and actually *listen* to the message.
His message is spot on imo, even if he is a bit of a burk and may not be everyone's cup of tea.
Mr Whippy said:
But while "champagne socialist" keeps being thrown around willy nilly, which is meaningless in a capitalist society any way,
How do you arrive at that? It means a hypocrite who espouses socialist ideals, but lives the life of the people he despises. Mr Whippy said:
then I guess people would rather just join the crowd and be popular and say he's a c**t rather than read past all the stupid stuff on top and actually *listen* to the message.
I've listened to the message. He's still a 
....FredClogs said:
turbobloke said:
Mr Whippy said:
LucreLout said:
He's just another champagne socialist milking the right on crowd for all they're worth. Idiots, the lot of them.
Is the "right on crowd" really worth that much though?As long as he is raising issues that people might care about that go against the moral grain of society, you can't knock him too much.
Unless you're inferring that all the issues he's raised are actually irrelevant?
Dave
What's not to like?
He simply a celeb arse who now thinks he's a messiah. He lives in a dream world, but sadly has influence.
As for My Booky Wooky being among the 'best' autobiogs. That just gets a shake of the head from me, someone who reads lots of books as it's my profession.
I read it. Bloody hell it was hard. It's utter crap wrapped up in pretty paper, and was destined, like his current 'work', for the bargain bookshop.
At the time someone said of his Booky Wooky autobiography:
'All the stuff about his dad taking him to Thailand to have sex with prostitutes, to drama centre and getting hooked on drugs. Its a rollercoaster of humour and emotion.'
Really? Chrise, the things that some people think are 'funny' and 'emotional'!
His messiah face looks out from the bookshop windows once more, something I could really do without in the run up to Christmas.
And then it will litter the bargain bookshops, but 'bargain' is not a word I would use.
Last time Booky Wooky sat next to another book in my local Waterstones written by someone who sounds like a comic, Eric 'Winkle' Brown.
One of the two books was 'an emotional rollercoaster by a tiny man with huge spirit, talent, and accomplishment. The other was complete utter tosh by someone who is in truth, totally insignificant and adds nothing to anything.
mybrainhurts said:
Mr Whippy said:
But while "champagne socialist" keeps being thrown around willy nilly, which is meaningless in a capitalist society any way,
How do you arrive at that? It means a hypocrite who espouses socialist ideals, but lives the life of the people he despises. Mr Whippy said:
then I guess people would rather just join the crowd and be popular and say he's a c**t rather than read past all the stupid stuff on top and actually *listen* to the message.
I've listened to the message. He's still a ....But the more I've watched the more I wonder if his motivation could be anything but honest.
Surely he can make more money not peddling his wares to tin-foil hat types, and just assuming the usual 'celebrity' role instead?
I'm a right winger who believes in capitalism, but I also think it can't work when the spread of wealth disparity grows too large.
I think Russell is quite right to see western society going a little awry in the next decade!
Dave
Mr Whippy said:
Shirley he made more money focussing on other pursuits he's done vs the tin-foil hat stuff he does now?
I'd argue that because he's willing to alienate the majority over what many would see as tin-foil hat stuff, then he actually does care about what he is saying, and has given up champagne smug celebrityness in return for a lesser champagne celibrityness lifestyle.
Why would you do that unless you believed in what you were saying?
Spot on, and the reason so many of the young & disaffected are flocking to him. He believes what he's saying, and believes IN what he's saying. I'd argue that because he's willing to alienate the majority over what many would see as tin-foil hat stuff, then he actually does care about what he is saying, and has given up champagne smug celebrityness in return for a lesser champagne celibrityness lifestyle.
Why would you do that unless you believed in what you were saying?
His previous celebrity life is completely irrelevant IMO. Some people change and force themselves to stay the same, some people change and accept it, and some people never change - Brand would be the 2nd of those.
I have a feeling that the guilt over his celebrity lifestyle will overpower him soon enough, and he'll discard it almost completely. You can see the conflict in him when he talks about being a celebrity, and being called a hypocrite for it. Frankly, I don't think he should worry as the critics will rush for the next thing if / when whatever fortune he has is gone.. but that's the price you pay for introspection.
I urge his detractors to look past the comical performances and the funny vocab, and listen to the message underneath - accept it as true, because it reflects the thoughts & feelings of a growing proportion of the population who are prepared to think a little deeper.
I don't disagree that he has something to say. I also think there are some people who despise him and won't listen regardless of what he says. However.... for someone who has a reasonable grasp of the English language he is a fking awful communicator. I watched him on Newsnight and had to switch over. Shame because I think he has something to contribute to the debate.
king awful communicator. I watched him on Newsnight and had to switch over. Shame because I think he has something to contribute to the debate.chimster said:
I don't disagree that he has something to say. I also think there are some people who despise him and won't listen regardless of what he says. However.... for someone who has a reasonable grasp of the English language he is a fking awful communicator. I watched him on Newsnight and had to switch over. Shame because I think he has something to contribute to the debate.
I'd rather listen to a heartfelt and honest but badly communicated message, than an overly worded contentless apathetic speech by a politician or celeb pleb like Al Gore for example.king awful communicator. I watched him on Newsnight and had to switch over. Shame because I think he has something to contribute to the debate.Communism failed because of greed, and capitalism is about to do the same imo.
A few have taken the piss and ruined it for everyone.
Dave
otolith said:
He appears to have discovered that the same load of old cobblers suitable for getting SWP girls into bed works on the media too. Posturing, pretentious egotist.
I'm still of the firm belief that if his idea was popularism he'd do far far better in terms of both popularity and wealth by not going down the tin-foil hat conspiracy not job route.He's proven the fact he can do that, but has chosen to not do it and instead be relatively unpopular and less wealthy in comparison, to talk about the things he probably actually cares about.
It's a sad example of people in this world that they'd rather follow a lying disinterested but well spoken politician who doesn't care a s
t about them.And yet someone who probably does legitimately care and give a s
t about things, and will be seen as unpopular for it, is personally dis-credited on their persona rather than the merit of their views.Mr Whippy said:
I'm still of the firm belief that if his idea was popularism he'd do far far better in terms of both popularity and wealth by not going down the tin-foil hat conspiracy not job route.
He's proven the fact he can do that, but has chosen to not do it and instead be relatively unpopular and less wealthy in comparison, to talk about the things he probably actually cares about.
It's a sad example of people in this world that they'd rather follow a lying disinterested but well spoken politician who doesn't care a st about them.
And yet someone who probably does legitimately care and give a st about things, and will be seen as unpopular for it, is personally dis-credited on their persona rather than the merit of their views.
He is getting all the attention he craves. How much attention do you think he would be getting if his views were moderate and sensible?He's proven the fact he can do that, but has chosen to not do it and instead be relatively unpopular and less wealthy in comparison, to talk about the things he probably actually cares about.
It's a sad example of people in this world that they'd rather follow a lying disinterested but well spoken politician who doesn't care a s
t about them.And yet someone who probably does legitimately care and give a s
t about things, and will be seen as unpopular for it, is personally dis-credited on their persona rather than the merit of their views.otolith said:
He is getting all the attention he craves. How much attention do you think he would be getting if his views were moderate and sensible?
I've seen Brand act.. he's not very good at it. If this were all pretend for the sake of publicity it would be obvious. If he didn't care about his cause then you wouldn't see the passionate (angry at points) displays from him when he's really pressed for an answer. The Paxman interview is a great example.. that kind of rant doesn't come from somebody who is insincere.otolith said:
Mr Whippy said:
I'm still of the firm belief that if his idea was popularism he'd do far far better in terms of both popularity and wealth by not going down the tin-foil hat conspiracy not job route.
He's proven the fact he can do that, but has chosen to not do it and instead be relatively unpopular and less wealthy in comparison, to talk about the things he probably actually cares about.
It's a sad example of people in this world that they'd rather follow a lying disinterested but well spoken politician who doesn't care a st about them.
And yet someone who probably does legitimately care and give a st about things, and will be seen as unpopular for it, is personally dis-credited on their persona rather than the merit of their views.
He is getting all the attention he craves. How much attention do you think he would be getting if his views were moderate and sensible?He's proven the fact he can do that, but has chosen to not do it and instead be relatively unpopular and less wealthy in comparison, to talk about the things he probably actually cares about.
It's a sad example of people in this world that they'd rather follow a lying disinterested but well spoken politician who doesn't care a s
t about them.And yet someone who probably does legitimately care and give a s
t about things, and will be seen as unpopular for it, is personally dis-credited on their persona rather than the merit of their views.I'd say he gets a lot less attention and £££ coming in doing what he does now, than if he'd just kept doing what he was doing before being so tin-foil hatted.
As a few have mentioned, he connects with people and he appears sincere. If he is lying through his teeth then he needs to be teaching our politicians how to do the same so people bother to connect with them.
Dave
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff