Russel Brand nobbled for being a hypocrite
Discussion
FredClogs said:
This year Warren Buffet gave $2.8billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation to subsidies the poor and raise the living standards of those unable to do the job for themselves - is he a massive hypocrite?
Dunno, does he denounce the evils of charity and philanthropy?FredClogs said:
This year Warren Buffet gave $2.8billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation to subsidies the poor and raise the living standards of those unable to do the job for themselves - is he a massive hypocrite?
The ability of some on these forums to be able to exclude any kind of cognitive dissonance from their lives is truly scary - you people are quite literally mental, and by literally I mean literally, not literally like not literally.
Don't forget to mention George Soros.The ability of some on these forums to be able to exclude any kind of cognitive dissonance from their lives is truly scary - you people are quite literally mental, and by literally I mean literally, not literally like not literally.
FredClogs said:
This year Warren Buffet gave $2.8billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation to subsidies the poor and raise the living standards of those unable to do the job for themselves - is he a massive hypocrite?
No, because being 'rich' and 'giving away money' isn't being a massive hypocrite! This isn't that hard.FredClogs said:
This year Warren Buffet gave $2.8billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation to subsidies the poor and raise the living standards of those unable to do the job for themselves - is he a massive hypocrite?
The ability of some on these forums to be able to exclude any kind of cognitive dissonance from their lives is truly scary - you people are quite literally mental, and by literally I mean literally, not literally like not literally.
Clearly in your own mental state you appreciate that with an equal distribution of wealth there would be no Gates, Buffett or Soros to do anything as we'd all have about £35k initially until the bad decision makers started losing and the good decision makers became wealthy again...until the subsequent round of interference and redistribution to re-equalise the world. Not that this is remotely feasible or anything like it is desirable, but again people's mental state may vary.The ability of some on these forums to be able to exclude any kind of cognitive dissonance from their lives is truly scary - you people are quite literally mental, and by literally I mean literally, not literally like not literally.
See also 'outlier'.
fido said:
FredClogs said:
This year Warren Buffet gave $2.8billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation to subsidies the poor and raise the living standards of those unable to do the job for themselves - is he a massive hypocrite?
No, because being 'rich' and 'giving away money' isn't being a massive hypocrite! This isn't that hard.
Apparently it is to some mental states.
fido said:
FredClogs said:
This year Warren Buffet gave $2.8billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation to subsidies the poor and raise the living standards of those unable to do the job for themselves - is he a massive hypocrite?
No, because being 'rich' and 'giving away money' isn't being a massive hypocrite! This isn't that hard.Either way, Buffet or Brand, at least they show themselves to have the ability to hold two thoughts in their head at the one time. Some people on this forum are so ridiculously rhetorical to the point of being psychopathic in their support of the single mindedness of ideology, it's as if they'd explode if they allowed an original thought or any kind of conversation to enter into their head.
FredClogs said:
Some people on this forum are so ridiculously rhetorical to the point of being psychopathic in their support of the single mindedness of ideology, it's as if they'd explode if they allowed an original thought or any kind of conversation to enter into their head.
See binary thinking on ooh about page 2 or so. This is abut the New Era estate...NO IT'S NOT!! IT'S ABOUT THAT HYPOCRITE DRUGGY! None so blind or tedious as the hard line ideologue. At either end of the spectrum for that matter.
Guam said:
CamMoreRon said:
Really? It seems his gripe is with private landlords and he lives in a rented flat.
You keep clutching your hypocrisy straw though..
Oh please he bangs on about the "rich" whilst being one, if he is that concerned why doesn't he give his cash away and move into a smaller flat, typical wealthy left winger don't do as I do, do as I say, at least the right wing wealthy make no pretext about their cash and and wanting to hang on to it!You keep clutching your hypocrisy straw though..
Can you find a source or quote where Russel Brand has campaigned for rich people to give their wealth away?
He's an odious cretin possibly, but to accuse someone of hypocrisy without understanding the meaning is a bit sad.
FredClogs said:
Living by a personal ideology of free market economics and espousing the ideal of individual wealth creation whilst at the same time giving $billions to subsidies and keep alive the people who fall victim to the system or are disenfranchised by it is hypocritical. Either that or it's the most elaborate case of hero/white knight syndrome ever.
Either way, Buffet or Brand, at least they show themselves to have the ability to hold two thoughts in their head at the one time. Some people on this forum are so ridiculously rhetorical to the point of being psychopathic in their support of the single mindedness of ideology, it's as if they'd explode if they allowed an original thought or any kind of conversation to enter into their head.
By extrapolation, it works against capitalism to give money away for no goods return. Anyone who's given money to a charity must therefore be a hypocrite in the same way that Brand is a hypocrite.Either way, Buffet or Brand, at least they show themselves to have the ability to hold two thoughts in their head at the one time. Some people on this forum are so ridiculously rhetorical to the point of being psychopathic in their support of the single mindedness of ideology, it's as if they'd explode if they allowed an original thought or any kind of conversation to enter into their head.
Only in the sense that someone who objects to being mugged is a hypocrite for giving money to Shelter.
You are projecting your idea of what capitalists believe in (i.e. that it requires believing in being a terrible human being) and then accusing them of hypocrisy when they don't live down to your prejudices. It's nothing like what Brand is doing. Saying that inequality is an inherently bad thing while accumulating massive personal wealth is not the same as objecting to forced redistribution of wealth while choosing to give to charity.
You are projecting your idea of what capitalists believe in (i.e. that it requires believing in being a terrible human being) and then accusing them of hypocrisy when they don't live down to your prejudices. It's nothing like what Brand is doing. Saying that inequality is an inherently bad thing while accumulating massive personal wealth is not the same as objecting to forced redistribution of wealth while choosing to give to charity.
oyster said:
Guam said:
CamMoreRon said:
Really? It seems his gripe is with private landlords and he lives in a rented flat.
You keep clutching your hypocrisy straw though..
Oh please he bangs on about the "rich" whilst being one, if he is that concerned why doesn't he give his cash away and move into a smaller flat, typical wealthy left winger don't do as I do, do as I say, at least the right wing wealthy make no pretext about their cash and and wanting to hang on to it!You keep clutching your hypocrisy straw though..
Can you find a source or quote where Russel Brand has campaigned for rich people to give their wealth away?
He's an odious cretin possibly, but to accuse someone of hypocrisy without understanding the meaning is a bit sad.
From memory, in his New Statesman drivel he called for 'massive redistribution of wealth' from heavy taxation of corporations and soaking the rich, while there are apparently no reports around describing his own redistribution of his own income and wealth be it via himself as a wealthy individual or a company he may (or may not) have set up to receive earnings as per BBC personalities. Nothing from either route afaics.
Lacking detailed reports to the contrary, that is hypocrisy.
Do those who criticize Brand have the same views from Buffett?
"While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks,"
"These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It's nice to have friends in high places,"
"While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks,"
"These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It's nice to have friends in high places,"
Fittster said:
Do those who criticize Brand have the same views from Buffett?
"While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks,"
"These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It's nice to have friends in high places,"
It's a matter of degree. Governments know where their net tax take comes from and it's not spotted owls or any other common bird but the eagles flying high. They are the entities that actually take care of a country's bills and look after the needy via tax or philanthropy or both, so taking care of those who take care of everyone else is the right thing to do - to the degree that they can and will continue to stay around paying all the bills."While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks,"
"These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It's nice to have friends in high places,"
Just because you're successful in a system, that doesn't make it unacceptable to criticise that system. If the system benefits someone, and that person still wants to change it, I would say that takes some courage. More cynical people like to keep whatever benefits them, to the detriment of others. This is called a vested interest.
Is it also hypocritical for a Conservative prime minister to criticise the British government? Just because he benefits from that government, that system?
Partaking in something doesn't render you unable to criticise it. Could I suggest that it gives your criticism some merit.
Having said all this, in all corners there are those that seek to criticise people who they do not understand or know anything about. I'm sure these people make up some of his followers, and I don't care for it.
Is it also hypocritical for a Conservative prime minister to criticise the British government? Just because he benefits from that government, that system?
Partaking in something doesn't render you unable to criticise it. Could I suggest that it gives your criticism some merit.
Having said all this, in all corners there are those that seek to criticise people who they do not understand or know anything about. I'm sure these people make up some of his followers, and I don't care for it.
turbobloke said:
Fittster said:
Do those who criticize Brand have the same views from Buffett?
"While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks,"
"These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It's nice to have friends in high places,"
It's a matter of degree. Governments know where their net tax take comes from and it's not spotted owls or any other common bird but the eagles flying high. They are the entities that actually take care of a country's bills and look after the needy via tax or philanthropy or both, so taking care of those who take care of everyone else is the right thing to do - to the degree that they can and will continue to stay around paying all the bills."While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks,"
"These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It's nice to have friends in high places,"
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economic...
http://www.postkeynesian.net/downloads/wpaper/PKWP...
Fittster said:
Allowing high levels of inequality damages GDP growth and hence government revenues.
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economic...
http://www.postkeynesian.net/downloads/wpaper/PKWP...
you say that like it isn't an opinion http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economic...
http://www.postkeynesian.net/downloads/wpaper/PKWP...
pork911 said:
Fittster said:
Allowing high levels of inequality damages GDP growth and hence government revenues.
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economic...
http://www.postkeynesian.net/downloads/wpaper/PKWP...
you say that like it isn't an opinion http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economic...
http://www.postkeynesian.net/downloads/wpaper/PKWP...
The Ecommunist Link said:
Inequality is more closely correlated with low growth
Correlation does not imply causation. As per "it may not be inequality itself that harms growth but rather governments that tax and spend to try to reduce it" or indeed some other factor.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff