Jeremy Paxman vs Russell Brand
Discussion
mattnunn said:
You seem t be under the impression that taxing wealthy people would have some sort of detrimental effect to the UK standard of living, if show please show your working
I'd wager that if you were wealthy, an increase in tax would have a detrimental effect to your own standard of living. Lets punish the high achievers* and reward the feckless. 
*except those 'celebrities' which for numerous complicated reasons don't pay tax in the UK.
Mark Benson said:
Do you have anything to contribute, anything at all? Other than the criticise what you (I assume) don't agree with.
The point, as you and others are missing, is his constant and well-publicised critique of a system he plays no active part in. He's full of complaints, some of which are valid, but with no ideas and no action (other than some kind of undefined 'revolution' ruse that presumably he can absent himself from back to LA if it all gets a bit hairy) he's just another loudmouth moaner.
And the "I was once a junkie" schtick, what actual insight does that give him on the way society works - I have huge respect for his views on addiction and how we treat addicts, I think on that subject he can and does speak with great authority - but to claim that a former addiction gives him some insight into a society he willingly absents himself from is a step too far.
So no, to dignify your sniping with far more of an answer than it deserves, I don't care how someone lives. But if they set themselves up as arbiter of what's right and wrong about a society, they at least ought to be part of that society, and if they can come up with some viable suggestions, or better still actually do something to bring about change, so much the better. Brand does neither, but he's beloved by that section of society that loves to tell us all where we're going wrong, but loathes actually giving up a bit of comfort by actually doing something about it - the 'awareness raisers' (hey, like, I have a wristband and, like wrote to the co-op bank and yeah, loads of stuff) rather than the 'do-ers'.
Raising awareness of a problem is the logical first step in the problem-solving process. The point, as you and others are missing, is his constant and well-publicised critique of a system he plays no active part in. He's full of complaints, some of which are valid, but with no ideas and no action (other than some kind of undefined 'revolution' ruse that presumably he can absent himself from back to LA if it all gets a bit hairy) he's just another loudmouth moaner.
And the "I was once a junkie" schtick, what actual insight does that give him on the way society works - I have huge respect for his views on addiction and how we treat addicts, I think on that subject he can and does speak with great authority - but to claim that a former addiction gives him some insight into a society he willingly absents himself from is a step too far.
So no, to dignify your sniping with far more of an answer than it deserves, I don't care how someone lives. But if they set themselves up as arbiter of what's right and wrong about a society, they at least ought to be part of that society, and if they can come up with some viable suggestions, or better still actually do something to bring about change, so much the better. Brand does neither, but he's beloved by that section of society that loves to tell us all where we're going wrong, but loathes actually giving up a bit of comfort by actually doing something about it - the 'awareness raisers' (hey, like, I have a wristband and, like wrote to the co-op bank and yeah, loads of stuff) rather than the 'do-ers'.
Your puerile manner and demand that he do more than raise awareness are nothing more than mechanisms for marginalizing rhetoric you don't agree with.
If as you claim, you agree with the issues he raises, then you would be happy he's using his platform and celebrity to raise awareness of them. Your schtick is transparent and boring.
Mr_B said:
He hasn't moved on from the equivalent of saying ' bankers bonuses ' on Question Time to a rapturous applause.
Precisely, it's like listening to a sixth-form debate, in a not particularly strong sixth-form.The Don of Croy said:
Brand offers nothing you cannot hear from any sixth form politics debate...
Funny you should say that! Agreed.The Don of Croy said:
As for his glaring hypocrisy - working in showbiz and then railing against profit - well, perhaps that's all we need to know (words and deeds etc etc).
Fat wallet lefties are the worst for dreamworld hypocrisy.
Never seen in the same room.
pilchardthecat said:
He basically said that a Soviet style command economy with massive taxation and redistribution of wealth would solve all our problems
Tit. It's been tried Russell, didn't work out too well.
Yet allegedly Brand is a smart dude. Maybe he's a tad selective.Tit. It's been tried Russell, didn't work out too well.
turbobloke said:
Yet allegedly Brand is a smart dude. Maybe he's a tad selective.
He is a very articulate fellow, and he made one very good point about the existing democratic system in this country (and others). His reasoning for not voting because he doesn't want to be "complicit in the illusion" is valid, but his argument that this opting out, followed by revolution would somehow solve all our problems is silly.He should start a new political party.
I've changed my opinion on one front - he may not be an idiot. If he's positioned himself such that normally rational people consider him to be anything else than "entrainment [*]", he's very shrewd indeed.
[*] I use that term in the sense that some people consider some very odd things to be entertaining.
[*] I use that term in the sense that some people consider some very odd things to be entertaining.
pilchardthecat said:
turbobloke said:
Yet allegedly Brand is a smart dude. Maybe he's a tad selective.
He is a very articulate fellow, and he made one very good point about the existing democratic system in this country (and others). His reasoning for not voting because he doesn't want to be "complicit in the illusion" is valid, but his argument that this opting out, followed by revolution would somehow solve all our problems is silly. He should start a new political party.Ultimately we're left (no pun intended) wondering what this new Party would look like.
mattnunn said:
Well in a truly egalitarian system said chav a
hole would not exist, the wealth gap and social inequality are the largest reason and best excuse for those that can't be bothered to work.
We'd all be at the same chav level. Whoopee-doo.hole would not exist, the wealth gap and social inequality are the largest reason and best excuse for those that can't be bothered to work. mattnunn said:
In a egalitarian system which values contributions of many types equally and rewards all inputs equally without assigning a monetary value to each and every person and their actions then there would simply not be any intellectual room for resentment over others individual contributions.
Except in the real world this doesn't happen. It doesn't even present itself in the family unit - children do not take what they need - they'll take bleedin' everything if they can and return for more...not to mention the eons of evolution that have created such simple and effective methods as 'risk and reward', or praise for good work - all methods that would be anathaema to 'the egalitarian principle'.mattnunn said:
The western monetary and fiscal system is an entirely false construct, as inhuman as it's dichotomy(see North Korea). One doesn't run a family or friendships by monetising people's lifes, in our personal relationships we accept and contribute what we can and take what we need, why in a wider society we behave differently is not part of our nature but a learned behavior informed by and for the benefit of the ruling class.
Not sure what 'inhuman as it's dichotomy' means here, are there only two choices within the capitalist system? Yes, a monetary system is man-made, no argument. Fiat currencies are a pain, apt to gerrymandering, but can be controlled (sometimes by armed intervention). But expecting people to somehow accept all is equal is so far from 'nature' as to be off the scale (see thread(s) on lifestyle envy for further details).scherzkeks said:
Raising awareness of a problem is the logical first step in the problem-solving process.
Your puerile manner and demand that he do more than raise awareness are nothing more than mechanisms for marginalizing rhetoric you don't agree with.
If as you claim, you agree with the issues he raises, then you would be happy he's using his platform and celebrity to raise awareness of them. Your schtick is transparent and boring.
So you don't have anything to contribute. Fair enough, at least we're clear.Your puerile manner and demand that he do more than raise awareness are nothing more than mechanisms for marginalizing rhetoric you don't agree with.
If as you claim, you agree with the issues he raises, then you would be happy he's using his platform and celebrity to raise awareness of them. Your schtick is transparent and boring.
turbobloke said:
Somebody somewhere could doubtless make an articulate case for neutering Russell Brand. Gift of the gab revolutionary mavericks will appeal to other idealists, usually in their teens though not always, but taking them too seriously is pure folly.
Ultimately we're left (no pun intended) wondering what this new Party would look like.
If it gives people a voice i'm all for it, in principleUltimately we're left (no pun intended) wondering what this new Party would look like.
Obviously wouldn't vote for it though!
pilchardthecat said:
turbobloke said:
Somebody somewhere could doubtless make an articulate case for neutering Russell Brand. Gift of the gab revolutionary mavericks will appeal to other idealists, usually in their teens though not always, but taking them too seriously is pure folly.
Ultimately we're left (no pun intended) wondering what this new Party would look like.
If it gives people a voice i'm all for it, in principleUltimately we're left (no pun intended) wondering what this new Party would look like.
Obviously wouldn't vote for it though!
How many sixth-form voters are out there?!
superkartracer said:
Anyone who calls for revolution, without having any idea what is going to fill the resulting power-vacuum, is a fking idiot.
Rent a gob with enough brains to sound bright to those who have none but when you drill down it is only cunning and wit with little riggor.king idiot.LimaDelta said:
mattnunn said:
You seem t be under the impression that taxing wealthy people would have some sort of detrimental effect to the UK standard of living, if show please show your working
I'd wager that if you were wealthy, an increase in tax would have a detrimental effect to your own standard of living. Lets punish the high achievers* and reward the feckless. *except those 'celebrities' which for numerous complicated reasons don't pay tax in the UK.
pilchardthecat said:
He basically said that a Soviet style command economy with massive taxation and redistribution of wealth would solve all our problems
Tit. It's been tried Russell, didn't work out too well.
He is a tit, plain and simple. A self-promoting bell end with little political nouse, just banging the old commie drum and moaning about rich people being too rich. Still, the skinny jeans-wearing leftie hipsters will love it,Tit. It's been tried Russell, didn't work out too well.
mattnunn said:
I don't really see the problem with him,
a) He's right
LOLa) He's right
Brand said:
a socialist egalitarian system based on a massive redistribution of wealth, heavy taxation of corporations.... profit is a filthy word because whereever there is profit there is also deficit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YR4CseY9pk&fea...Pretty sure we tried something similar in eastern europe and south east asia a while back. Its funny that those who this is designed to appeal to assume they are poor victims of capitalism and will be the happy recipients of 'their' fair share of the wealth post revolution. They overlook the tiny detail that almost everyone in the uk is in the global 1% and what little wealth they think they have now will not exactly grow when shared with the 99%. Doh! Presumably Brand and his red carpet pals get an exemption from redistribution because they are cool and don't wear suits. I like the guy but he does talk a lot of twaddle
Brand said:
a socialist egalitarian system based on a massive redistribution of wealth, heavy taxation of corporations
How about a redistributive tax on the level of drivel in the hot air spouted by rich hypocritical celebs given airtime on the BBC to push socialism. Brand would then be skint, which would be a minor but media-friendly egalitarian event.Brand said:
profit is a filthy word because whereever there is profit there is also deficit
'profit is the market value of the product or service minus the market value of factors used, profit represents the value created''an envy-ridden moral code that damns success, profit, and earning money in voluntary exchange'
Brand is full of (sh)it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff