|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Dec 10, 2014 11:12:18 GMT
True, but then you're not attempting to influence the opinions of thousands of others with your thoughts. As far as I know you also don't have stupid ideas that sound a lot better in your head than they do in reality. What Brand is doing is appealing to the low brow audience who don't know any better. Its a problem because too many think he actually knows what he's talking about, and it becomes a problem when the people who do know what they're talking about try to talk to the population. They expect you to sit in the back of your Rolls Royce whilst you rant about poverty, or you're dismissed as one of the 'rich'. Can you give examples of the ideas he's provided that you're so dismissive of? Yes, I think we've all got the message by now You're a massive fan of Russell Brand. I'm not..I find him quite nauseating and his political views are questionable. Self-serving..publicity seeking..posh totty shagging.. And they're just his good points.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 10, 2014 11:35:38 GMT
Can you give examples of the ideas he's provided that you're so dismissive of? Yes, I think we've all got the message by now You're a massive fan of Russell Brand. I'm not..I find him quite nauseating and his political views are questionable. Self-serving..publicity seeking..posh totty shagging.. And they're just his good points. No you're deflecting yet again. I've constantly heard, 'he doesn't know what he's talking about', 'only fools follow him' etc Whenever I've asked the question, what is it about what he's saying that's so wrong? No-one has come up with anything, not one even one specific example.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Dec 10, 2014 11:42:03 GMT
Yes, I think we've all got the message by now You're a massive fan of Russell Brand. I'm not..I find him quite nauseating and his political views are questionable. Self-serving..publicity seeking..posh totty shagging.. And they're just his good points. No you're deflecting yet again. I've constantly heard, 'he doesn't know what he's talking about', 'only fools follow him' etc Whenever I've asked the question, what is it about what he's saying that's so wrong? No-one has come up with anything, not one even one specific example. Laughable. I could say the same about Adolf Hitler. If people are articulate enough they can justify anything ..get people to quote specific examples..then destroy them via semantics and linguistics.. But that doesn't mean it's true. And people have quoted plenty of examples throughout this thread if you cared to look. Not that it will make any difference. You've started off with a Hypothesis and fitted the facts to that Hypothesis, rather than searching for empirical truth.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 10, 2014 11:51:02 GMT
No you're deflecting yet again. I've constantly heard, 'he doesn't know what he's talking about', 'only fools follow him' etc Whenever I've asked the question, what is it about what he's saying that's so wrong? No-one has come up with anything, not one even one specific example. Laughable. I could say the same about Adolf Hitler. If people are articulate enough they can justify anything ..get people to quote specific examples..then destroy them via semantics and linguistics...if you've spent long enough in the education system..not a problem. But that doesn't mean it's true. 'There is no such thing as empirical truth' DERIDA What a ridiculous statement to make. So basically you're saying you're not going to provide specific examples because I might actually be able to pick your views apart. Brilliant.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Dec 10, 2014 11:53:15 GMT
Laughable. I could say the same about Adolf Hitler. If people are articulate enough they can justify anything ..get people to quote specific examples..then destroy them via semantics and linguistics...if you've spent long enough in the education system..not a problem. But that doesn't mean it's true. 'There is no such thing as empirical truth' DERIDA What a ridiculous statement to make. So basically you're saying you're not going to provide specific examples because I might actually be able to pick your views apart. Brilliant Yes,I would agree..that's why I edited it.
|
|
|
Post by tuum on Dec 10, 2014 11:58:24 GMT
Even if they have been shouting about it (if they have its certainly not high on the agenda), why haven't the people we pay to sort things like this out, the politicians done anything about it? Plenty of people are listening to Brand has to say. Have you been living under a rock for the last 6 years? They have been addressing it. Its not as simple as just closing all the tax loopholes. What do you think a Google will do if you just double their tax bill overnight? They will bugger off somewhere that won't and take what tax they do pay, all their jobs and all their knowledge somewhere else. I said earlier, fools are listening to Brand. Noone else. That's exactly what they would have you believe. It is unlikely to happen. The business regulatory environment in the UK and the quality of the workforce is highly thought of.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 10, 2014 12:06:57 GMT
Have you been living under a rock for the last 6 years? They have been addressing it. Its not as simple as just closing all the tax loopholes. What do you think a Google will do if you just double their tax bill overnight? They will bugger off somewhere that won't and take what tax they do pay, all their jobs and all their knowledge somewhere else. I said earlier, fools are listening to Brand. Noone else. That's exactly what they would have you believe. It is unlikely to happen. The business regulatory environment in the UK and the quality of the workforce is highly thought of. Yep my response to britsabroad was this "Oh right that's why companies have now stopped avoiding taxes. Oh wait they haven't, it's still ongoing. And this is exactly why the system doesn't work, whats the point in having a system that allows itself to be held ransom by large multinational companies. "Oh we can't tax them properly they'll just take their business elsewhere"
Is this some kind of sick joke?"Which funnily enough he didn't respond to, its easy enough to sort out. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/10/big-scary-global-fat-cats-multinationals-tax-dodgers
|
|
|
Post by kidcrewbob on Dec 10, 2014 12:27:21 GMT
edgepotter - 76 posts in 7 years as a member with about 50 of them defending the thoughts & musings of serial-shagger Russell Brand (yes I'm jelous!) - given the strength of your posts can't believe that you haven't been moved to get embroiled in the many, many other hum-dinging political "debates" there's been on here over the years...!!!!
Or are you just trying to break out of "Lads and Dads" post status...!!
Good luck fellah!
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Dec 10, 2014 12:33:04 GMT
There's a political debate on here every other day which Edge has signally failed to engage in. I've made this point already. Only Russell can get him involved.
The power of The Trews ;-)
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 10, 2014 12:55:53 GMT
edgepotter - 76 posts in 7 years as a member with about 50 of them defending the thoughts & musings of serial-shagger Russell Brand (yes I'm jelous!) - given the strength of your posts can't believe that you haven't been moved to get embroiled in the many, many other hum-dinging political "debates" there's been on here over the years...!!!! Or are you just trying to break out of "Lads and Dads" post status...!! Good luck fellah! I don't normally find the time to post on here as regularly as I have the past few days. I'll be posting a bit more regular from now on though, I can't have wizzardofdribble and co thinking my political views are based entirely on the musings of Russell Brand, its just I find myself agreeing with what he says more often than not
|
|
|
Post by str8outtahampton on Dec 10, 2014 12:56:14 GMT
I would be staggered if anyone on here has met the bloke, so any view on his character is highly subjective. However, he has never (to my knowledge) ever said anything that is remotely funny. That is a statement of fact. You don't have to have met the bloke to know his thought process, he's written a book and done about 200+ episodes of The Trews. Ironically most of the people criticsing him on here and elsewhere won't actually have bothered to read or watch what he's got to say. They might or they might not have bothered. I don't know. Brand clearly divides opinion. There are those who think he raises important topics with a view to their being debated and (ultimately) to make the world a fairer and better place. And there are those who think he states the obvious (the world is an unfair place) in the manner of a shrill and entitled adolescent. If anyone is in any doubt which it is, there is an easy way to tell. It's the latter. He is a good looking bloke - and I think looks a bit like Che Guevara. But so far as advancing the cause of the redistribution of wealth is concerned I doubt he has done significantly more than Cheryl Cole.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2014 13:33:48 GMT
edgepotter - 76 posts in 7 years as a member with about 50 of them defending the thoughts & musings of serial-shagger Russell Brand (yes I'm jelous!) - given the strength of your posts can't believe that you haven't been moved to get embroiled in the many, many other hum-dinging political "debates" there's been on here over the years...!!!! Or are you just trying to break out of "Lads and Dads" post status...!! Good luck fellah! I don't normally find the time to post on here as regularly as I have the past few days. I'll be posting a bit more regular from now on though, I can't have wizzardofdribble and co thinking my political views are based entirely on the musings of Russell Brand, its just I find myself agreeing with what he says more often than not and that's fine mate but the OP asked if he was revolutionary with new ideas or just a knobhead...the OP didn't even ask if you agreed with his ideas or not, merely whether or not they were new ones. now, there isn't any way that he (or anyone) can claim that any of his ideas are revolutionary or new whatsoever..in fact i doubt he himself would even want to try to claim them to be and he certainly isn't any revolutionary either. he has a platform from which he can espouse his political idealogy and that's what he's doing..it's nothing groundbreaking that he's coming out with and he hasn't come up with a singular piece of information that no-one knew beforehand (even those that don't usually engage in politics know full well about tax avoidance because of high profile media cases and the same goes for virtually everything else he's said...it's all high profile stuff that has been on front pages in the media for the last few years, not hidden away in the papers and only accessible otherwise to people who regularly tune in to QT or Newsnight!) so....he isn't giving anyone anything they didn't already know, i don't see how he has increased anyone's knowledge re: Politics, i don't think he's even inspired anyone to suddenly take an interest in it when they weren't before either (as all his guff is stuff that has been front page news at some point) so i think we can cross "Revolutionary with new ideas" off the list from the OP. that leaves just knobhead out of the choices we were given whether you like him or not and whether others like him or not isn't the issue..neither is whether or not people can point out anything they actually disagree with him on. we had an OP and you just hijacked it and turned into a thread about something else because you got ultra defensive when people started slagging him off is all and, as Salop rightly points out, whether someone is factually correct in what they're saying is irrelevant if they're actually being hypocritical or no better than the politicians out there in terms of knowing what real life is like and how the majority of people live (which he's lost touch with now he's a rich, famous Hollywood wanabe living in LA). you can say all you like that his points are factual but that wasn't what the OP was and it also makes him no different to a lot of politicians who are constantly berated...and why are they berated? for exactly the same reason that people are berating Brand on here i.e. the message will only ever get across if the messenger can be taken seriously, quite simply Brand can't.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Dec 10, 2014 13:55:59 GMT
edgepotter - 76 posts in 7 years as a member with about 50 of them defending the thoughts & musings of serial-shagger Russell Brand (yes I'm jelous!) - given the strength of your posts can't believe that you haven't been moved to get embroiled in the many, many other hum-dinging political "debates" there's been on here over the years...!!!! Or are you just trying to break out of "Lads and Dads" post status...!! Good luck fellah! I don't normally find the time to post on here as regularly as I have the past few days. I'll be posting a bit more regular from now on though, I can't have wizzardofdribble and co thinking my political views are based entirely on the musings of Russell Brand, its just I find myself agreeing with what he says more often than not No, we can't have that can we? Maybe, if you can find the time, join in with a few 'election specials' looming up on the political horizon
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Dec 10, 2014 14:27:42 GMT
Have you been living under a rock for the last 6 years? They have been addressing it. Its not as simple as just closing all the tax loopholes. What do you think a Google will do if you just double their tax bill overnight? They will bugger off somewhere that won't and take what tax they do pay, all their jobs and all their knowledge somewhere else. I said earlier, fools are listening to Brand. Noone else. That's exactly what they would have you believe. It is unlikely to happen. The business regulatory environment in the UK and the quality of the workforce is highly thought of. Thought of as highly as any other developed nations that are trying to attract business to locate their European HQs there. It a complete myth that the UK is held in any kind of special regard any more i am afraid. We had to offer huge tax breaks to attract the likes of Toyota/Nissan etc. We even offered large tax breaks to get relatively smaller offices of General Dynamics, Northrop etc. We do it all the time, because we have to. The UK is in direct competition with the rest of Europe now. When we threatened to remove some tax breaks certain businesses went as far as purchasing offices in other countries with the intention of moving. The government backed down and they stayed, so you never heard about it. Close the loopholes, and businesses will leave. Simple as that.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 10, 2014 14:50:08 GMT
That's exactly what they would have you believe. It is unlikely to happen. The business regulatory environment in the UK and the quality of the workforce is highly thought of. Thought of as highly as any other developed nations that are trying to attract business to locate their European HQs there. It a complete myth that the UK is held in any kind of special regard any more i am afraid. We had to offer huge tax breaks to attract the likes of Toyota/Nissan etc. We even offered large tax breaks to get relatively smaller offices of General Dynamics, Northrop etc. We do it all the time, because we have to. The UK is in direct competition with the rest of Europe now. When we threatened to remove some tax breaks certain businesses went as far as purchasing offices in other countries with the intention of moving. The government backed down and they stayed, so you never heard about it. Close the loopholes, and businesses will leave. Simple as that. So you're fine with our government essentially being held to ransom by large multinational corporations then? The current system of taxation is grossly unfair. Your argument is "Oh we can't tax them properly they'll just take their business elsewhere" but will they, really? I don't think so and neither does Robert Peston. Which is why MPs on the PAC want Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to be more aggressive in challenging the nugatory UK profits and minimal tax liabilities declared in the UK by the likes of Google, Starbucks and Amazon.
Here is an interesting question. Now that all three of them are so huge in the UK, is it remotely plausible that they would suddenly emigrate and stop trying to sell as much as possible to British consumers if they suddenly faced tax bills comparable to those paid by less internationally mobile UK companies?
Arguably their great success in the UK has shifted the balance of power towards the British tax authorities and the government. Google, Amazon and Starbucks would have a huge amount to lose if they reduced their commitment to Britain.We need to change the taxation rules and close the tax loopholes because it comes down to a moral stance as below; For a lot of companies, it is about fairness, according to Simon Walker, director general of the Institute of Directors.
"It is very frustrating for many companies who pay large tax bills that some multinationals are able to avoid doing so.
"The solution must be simplifying the tax system, not simply hectoring from Westminster. If these firms are immoral to take advantage of tax loopholes, then politicians are surely immoral for creating the loopholes in the first place. Taxes should be simpler to cut down on avoidance and relieve the burden our complex tax code puts on companies who do try to do the right thing," he says.
The director-general of the CBI, John Cridland, agrees the crux of the debate comes down to fairness.
"A company may be making good revenues but pay lower amounts of tax for completely legitimate business reasons. But if it's doing this by using so-called 'black-box' arrangements, where transactions are designed for no commercial purpose at all, other than to avoid tax, then the CBI does not condone it, even if it is legal," he says.
He says if the government wants a different result from the tax system, it must change the rules.
The pressure to do so has rarely been greater.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 10, 2014 16:12:52 GMT
I don't normally find the time to post on here as regularly as I have the past few days. I'll be posting a bit more regular from now on though, I can't have wizzardofdribble and co thinking my political views are based entirely on the musings of Russell Brand, its just I find myself agreeing with what he says more often than not and that's fine mate but the OP asked if he was revolutionary with new ideas or just a knobhead...the OP didn't even ask if you agreed with his ideas or not, merely whether or not they were new ones. now, there isn't any way that he (or anyone) can claim that any of his ideas are revolutionary or new whatsoever..in fact i doubt he himself would even want to try to claim them to be and he certainly isn't any revolutionary either. he has a platform from which he can espouse his political idealogy and that's what he's doing..it's nothing groundbreaking that he's coming out with and he hasn't come up with a singular piece of information that no-one knew beforehand (even those that don't usually engage in politics know full well about tax avoidance because of high profile media cases and the same goes for virtually everything else he's said...it's all high profile stuff that has been on front pages in the media for the last few years, not hidden away in the papers and only accessible otherwise to people who regularly tune in to QT or Newsnight!) so....he isn't giving anyone anything they didn't already know, i don't see how he has increased anyone's knowledge re: Politics, i don't think he's even inspired anyone to suddenly take an interest in it when they weren't before either (as all his guff is stuff that has been front page news at some point) so i think we can cross "Revolutionary with new ideas" off the list from the OP. that leaves just knobhead out of the choices we were given whether you like him or not and whether others like him or not isn't the issue..neither is whether or not people can point out anything they actually disagree with him on. we had an OP and you just hijacked it and turned into a thread about something else because you got ultra defensive when people started slagging him off is all and, as Salop rightly points out, whether someone is factually correct in what they're saying is irrelevant if they're actually being hypocritical or no better than the politicians out there in terms of knowing what real life is like and how the majority of people live (which he's lost touch with now he's a rich, famous Hollywood wanabe living in LA). you can say all you like that his points are factual but that wasn't what the OP was and it also makes him no different to a lot of politicians who are constantly berated...and why are they berated? for exactly the same reason that people are berating Brand on here i.e. the message will only ever get across if the messenger can be taken seriously, quite simply Brand can't. I understand what you're saying regarding the original OP question but why does the choice have to be between revolutionary with new idea or knobhead. As you rightly pointed out; there isn't any way that he (or anyone) can claim that any of his ideas are revolutionary or new whatsoever..in fact i doubt he himself would even want to try to claim them to be and he certainly isn't any revolutionary either.You've hit the nail on the head right there, I haven't been arguing that his ideas are revolutionary, just that the things he's talking about are relevant and that his views for the most part reflect my own. I can totally understand why some people don't like him but even those who don't like him can't possibly deny that he's a feature in our popular mainstream culture for a reason and that's because there must be a fair proportion of people out there that do like him, I mean lets face it how many other 'celebrities' would still be able to resurrect their career after some high profile errors like the Sachsgate scandal. If he wasn't liked by the British public he would have fallen off the face of mainstream popular culture a long time ago, and its for this reason that I completely disagree with your assertion that he won't have inspired anyone to take an interest in politics. I'm part of the young generation and I know quite a few yonug people that have been completely disengaged with politics, they find listening to politicians boring etc It's this type of young person (as well as others) that are far more likely to listen to what Brand has got to say than any politician, I think even Jeremy Paxman recognised this when he had him on Newsnight, and here's what Paxman thinks. Paxman's withering critique followed his much-discussed Newsnight interview with Russell Brand last week. The 10-minute encounter, in which Paxman upbraided the comedian because he "can't be arsed to vote", became an unlikely YouTube hit, with 10 million views – nearly 20 times Newsnight's average audience.
But despite his criticism of Brand for never voting, Paxman confessed he too had once failed to vote in an election. "I think part of Russell Brand's diagnosis is right. There is a huge sense of disillusion out there," he said.He's managed to tap into this disillusionment far more than any politician has and people are clearly engaging with him, they clearly like what he's got to say as can be evidenced by the fact the YouTube clip has more than 10million views - nearly 20 times Newsnights average. He's got 8.7 million followers on Twitter, which is nearly 8 million more than the current Prime Minister. The numbers don't lie and they certainly fly in the face of the argument put forward by yourself and Salop that the message will only ever get across if the messenger can be taken seriously. In yours and Salops opinions he cant, I'm afraid there's a decent proportion that public disagrees with you.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2014 16:30:31 GMT
and that's fine mate but the OP asked if he was revolutionary with new ideas or just a knobhead...the OP didn't even ask if you agreed with his ideas or not, merely whether or not they were new ones. now, there isn't any way that he (or anyone) can claim that any of his ideas are revolutionary or new whatsoever..in fact i doubt he himself would even want to try to claim them to be and he certainly isn't any revolutionary either. he has a platform from which he can espouse his political idealogy and that's what he's doing..it's nothing groundbreaking that he's coming out with and he hasn't come up with a singular piece of information that no-one knew beforehand (even those that don't usually engage in politics know full well about tax avoidance because of high profile media cases and the same goes for virtually everything else he's said...it's all high profile stuff that has been on front pages in the media for the last few years, not hidden away in the papers and only accessible otherwise to people who regularly tune in to QT or Newsnight!) so....he isn't giving anyone anything they didn't already know, i don't see how he has increased anyone's knowledge re: Politics, i don't think he's even inspired anyone to suddenly take an interest in it when they weren't before either (as all his guff is stuff that has been front page news at some point) so i think we can cross "Revolutionary with new ideas" off the list from the OP. that leaves just knobhead out of the choices we were given whether you like him or not and whether others like him or not isn't the issue..neither is whether or not people can point out anything they actually disagree with him on. we had an OP and you just hijacked it and turned into a thread about something else because you got ultra defensive when people started slagging him off is all and, as Salop rightly points out, whether someone is factually correct in what they're saying is irrelevant if they're actually being hypocritical or no better than the politicians out there in terms of knowing what real life is like and how the majority of people live (which he's lost touch with now he's a rich, famous Hollywood wanabe living in LA). you can say all you like that his points are factual but that wasn't what the OP was and it also makes him no different to a lot of politicians who are constantly berated...and why are they berated? for exactly the same reason that people are berating Brand on here i.e. the message will only ever get across if the messenger can be taken seriously, quite simply Brand can't. I understand what you're saying regarding the original OP question but why does the choice have to be between revolutionary with new idea or knobhead. As you rightly pointed out; there isn't any way that he (or anyone) can claim that any of his ideas are revolutionary or new whatsoever..in fact i doubt he himself would even want to try to claim them to be and he certainly isn't any revolutionary either.You've hit the nail on the head right there, I haven't been arguing that his ideas are revolutionary, just that the things he's talking about are relevant and that his views for the most part reflect my own. I can totally understand why some people don't like him but even those who don't like him can't possibly deny that he's a feature in our popular mainstream culture for a reason and that's because there must be a fair proportion of people out there that do like him, I mean lets face it how many other 'celebrities' would still be able to resurrect their career after some high profile errors like the Sachsgate scandal. If he wasn't liked by the British public he would have fallen off the face of mainstream popular culture a long time ago, and its for this reason that I completely disagree with your assertion that he won't have inspired anyone to take an interest in politics. I'm part of the young generation and I know quite a few yonug people that have been completely disengaged with politics, they find listening to politicians boring etc It's this type of young person (as well as others) that are far more likely to listen to what Brand has got to say than any politician, I think even Jeremy Paxman recognised this when he had him on Newsnight, and here's what Paxman thinks. Paxman's withering critique followed his much-discussed Newsnight interview with Russell Brand last week. The 10-minute encounter, in which Paxman upbraided the comedian because he "can't be arsed to vote", became an unlikely YouTube hit, with 10 million views – nearly 20 times Newsnight's average audience.
But despite his criticism of Brand for never voting, Paxman confessed he too had once failed to vote in an election. "I think part of Russell Brand's diagnosis is right. There is a huge sense of disillusion out there," he said.He's managed to tap into this disillusionment far more than any politician has and people are clearly engaging with him, they clearly like what he's got to say as can be evidenced by the fact the YouTube clip has more than 10million views - nearly 20 times Newsnights average. He's got 8.7 million followers on Twitter, which is nearly 8 million more than the current Prime Minister. The numbers don't lie and they certainly fly in the face of the argument put forward by yourself and Salop that the message will only ever get across if the messenger can be taken seriously. In yours and Salops opinions he cant, I'm afraid there's a decent proportion that public disagrees with you. yeah i agree with that to be fair....phrased badly on my part when i said he can't be taken seriously; would have been better to say "You can surely see and accept the reasons why many people on this thread find him hard to take seriously with the message he's putting across". that's kind of the problem he has really IMO, if he does get younger people to engage in politics and take a wider interest then at some point they themselves will realise that he isn't any different to the Politicians they find to be so disingenuous and transparently hypocritical. he's setting himself up for a fall i think! fair play to him, have nothing against him myself, i just fail to see how it can be valid to criticise politicians for being out of touch with the public when he himself earns millions, lives in LA and (as you referred to the Andrew Sachs thing) seems to beleive he can do/say/act in whatever way he wants simply because of who he is. i think a lot of it (and it is only my personal opinion, no way of proving it one way or the other really) is more down to self publicising than any genuine concern he has for the common man. i went to see him live a few months back and to be fair it was quite funny but it did completely cement the idea i already had in my mind of him; he's just a walking ego who likes to talk about himself, think about himself and do whatever he can to make sure everyone pays attention to him. he's just as disingenuous and hypocritical as any politician, he just has a "commoner's" accent and trades off the fact that people love the whole happy go lucky Jack sparrow persona....it's easy being happy go lucky though and telling people to not vote (which is a waste given the current electoral system in place) when you're living the life of riley earning millions and shagging supermodels. i genuinely don't see what there is to say he's any more genuine and anthropological than any of the Westminster crew other than his accent really..people seem convinced that he must be a nice lad true to his roots simply because he's got a Dick van dyke "cockerknee" voice instead of the usual Etonian plum in his mouth.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 10, 2014 16:44:40 GMT
I understand what you're saying regarding the original OP question but why does the choice have to be between revolutionary with new idea or knobhead. As you rightly pointed out; there isn't any way that he (or anyone) can claim that any of his ideas are revolutionary or new whatsoever..in fact i doubt he himself would even want to try to claim them to be and he certainly isn't any revolutionary either.You've hit the nail on the head right there, I haven't been arguing that his ideas are revolutionary, just that the things he's talking about are relevant and that his views for the most part reflect my own. I can totally understand why some people don't like him but even those who don't like him can't possibly deny that he's a feature in our popular mainstream culture for a reason and that's because there must be a fair proportion of people out there that do like him, I mean lets face it how many other 'celebrities' would still be able to resurrect their career after some high profile errors like the Sachsgate scandal. If he wasn't liked by the British public he would have fallen off the face of mainstream popular culture a long time ago, and its for this reason that I completely disagree with your assertion that he won't have inspired anyone to take an interest in politics. I'm part of the young generation and I know quite a few yonug people that have been completely disengaged with politics, they find listening to politicians boring etc It's this type of young person (as well as others) that are far more likely to listen to what Brand has got to say than any politician, I think even Jeremy Paxman recognised this when he had him on Newsnight, and here's what Paxman thinks. Paxman's withering critique followed his much-discussed Newsnight interview with Russell Brand last week. The 10-minute encounter, in which Paxman upbraided the comedian because he "can't be arsed to vote", became an unlikely YouTube hit, with 10 million views – nearly 20 times Newsnight's average audience.
But despite his criticism of Brand for never voting, Paxman confessed he too had once failed to vote in an election. "I think part of Russell Brand's diagnosis is right. There is a huge sense of disillusion out there," he said.He's managed to tap into this disillusionment far more than any politician has and people are clearly engaging with him, they clearly like what he's got to say as can be evidenced by the fact the YouTube clip has more than 10million views - nearly 20 times Newsnights average. He's got 8.7 million followers on Twitter, which is nearly 8 million more than the current Prime Minister. The numbers don't lie and they certainly fly in the face of the argument put forward by yourself and Salop that the message will only ever get across if the messenger can be taken seriously. In yours and Salops opinions he cant, I'm afraid there's a decent proportion that public disagrees with you. yeah i agree with that to be fair....phrased badly on my part when i said he can't be taken seriously; would have been better to say "You can surely see and accept the reasons why many people on this thread find him hard to take seriously with the message he's putting across". that's kind of the problem he has really IMO, if he does get younger people to engage in politics and take a wider interest then at some point they themselves will realise that he isn't any different to the Politicians they find to be so disingenuous and transparently hypocritical. he's setting himself up for a fall i think! fair play to him, have nothing against him myself, i just fail to see how it can be valid to criticise politicians for being out of touch with the public when he himself earns millions, lives in LA and (as you referred to the Andrew Sachs thing) seems to beleive he can do/say/act in whatever way he wants simply because of who he is. i think a lot of it (and it is only my personal opinion, no way of proving it one way or the other really) is more down to self publicising than any genuine concern he has for the common man. i went to see him live a few months back and to be fair it was quite funny but it did completely cement the idea i already had in my mind of him; he's just a walking ego who likes to talk about himself, think about himself and do whatever he can to make sure everyone pays attention to him. he's just as disingenuous and hypocritical as any politician, he just has a "commoner's" accent and trades off the fact that people love the whole happy go lucky Jack sparrow persona....it's easy being happy go lucky though and telling people to not vote (which is a waste given the current electoral system in place) when you're living the life of riley earning millions and shagging supermodels. i genuinely don't see what there is to say he's any more genuine and anthropological than any of the Westminster crew other than his accent really..people seem convinced that he must be a nice lad true to his roots simply because he's got a Dick van dyke "cockerknee" voice instead of the usual Etonian plum in his mouth. I just think he's a Cunt
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 10, 2014 18:35:20 GMT
I understand what you're saying regarding the original OP question but why does the choice have to be between revolutionary with new idea or knobhead. As you rightly pointed out; there isn't any way that he (or anyone) can claim that any of his ideas are revolutionary or new whatsoever..in fact i doubt he himself would even want to try to claim them to be and he certainly isn't any revolutionary either.You've hit the nail on the head right there, I haven't been arguing that his ideas are revolutionary, just that the things he's talking about are relevant and that his views for the most part reflect my own. I can totally understand why some people don't like him but even those who don't like him can't possibly deny that he's a feature in our popular mainstream culture for a reason and that's because there must be a fair proportion of people out there that do like him, I mean lets face it how many other 'celebrities' would still be able to resurrect their career after some high profile errors like the Sachsgate scandal. If he wasn't liked by the British public he would have fallen off the face of mainstream popular culture a long time ago, and its for this reason that I completely disagree with your assertion that he won't have inspired anyone to take an interest in politics. I'm part of the young generation and I know quite a few yonug people that have been completely disengaged with politics, they find listening to politicians boring etc It's this type of young person (as well as others) that are far more likely to listen to what Brand has got to say than any politician, I think even Jeremy Paxman recognised this when he had him on Newsnight, and here's what Paxman thinks. Paxman's withering critique followed his much-discussed Newsnight interview with Russell Brand last week. The 10-minute encounter, in which Paxman upbraided the comedian because he "can't be arsed to vote", became an unlikely YouTube hit, with 10 million views – nearly 20 times Newsnight's average audience.
But despite his criticism of Brand for never voting, Paxman confessed he too had once failed to vote in an election. "I think part of Russell Brand's diagnosis is right. There is a huge sense of disillusion out there," he said.He's managed to tap into this disillusionment far more than any politician has and people are clearly engaging with him, they clearly like what he's got to say as can be evidenced by the fact the YouTube clip has more than 10million views - nearly 20 times Newsnights average. He's got 8.7 million followers on Twitter, which is nearly 8 million more than the current Prime Minister. The numbers don't lie and they certainly fly in the face of the argument put forward by yourself and Salop that the message will only ever get across if the messenger can be taken seriously. In yours and Salops opinions he cant, I'm afraid there's a decent proportion that public disagrees with you. yeah i agree with that to be fair....phrased badly on my part when i said he can't be taken seriously; would have been better to say "You can surely see and accept the reasons why many people on this thread find him hard to take seriously with the message he's putting across". that's kind of the problem he has really IMO, if he does get younger people to engage in politics and take a wider interest then at some point they themselves will realise that he isn't any different to the Politicians they find to be so disingenuous and transparently hypocritical. he's setting himself up for a fall i think! fair play to him, have nothing against him myself, i just fail to see how it can be valid to criticise politicians for being out of touch with the public when he himself earns millions, lives in LA and (as you referred to the Andrew Sachs thing) seems to beleive he can do/say/act in whatever way he wants simply because of who he is. i think a lot of it (and it is only my personal opinion, no way of proving it one way or the other really) is more down to self publicising than any genuine concern he has for the common man. i went to see him live a few months back and to be fair it was quite funny but it did completely cement the idea i already had in my mind of him; he's just a walking ego who likes to talk about himself, think about himself and do whatever he can to make sure everyone pays attention to him. he's just as disingenuous and hypocritical as any politician, he just has a "commoner's" accent and trades off the fact that people love the whole happy go lucky Jack sparrow persona....it's easy being happy go lucky though and telling people to not vote (which is a waste given the current electoral system in place) when you're living the life of riley earning millions and shagging supermodels. i genuinely don't see what there is to say he's any more genuine and anthropological than any of the Westminster crew other than his accent really..people seem convinced that he must be a nice lad true to his roots simply because he's got a Dick van dyke "cockerknee" voice instead of the usual Etonian plum in his mouth. It smacks of narrow mindedness to say he's a hypocrite because he's famous, because he's made millions and because he's shagged supermodels. He hasn't turned to political activism because his stand-up or acting career was on the wane, or for one last desperate attempt to stay in the public limelight. His popularity was probably at the highest point it had ever been when he decided to get involved in political activism, he was taking a massive gamble, he was risking alienating a lot of his fans, in danger of being a laughing stock and destroying his reputation. His legacy would have been a failed political activist rather than a successful comedian/actor and yet he decided to do it anyway when he could have safely carried on earning more millions doing acting and stand up, being in the public mainstream and followed by his fans (of which there are many) and continuing to have his ego (we've all got one haven't we) stroked. So why would anyone take such a risk unless his beliefs were genuine, why can't he be concerned about the plight of his fellow human being? I've thought about it doing it to further massage his ego just doesn't make sense to me. For those who criticse him because 'he isn't saying anything new' and correctly identifying that people like Tony Benn and Noam Chomsky have been saying these things for years I've got another question. If people are aware of these problems, and have been for years then why has nothing been done about it? Surely we all have compassion for our fellow human beings, surely we all want a society that is equal and fair? It's ironic that people criticse Brand for being a hypocrite for being famous, because of his past. Its ironic that its for these reasons that he's actually in such a prominent position to have his views heard (much more so than the likes of Tony Benn, Noam Chomsky etc). And as a result its far more likely that change will come about. To put some perspective on this, the highest viewing figure a Noam Chomksy video on YouTube is about 3 million (and guess what - its an interview with Ali G) and as I've mentioned earlier Brand got 10million views for the Newsnight interview with Paxman, people are engaging with what he has to say. Edited - the newsnight interview has 10 million views.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 10, 2014 19:43:30 GMT
YouTube had to change there counter after gangam style got RR illions and trillions of views.
The next watched video is Justin bieber
Doesn't make it any good
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 10, 2014 19:50:57 GMT
YouTube had to change there counter after gangam style got RR illions and trillions of views. The next watched video is Justin bieber Doesn't make it any good In the context of political thinking debates, which is what we're discussing, my point is absolutely relevant. More people have watched what Russell Brand has got to say about politics than they have Noam Chomsky or Tony Benn.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 10, 2014 19:56:00 GMT
YouTube had to change there counter after gangam style got RR illions and trillions of views. The next watched video is Justin bieber Doesn't make it any good In the context of political thinking debates, which is what we're discussing, my point is absolutely relevant. More people have watched what Russell Brand has got to say about politics than they have Noam Chomsky or Tony Benn. Maybe but YouTube views are not endorsements.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 10, 2014 20:12:05 GMT
In the context of political thinking debates, which is what we're discussing, my point is absolutely relevant. More people have watched what Russell Brand has got to say about politics than they have Noam Chomsky or Tony Benn. Maybe but YouTube views are not endorsements. Where have I mentioned endorsements? I'm fully aware that not all 10 million will be in agreement with Brand, that's not what I'm saying. Its clear that more people have got an interest in what Brand says, whether they agree or disagree and its a valid point.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 10, 2014 20:28:31 GMT
Plus of the 10 million views half seem to be you
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Dec 11, 2014 1:23:17 GMT
'Cunt' wasn't an option apparently, it was either 'Revolutionary' or 'Knobhead'. A bit of an Hobson's choice really, akin to the choice between the Parties in the current political landscape. None of them fits the bill for me.
I've been a believer in 'Whoever You Vote For Government Wins' since adopting an Anarchistic approach as a youth {admittedly, initially as a fashion statement as much as a Political stance}. But since having involvement in Local Government, the Judiciary and aspects of Whitehall and Westminster I've seen nowt to dissuade me from the opinion that the whole thing needs smashing up. Unfortunately I can't see that happening, but I applaud anyone who is prepared to kick at the statues. Well done Russell.
There is so much self interest, corruption, waste, and unnecessary tinkering going on that 'Government' has become unfit for purpose. Too many resources are used to perpetuate failing systems and protecting positions of power.
I'm a conscienscious objector as far as voting in National Elections is concerned. I will likely remain so until there's at least some proportional representation introduced, and more power devolved to the Regions. I'd welcome a Hung Parliament. I'm not looking forward to the smear campaigns, disinginuity, false promises, lies, and subterfuge that we'll be treated to in the run up to the next National carve up. There'll be some shite slung. I don't think I'll be casting my vote in the traditional way.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2014 10:25:15 GMT
In the context of political thinking debates, which is what we're discussing, my point is absolutely relevant. More people have watched what Russell Brand has got to say about politics than they have Noam Chomsky or Tony Benn. Maybe but YouTube views are not endorsements. very true salop and let's also remember that Tony Benn and Chomsky have both been around for years and years before youtube even existed!!!! to say things are more relevant/important/influential because of the amount of youtube hits they receive is absolutely ludicrous...edgepotter are you even aware that life existed for millennia before youtube came along and both these people have been extremely influential in their lives for years before Brand was even considered let alone before youtube came to the fore! so more people have watched Brand on youtube means what exactly??? sod all apart from the fact that these 2 people pre-date youtube...and both have had massively more influence on the world at large than Brand ever will regardless of how many hits he gets. to try to imply that Brand has more influence than tony Benn or Noam Chomsky have ever had simply because of the number of youtube hits???? really???? seriously????? do you know who Benn and Chomsky are exactly????
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Dec 11, 2014 12:03:54 GMT
He's an utter knob, and anything worthwhile he has to say is drowned out by the fact that I'm to busy hoping one of his protestor mates punches him in the face.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 11, 2014 12:10:38 GMT
He's an utter knob, and anything worthwhile he has to say is drowned out by the fact that I'm to busy hoping one of his protestor mates punches him in the face. wont happen, he has to leave the protests early for showbiz shindigs
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 11, 2014 12:33:05 GMT
Maybe but YouTube views are not endorsements. very true salop and let's also remember that Tony Benn and Chomsky have both been around for years and years before youtube even existed!!!! to say things are more relevant/important/influential because of the amount of youtube hits they receive is absolutely ludicrous...edgepotter are you even aware that life existed for millennia before youtube came along and both these people have been extremely influential in their lives for years before Brand was even considered let alone before youtube came to the fore! so more people have watched Brand on youtube means what exactly??? sod all apart from the fact that these 2 people pre-date youtube...and both have had massively more influence on the world at large than Brand ever will regardless of how many hits he gets. to try to imply that Brand has more influence than tony Benn or Noam Chomsky have ever had simply because of the number of youtube hits???? really???? seriously????? do you know who Benn and Chomsky are exactly???? I think you've completely misunderstood the point I was making so I'll make it clearer. I'm well aware that life existed before YouTube, and I'm well aware of who Tony Benn and Noam Chomsky are (I'll come back to this further down) and just to make it clear I have been influenced by them and I respect them both greatly. As others have pointed out they, as well many other ideological thinkers of our time, been making (roughly) the same things that Russell Brand is now. So with this in mind, if Benn and Chomsky have been providing the same messages for years and years then why has our society not changed for the better? According to the logic offered by some during this debate, even though what Russell is saying is correct, if people can't take the messenger seriously then the message won't get through. So lets take this logic and apply it people like Benn and Chomsky, surely they are the right people to provide this message right? I mean one was a politician and one is still a great ideological thinker of our time, neither of them considered celebrities, neither can really be considered hypocrites because of their massive wealth or their tax avoidance. So if they have been so influential on our society, and by your logic (which I actually agree with you on in theory) the 'right' people to make these points why has nothing changed during all the time they've been providing their message? Things have got worse, the current system in place has led us to the point where the UK is now the most unequal countries in the world. Here's my view on it. I'm aware of Benn and Chomsky and it's because I went University and studied a degree that was based on sociology, because my ideology, my views on the world pointed me in that direction, and if I'm honest if I hadn't gone to uni and if I wasn't interested in the things I am I would probably never have heard of either of them. And this is the point I'm making, I can't speak for the older generation but I believe that for my generation (certainly the vast majority of people I know) if you were ask them who Benn and Chomsky are, and if they understood what they actually stood for (and in Chomsky's case still stands for) most of them wouldn't have a clue. It's an incredibly sad reflection of our society, but unfortunately that's just how it is. Chomsky is still around now, he's still promoting his message but how often did/do you actually see his views in the mainstream media, across all formats? Sure his views might be represented in some publications, but only a certain section of people follow these publications and it's because such publications re-enforce their world view. The only way people have come across the views of Chomsky and Benn is if their influences/thinking (whether through education or self-education) have led them there. Basically people like Benn (whose opinions I know were discredited by most of the media) and Chomsky have only been preaching to the choir because their views have never been mainstream, popular views widely accepted by the media and therefore I think its fair to say there's a fair section of our society that are oblivious to such thinking. If you're not famous, if you haven't been accepted into the mainstream public eye then your views aren't likely to be heard by the majority. Some people don't pay attention to the news but even if you do then its still difficult to come across such views. Tabloids (the most read papers in our nation) don't air the views of people like Benn or Chomsky do they? No they'd rather talk about people like Katie Price, One Direction and ironically Russell Brand, they're also more likely to (incorrectly in my opinion) blame the minorities in our society for our problems like people on benefits, or immigrants etc. Then if you look at the modern advancements of things like YouTube and Twitter (for which unfortunately Benn or Chomsky haven't had the chance to properly utilise such platforms to air their views) this gives people a platform to promote views in a way that is unfiltered and undistorted by the mainstream media if people choose to listen to what people have to say directly. Through his status as a celebrity, due to his large fan base that was built-up by other means Brand has a larger target audience than Benn or Chomsky have ever had, but not only this, through Youtube and through Twitter, its easier to engage with and access and share his views with other people, and the more people that hear his views and agree with him (and even his detractors think he's mostly saying the right things) the far likelier it is that such views will be accepted into the mainstream consciousness and the more likely it is that the changes that are need will occur.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Dec 11, 2014 12:39:24 GMT
very true salop and let's also remember that Tony Benn and Chomsky have both been around for years and years before youtube even existed!!!! to say things are more relevant/important/influential because of the amount of youtube hits they receive is absolutely ludicrous...edgepotter are you even aware that life existed for millennia before youtube came along and both these people have been extremely influential in their lives for years before Brand was even considered let alone before youtube came to the fore! so more people have watched Brand on youtube means what exactly??? sod all apart from the fact that these 2 people pre-date youtube...and both have had massively more influence on the world at large than Brand ever will regardless of how many hits he gets. to try to imply that Brand has more influence than tony Benn or Noam Chomsky have ever had simply because of the number of youtube hits???? really???? seriously????? do you know who Benn and Chomsky are exactly???? I think you've completely misunderstood the point I was making so I'll make it clearer. I'm well aware that life existed before YouTube, and I'm well aware of who Tony Benn and Noam Chomsky are (I'll come back to this further down) and just to make it clear I have been influenced by them and I respect them both greatly. As others have pointed out they, as well many other ideological thinkers of our time, been making (roughly) the same things that Russell Brand is now. So with this in mind, if Benn and Chomsky have been providing the same messages for years and years then why has our society not changed for the better? According to the logic offered by some during this debate, even though what Russell is saying is correct, if people can't take the messenger seriously then the message won't get through. So lets take this logic and apply it people like Benn and Chomsky, surely they are the right people to provide this message right? I mean one was a politician and one is still a great ideological thinker of our time, neither of them considered celebrities, neither can really be considered hypocrites because of their massive wealth or their tax avoidance. So if they have been so influential on our society, and by your logic (which I actually agree with you on in theory) the 'right' people to make these points why has nothing changed during all the time they've been providing their message? Things have got worse, the current system in place has led us to the point where the UK is now the most unequal countries in the world. Here's my view on it. I'm aware of Benn and Chomsky and it's because I went University and studied a degree that was based on sociology, because my ideology, my views on the world pointed me in that direction, and if I'm honest if I hadn't gone to uni and if I wasn't interested in the things I am I would probably never have heard of either of them. And this is the point I'm making, I can't speak for the older generation but I believe that for my generation (certainly the vast majority of people I know) if you were ask them who Benn and Chomsky are, and if they understood what they actually stood for (and in Chomsky's case still stands for) most of them wouldn't have a clue. It's an incredibly sad reflection of our society, but unfortunately that's just how it is. Chomsky is still around now, he's still promoting his message but how often did/do you actually see his views in the mainstream media, across all formats? Sure his views might be represented in some publications, but only a certain section of people follow these publications and it's because such publications re-enforce their world view. The only way people have come across the views of Chomsky and Benn is if their influences/thinking (whether through education or self-education) have led them there. Basically people like Benn (whose opinions I know were discredited by most of the media) and Chomsky have only been preaching to the choir because their views have never been mainstream, popular views widely accepted by the media and therefore I think its fair to say there's a fair section of our society that are oblivious to such thinking. If you're not famous, if you haven't been accepted into the mainstream public eye then your views aren't likely to be heard by the majority. Some people don't pay attention to the news but even if you do then its still difficult to come across such views. Tabloids (the most read papers in our nation) don't air the views of people like Benn or Chomsky do they? No they'd rather talk about people like Katie Price, One Direction and ironically Russell Brand, they're also more likely to (incorrectly in my opinion) blame the minorities in our society for our problems like people on benefits, or immigrants etc. Then if you look at the modern advancements of things like YouTube and Twitter (for which unfortunately Benn or Chomsky haven't had the chance to properly utilise such platforms to air their views) this gives people a platform to promote views in a way that is unfiltered and undistorted by the mainstream media if people choose to listen to what people have to say directly. Through his status as a celebrity, due to his large fan base that was built-up by other means Brand has a larger target audience than Benn or Chomsky have ever had, but not only this, through Youtube and through Twitter, its easier to engage with and access and share his views with other people, and the more people that hear his views and agree with him (and even his detractors think he's mostly saying the right things) the far likelier it is that such views will be accepted into the mainstream consciousness and the more likely it is that the changes that are need will occur. SOCIOLOGY? That's all you had to say
|
|