Russell Brand has interview with Jemery Paxman, gets people excited at the prospect of 'Revolution' - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42642625]Source? Source? Immigration doesn't cause unemployment. Welfare spongers have microscopic numbers. Cough what's the problem exactly you are trying to identify? We're leaving the bust of the boom and bust cycle at the moment anyways.[/QUOTE] The area i live in and the things i see with my own eyes is my source at first hand, there is no written source. If you live in a decent area where job prospects are high then good for you. I don't.

[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;42643274]The area i live in and the things i see with my own eyes is my source at first hand, there is no written source. If you live in a decent area where job prospects are high then good for you. I don't.[/QUOTE] What a completely useless and unreliable source you are then. What you see and what actually happens are completely different.

[QUOTE=Camundongo;42639961]Actually, the last revolution in Britain was in 1688, where King James II was overthrown by William of Orange, backed by Parliament, and was basically the end of the absolute monarchy, and the rise of Parliament's power. Never seems to get taught much in schools though.[/QUOTE] everybody knows about that, but it was also sort of an invasion and i dont have any jokes about it.

[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;42643274]The area i live in and the things i see with my own eyes is my source at first hand, there is no written source. If you live in a decent area where job prospects are high then good for you. I don't.[/QUOTE] Ok but we are working with at least a modicum of statistical information. Not even bothered enough to link me to a big article or some cherrypicked and misrepresented statistic?

man I've become completely apathetic of the shit he's talking about kind of depressing

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;42643851]man I've become completely apathetic of the shit he's talking about kind of depressing[/QUOTE] Maybe because you realize that he's an actor, and his job is to literally say what the audience wants to hear to win them over?

Who cares, Russell Brand is a dick and a misogynist. Why would we want a revolution of any kind to spawn out of this guy, when there are plenty of other people, groups, and ideologies that would do a much better job at fixing the problems he is talking about. [editline]25th October 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;42642747]This is more or less how democracies operate anyways. Politicians pick popular ideas, and generally, popular ideas tend to be good ones. And while people may complain about "ohhh democracy in the west is actually controlled by the capitalists/FEMA/jews/godless/muslims/etc", well no. People in these countries genuinely do influence government policy all the time, life slowly changes, life is getting better. For many minority groups and countries, things certainly have improved massively in the past half century.[/QUOTE] This is mostly true, though there are plenty of examples of things getting worse in the last few years, especially in the United States, like Nixon's well executed plan to revive Conservative thinking following the Civil Rights movement, leading to things like Proposition 13, Reagan, Fox News, and the fact wages have not increased along with productivity and living costs since the late seventies. etc

I listed to about 20 seconds and Brand is the biggest tool I've ever heard. He spouts more vague, feelgood ideas, than anyone I've ever heard. Half the time he's talking I want to say, "I don't think that word means what you think it means. Some examples: 1) "I don't get my authority from this pre-existing paradigm, which is quite narrow, that only serves a few people... alternative means, alternative political systems." Interviewer responds with,"They being...?" Brand: "Well, I've not invented it yet!" Is that not the most bullshit answer anyone's ever heard? He basically said, "This system is terrible, but I have no alternative, but I have good ideas, I promise." 2) "The burden of proof is on the people with power not people doing a magazine." I'm not sure he even knows what burden of proof means. He claims that this system is bad and that there are better systems and then says he doesn't bare the burden of proof to prove his claim. 3) He's asked, "You're blaming the political class for the fact that you had a drug problem?" He answers with," No, no, no... I was part of a social and economic class that is underserved by the current political system and drug addiction is one of the problems it creates." So he's basically saying, "No, they didn't cause my drug addiction, but my drug addiction is their fault." His arguments are so incoherent that I can't take him seriously. All this was in the first 3 minutes of the interview. Sorry, but Brand is an absolute joke. [editline]25th October 2013[/editline] I think the interviewer's comment of, "You are a very trivial man" pretty much sums it up. Any time an easy, but realistic, question is asked he can't answer it. a He's the ultimate sophist, in ever sense of the word.

[QUOTE=person11;42644255]Who cares, Russell Brand is a dick and a misogynist. [/QUOTE] His defense of his treatment of Andrew Sachs was hilarious and inline with his usual bullshit. He separated himself from the situation and placed himself in a position where the criticism couldn't apply to him, sure he apologized but he blamed the incident on Jonathan Ross and the spontaneousness of the whole situation. [QUOTE=sgman91;42644567] Brand bashing[/QUOTE] Hit the nail on the head there lad (lass?),he hides behind purple prose to dazzle you into thinking he has a grand plan when its nothing but a facade. Its funny that the people who fall for his schtick are the same who complain about charismatic politicians who have no actual policy. He's doing a poor mans impression of Patrice Oneal but covering the holes and his shallowness with a large vocabulary.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42642747]This is more or less how democracies operate anyways. Politicians pick popular ideas, and generally, popular ideas tend to be good ones. And while people may complain about "ohhh democracy in the west is actually controlled by the capitalists/FEMA/jews/godless/muslims/etc", well no. People in these countries genuinely do influence government policy all the time, life slowly changes, life is getting better. For many minority groups and countries, things certainly have improved massively in the past half century.[/QUOTE] this is absolutely not the case in the united states and good job strawmanning the argument that democracy is the united states is quite broken. gay marriage is a popular idea among the people, so is marijuana legalization. why are the politicians not jumping on these popular ideas? because it doesn't serve their interests. political activism requires a lot of time, effort, and money. those with capital have an immense advantage over other people in exerting political influence. those without capital are forced into wage slavery which leaves them with little time to be politically active. representatives often do not represent the people and can make their own decisions with little consequence because politicians tend to be elected on the basis of charisma, background, and basically everything EXCEPT their stance on important issues. add in legal bribery (lobbying, campaign donations), gerrymandering, poor political representation for minorities, a widening gap between rich and poor, and it becomes pretty fair to say that life is most certainly NOT getting better. the US has been on a smooth downward glide since the 1970s. it is not a stretch at all to say capitalists are calling most of the shots here. [editline]25th October 2013[/editline] it's not some evil conspiracy that your strawman implies, it's people exploiting an easily exploitable system.

Ironically, the 70's were the years where progressive really started to get power. I, personally, don't think that's a coincidence. Welfare started to rise exponentially in the 70's, business regulation started to spike up, etc. Even the least regulated years in modern times were nothing compared to pre 1970's America.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;42644956]gay marriage is a popular idea among the people, so is marijuana legalization. why are the politicians not jumping on these popular ideas? because it doesn't serve their interests.[/QUOTE] Despite the fact that states are legalizing both all the time at the moment? [quote]political activism requires a lot of time, effort, and money. those with capital have an immense advantage over other people in exerting political influence. those without capital are forced into wage slavery [/quote] This 19th century nonsense again? Wage slavery means people like those in Dubai not people in America. [quote]add in legal bribery (lobbying, campaign donations),[/quote] I don't see how politics is possible without either. Believe it or not, groups like Greenpeace, PETA, feminists, LGBT groups, etc all use lobbying. [quote]the US has been on a smooth downward glide since the 1970s.[/quote] In the 1970s it was illegal to be homosexual.

Never get into an argument with Russell Brand. You will get your ass handed to you.

[QUOTE=iJeax;42645062]Never get into an argument with Russell Brand. You will get your ass handed to you.[/QUOTE] Yeah, he's better at spouting bullshit than most people.

[QUOTE=iJeax;42645062]Never get into an argument with Russell Brand. You will get your ass handed to you.[/QUOTE] He literally bullshits through everything. "Could you give me one example?" "Oh no I can't do that, too much hard work"

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42645109]He literally bullshits through everything. "Could you give me one example?" "Oh no I can't do that, too much hard work"[/QUOTE] If the guy wanted to argue about something, whether he knew what he was talking about or not, he'd make you look stupid just based on his vast vocabulary. He's an intelligent mother fucker.

[QUOTE=iJeax;42645147]If the guy wanted to argue about something, whether he knew what he was talking about or not, he'd make you look stupid just based on his vast vocabulary. He's an intelligent mother fucker.[/QUOTE] Ok so he calls for a revolution. These questions were asked, and not satisfactorily answered: What will happen in this revolution? What system will it produce? How will resources be extracted, refined, and allocated? What political system will be utilized? on and on Also I don't get how he has a vast vocabulary because he repeats the same fucking thing multiple times.

He couldn't even answer the ridiculously easy and foundational question of, "How will the people in charge be selected?" [editline]25th October 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=iJeax;42645147]If the guy wanted to argue about something, whether he knew what he was talking about or not, he'd make you look stupid just based on his vast vocabulary. He's an intelligent mother fucker.[/QUOTE] Memorizing words doesn't make you smart. Plus, half the time he doesn't even use his "vast vocabulary" correctly.

[QUOTE=person11;42644255]Who cares, Russell Brand is a dick and a misogynist. Why would we want a revolution of any kind to spawn out of this guy, when there are plenty of other people, groups, and ideologies that would do a much better job at fixing the problems he is talking about.[/QUOTE] Does he not say this in the interview???

[QUOTE=Explosions;42644076]Maybe because you realize that he's an actor, and his job is to literally say what the audience wants to hear to win them over?[/QUOTE] I mean the issues he mentioned like income disparity and climate change I used to be on the same page as people but now all I care about is that gas and groceries are cheap

Well if you want to listen to someone who says stuff similar to brand but can actually articulate what is trying to be said here. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgR6uaVqWsQ[/media]

[QUOTE=sgman91;42644567]I listed to about 20 seconds and Brand is the biggest tool I've ever heard. He spouts more vague, feelgood ideas, than anyone I've ever heard. Half the time he's talking I want to say, "I don't think that word means what you think it means. Some examples: 1) "I don't get my authority from this pre-existing paradigm, which is quite narrow, that only serves a few people... alternative means, alternative political systems." Interviewer responds with,"They being...?" Brand: "Well, I've not invented it yet!" Is that not the most bullshit answer anyone's ever heard? He basically said, "This system is terrible, but I have no alternative, but I have good ideas, I promise." 2) "The burden of proof is on the people with power not people doing a magazine." I'm not sure he even knows what burden of proof means. He claims that this system is bad and that there are better systems and then says he doesn't bare the burden of proof to prove his claim. 3) He's asked, "You're blaming the political class for the fact that you had a drug problem?" He answers with," No, no, no... I was part of a social and economic class that is underserved by the current political system and drug addiction is one of the problems it creates." So he's basically saying, "No, they didn't cause my drug addiction, but my drug addiction is their fault." His arguments are so incoherent that I can't take him seriously. All this was in the first 3 minutes of the interview. Sorry, but Brand is an absolute joke. [editline]25th October 2013[/editline] I think the interviewer's comment of, "You are a very trivial man" pretty much sums it up. Any time an easy, but realistic, question is asked he can't answer it. a He's the ultimate sophist, in ever sense of the word.[/QUOTE] 1. He is another person [I]bringing attention to an issue[/I]. He is suggesting that alternate political systems need to be considered in place of the current one which he perceives to be unsatisfactory. Asking him to detail an entirely new system of governance during a brief interview in a hotel room is completely absurd, as Russell said. That does not make what he is saying automatically invalid. 2. He is saying that the current government in power needs to prove to the public itself that it does exist to serve the public interest in a satisfactory way. Do you want to people to take a lie detector test when they say that they aren't happy with the current government?? Proof enough of what he's saying may lie in rising dissatisfaction with the government. 3. He's actually saying 'The politicians themselves didn't literally personally cause my drug addiction, What contributed to its formation were inadequate policies that don't help address social issues (namely drug abuse in this instance) within the underclass'. Read up about social determinants of health.

[QUOTE=ayaki;42647899]1. He is another person [I]bringing attention to an issue[/I]. He is suggesting that alternate political systems need to be considered in place of the current one which he perceives to be unsatisfactory. Asking him to detail an entirely new system of governance during a brief interview in a hotel room is completely absurd, as Russell said. That does not make what he is saying automatically invalid.[/QUOTE] Claims need to be backed up. If you have no alternative then it isn't useful to bash the current system. For example, I don't like that everyone can't have infinite wealth, but it would be nonsensical to bash the fact that people don't have infinite wealth because I know of no possible way for it to happen. [QUOTE]2. He is saying that the current government in power needs to prove to the public itself that it does exist to serve the public interest in a satisfactory way. Do you want to people to take a lie detector test when they say that they aren't happy with the current government?? Proof enough of what he's saying may lie in rising dissatisfaction with the government.[/QUOTE] No, he said the burden of proof of HIS CLAIM lies on those in power. He made a claim and when questioned about it he pushed the burden of proof on others. That's a logical fallacy. A system not being perfect isn't an argument against that system. So pointing out problems is only an argument if you have a better system that gets rid of those problems. [QUOTE]3. He's actually saying 'The politicians themselves didn't literally personally cause my drug addiction, What contributed to its formation were inadequate policies that don't help address social issues (namely drug abuse in this instance) within the underclass'. Read up about social determinants of health.[/QUOTE] Politicians make policy, policy makes drug addiction, therefore politicians make drug addiction. I'm fine with him blaming politicians for drug abuse (I think he would be wrong, but that's besides the point), but he isn't even consistent. [editline]25th October 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=NoDachi;42647744]Well if you want to listen to someone who says stuff similar to brand but can actually articulate what is trying to be said here. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgR6uaVqWsQ[/media][/QUOTE] I listened to the entire thing and other than general critiques of anti-capitalists (basically of Brand himself) the only real point he makes is that he wants universal healthcare.

[QUOTE=benwaddi;42644889] He's doing a poor mans impression of Patrice Oneal but covering the holes and his shallowness with a large vocabulary.[/QUOTE] um how is this in any way an impression of patrice oneal? Not trying to be a dick to you but I really can't see the similarity, "poor man" version or not

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;42649666]um how is this in any way an impression of patrice oneal? Not trying to be a dick to you but I really can't see the similarity, "poor man" version or not[/QUOTE] Trying to break down the situation to explain how and why its happening, Patrice usually kept it to relationships and race relations but its the same concept. Not many comedians do that, Carlin and Hicks just complained about situations without looking at the reason why. I think listening to [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._P_%28album%29"]Mr. P[/URL] whilst typing the post made me write that.

[QUOTE=SCopE5000;42637945]And you assume that anyone who isn't a 'greedy fuck at the top' isn't greedy at all right? The majority of people who complain about distribution of wealth - if suddenly given abundant wealth, would instantly blow most of it on houses, cars, long holidays and all the superficial things they think will make their 'lives better' or make them and their friends 'happy' because that's what people do. That's the expectation that most people hold. Rich people aren't the only ones who are greedy, people in general are greedy.[/quote] You're right, power corrupts and that's exactly why a political system has to address that and not give people to much money and power and, in stead, has to redistribute that wealth so as to not give people the impression that they're some elite class just because they can afford shit. [quote]Adopt something different (like non-capitalism) and you'll find people eventually wanting more and more anyway, to make their 'lives better', because that's what people do - and eventually the good intentions that underlie causes get twisted out of shape when someone who's good at talking/persuading/fighting comes along. The expectation I speak of is the driving force of capitalism itself. The expectation that money (success) = happiness, and that money/success lets you buy all the things that 'make your life better' and 'make you happy'. Happiness, like success (the driving forces of bothering to do anything), can only exist when there is a contrast to draw to them. Thus, duality comes about. (With the system of currency, the success is required to get the reward [regulated] and that forms the drive to continue succeeding/working).[/quote] You're talking a lot about people on the whole. You can't say what all people are like and what they do because I'd wager the only people you've ever met in your life (at least the people who are like what you're referring to) were born and raised in a monetary system all about hierarchies and class, who start learning on the day of their birth that there are people more important than them, that their lives are enhanced by having money, that happiness comes from materialism etc. etc. I read a study about a man who was pissed off that all the major studies that seemed to define what people thought about human behaviour were all carried out in predominately white Western capitalist countries so he took the tests from some of these studies and carried them out in a load of different cultures like the gift-giving culture in some Asian countries as well as a cut-off African tribe and the results were always very different. The point is, you can't talk about 'what people do' because how we are is defined almost entirely by our society and, the hope is, if we lived in a fair society without so much emphasis on being better than everyone else, people would be raised to look for other ways of acquiring happiness. [quote]This isn't even an issue of society, this is simply what people do. When you get what you want, it lasts about a week, and then you want something else. When you get everything you ever wanted all at once, it lasts a few weeks and then you start questioning the point of it all.[/quote] Perhaps that is what people are like when it comes to things they want. I think it's depressing, however, that you seem to rink the only way people get that is through getting money and being better than their fellow man, that the ultimate happiness in our system is to be the richest while everyone else suffers as poor. There's a lot of happiness to be had from helping our fellow man. The happiest I've ever been was not by buying something, not by getting money or material possessions but by being with my friends. Humans are social beings, money just seems to be a distraction from that and that's wrong and that's exactly why we need a system that's not so fixated on it.

[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;42650506]Perhaps that is what people are like when it comes to things they want. I think it's depressing, however, is that you seem to rink the only way people get that is through getting money and being better than their fellow man, that the ultimate happiness in our system is to be the richest while everyone else suffers as poor. There's a lot of happiness to be had from helping our fellow man. The happiest I've ever been was not by buying something, not by getting money or material possessions but by being with my friends. Humans are social beings, money just seems to be a distraction from that and that's wrong and that's exactly why we need a system that's not so fixated on it.[/QUOTE] Exactly. A system that glorifies what it describes as "individualism" and "self-interest" just leads to less people being less interested in activities that result in overall social gains as people (no, not all of them) just look out for themselves. If what was encouraged was really "individualism" and "self-interest" then it would have to cater for the fact that the expression of either of those things is inherently dependent on the neglected social aspect of human behaviour.

[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;42650506]You're right, power corrupts and that's exactly why a political system has to address that and not give people to much money and power and, in stead, has to redistribute that wealth so as to not give people the impression that they're some elite class just because they can afford shit.[/QUOTE] It must be managed well though. Redistributing wealth is difficult and the more moved around by the state, the more incompetently mishandled it becomes.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42649608]Claims need to be backed up. If you have no alternative then it isn't useful to bash the current system.[/quote] Ignoring that Brand actually did suggest an alternative eventually (it sounded a lot like socialism) and the fact that, as Brand seemed to suggest, there are a number of other people far more qualified who have come up with these systems, yes it fucking is. The only way an ordinary person can try and start bringing about change and ultimately make people's lives better is to complain and protest. Not everyone has the ability to come up with a utopian society off the top of their head but it's awful to suggest that they can't still see the massive problems in our society. There are plenty of people suggesting alternatives. [quote]For example, I don't like that everyone can't have infinite wealth, but it would be nonsensical to bash the fact that people don't have infinite wealth because I know of no possible way for it to happen.[/quote] Right yeah and I can't see how pigs can fly so society isn't going to get any better. Honestly, that's not a good argument. Having infinite wealth is a bit different to changing a political system so that it can remove economic disparity, stop destroying the planet, stop being full of corruption etc. [quote]No, he said the burden of proof of HIS CLAIM lies on those in power. He made a claim and when questioned about it he pushed the burden of proof on others. That's a logical fallacy.[/quote] Well kind of. I believe he meant that it should be up to those in power to prove that they're the ones who are right - while Brand supposedly isn't an political expert, they are [quote]A system not being perfect isn't an argument against that system. So pointing out problems is only an argument if you have a better system that gets rid of those problems.[/quote] A system not being perfect? This system is far from perfect. There's such a disgusting disparity of wealth when you compare the richest to the poor and that's absolutely what the system creates. [quote]Politicians make policy, policy makes drug addiction, therefore politicians make drug addiction. I'm fine with him blaming politicians for drug abuse (I think he would be wrong, but that's besides the point), but he isn't even consistent.[/quote] He's not blaming politicians, he's blaming the system he lives in. Capitalism is all about having a rich elite who run corporations, make profit and invest and a poor working class who work for them and, supposedly, some of the rich elite's money trickles down through layers of management eventually to the working class. But a corporation isn't about helping people, it's not there for the purpose of paying the working class, why should it be? It's a cliché term, but a corporation is a profit driven mechanism. It's sole purpose is to make money in whatever way necessary. If you have fully free market capitalism, the disparity only widens because the corporations make more and more profit at the expense of their workers, reduce wages, lay people off increasing unemployment, all the while still accepting big fucking bonuses, not giving a shit that it's affecting real peoples lives. The government is basically in their hands through lobbying and investment and the fact that most of them are part of it - rich businessmen, not real working people - so much so that now, at least here in the UK and certainly the US, there's nobody you can vote for that's going to do something about it, the parties only disagree on the extent to which you should regulate capitalism. There sore smaller parties with no chance of gaining power any time soon and there's now no chance of someone coming to power through another party who wants to bring these changes. Basically, we're trapped in this system. As I said earlier, money and power corrupts (with exceptions obviously), so the people who have to power to change things are already corrupted by the system and work to keep it in place. So this perpetual system creates huge disparity leading to, at the very bottom, a working class struggling to find work with a developing drug/drink problem. That's why it's the system's fault. I don't think you can blame the politicians themselves, rather the system they are trapped in and maintain. It's not an issue of policy, nobody's going to make the 'abolish capitalism' policy. They're too trapped in the system. Yeah, I just fired off an insane number of clichés but that doesn't make them any less true and isn't a means to lesser my argument.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42644567] 1) "I don't get my authority from this pre-existing paradigm, which is quite narrow, that only serves a few people... alternative means, alternative political systems." Interviewer responds with,"They being...?" Brand: "Well, I've not invented it yet!" Is that not the most bullshit answer anyone's ever heard? He basically said, "This system is terrible, but I have no alternative, but I have good ideas, I promise." [/QUOTE] Hmm if you are going to criticize someone's answers can you like not cherry pick? He didn't say he have good ideas he just replied to what Paxman ask which is whether someone who had never voted in his life could edit a political magazine and he replied that he get his authority not from the pre-existing paradigm (according to him is quite narrow and only serves a few people) but look elsewhere for alternatives that might be of service to humanity(the part you conveniently miss by the way). This is not a political dialogue. This is just a interview on why anyone should consider reading on what he (someone who has never voted in his life) has to say. [QUOTE=person11;42644255][B]Who cares, Russell Brand is a dick and a misogynist. [/B] Why would we want a revolution of any kind to spawn out of this guy, when there are plenty of other people, groups, and ideologies that would do a much better job at fixing the problems he is talking about.[/quote] Isn't that an ad hominem? Anyway he didn't even say he wants to start a "revolution" (somewhat calling for it instead). Hell the word didn't even came up until Paxman mentioned it and he answered him. Also that is his point basically(unless I am mistaken) which is to look out and write about people, groups, and ideologies that would do a much better job. Am I missing something here? I didn't read the article thorough because the writer seems to be sucking Brand's dick so whatever idea about the "revolution" I inferred from the video itself. I am not exactly sure why you guys disputing about this. Anyway, Brand has never really been serious in terms of interacting with someone so it would be quite incoherent when he tries to make jokes instead of answering seriously sometimes.