pandarilla Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 He has little substance though, specifically what do you agree with? It's akin to me saying 'Christmas is decent" of course people agree. Hardly interesting or debateable though! He gets to the truth about the problem very well in my opinion. Of course you're right - he's pretty light in terms of any solutions - but still... His personality and style means he connects with people who are unlikely to go off and read Chomsky (or any other high brow intellectual socialist). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SANTAN Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 He gets to the truth about the problem very well in my opinion. Of course you're right - he's pretty light in terms of any solutions - but still... His personality and style means he connects with people who are unlikely to go off and read Chomsky (or any other high brow intellectual socialist). I think we are essentially agreeing now tbh! He's kind hearted but effectively a glorified cheerleader for lefties who can't form their own opinions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky88 Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Massively out of his depth on political issues, uses lots of big words as a substitute for knowledge. Actually don't mind him as a stans up/ presenter though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BradHorse Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Historically there has always been a ruling class then everyone else, of course, but it's only in relatively recent times that the common people have become broadly literate and educated. With these developments it's not surprising that more and more people are questioning whether there could be a fairer system, as I believe the majority of humans have higher moral standards than you give us credit for. Although I've never been a fan of his I agree with much of what Russell Brand says, but I don't claim to have all the solutions either. I don't think that's a prerequisite for merely being aware that things can be better than they are. Spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BradHorse Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Have you any inclination what this fairer system might entail or is it just the typical "there must be more" argument? What moral standards have I attributed? Must have missed that! Things can be better than they are is as applicable as saying I want to shit slush puppies but unfortunately reality and actuality is pretty similar... Well, the greatest minds in the world debate communism vs. socialism vs. capitalism et all, to ask a member of P&B to come up with the ultimate solution is stretching it a bit far, no? Nobody on here, as far as I can tell, is saying that they, or indeed Mr Brand have the solution to end all world anguish and bring peace to mankind; what the general theme seems to be is that we should continue striving for that. Why shouldn't we? You're saying we should all just keep shitting slush puppies? Or something? I don't even know what you're getting at, the only good thing slush puppies are for is hangovers. Edit - To be fair, slush puppies really are fucking amazing on a hangover. At 9.30am on a Sunday, if I had a choice between world peace and an ice cold blueberry slush puppie, you would all be on a fast track to WW3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 He's certainly a celeb who i have gone from hating to liking, him and Roy Keane have grown on me over the past few months. If i had 3 more i could think of i would start a thread about it in top 5s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SANTAN Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Well, the greatest minds in the world debate communism vs. socialism vs. capitalism et all, to ask a member of P&B to come up with the ultimate solution is stretching it a bit far, no? Nobody on here, as far as I can tell, is saying that they, or indeed Mr Brand have the solution to end all world anguish and bring peace to mankind; what the general theme seems to be is that we should continue striving for that. Why shouldn't we? You're saying we should all just keep shitting slush puppies? Or something? I don't even know what you're getting at, the only good thing slush puppies are for is hangovers. Edit - To bebe fair, slush puppies really are fucking amazing on a hangover. At 9.30am on a Sunday, if I had a choice between world peace and an ice cold blueberry slush puppie, you would all be on a fast track to WW3. No I don't. Steven Hawkings might have a log in, you're doing yourself a disservice here! Seriously though I do expect alternatives to be proposed otherwise it's just hype. I don't think their is an alternative system that would work otherwise we would be using it, history is the reason we are where we are, for our system to be different then there would have had to be serious differences in history and what we've acquired and learned as a society. If the Venetians never invented glass then the west might have never got into bed with consumerism and we might be communists but evidently history has happened. World peace is a faulty concept, it completely disregards animal instinct and survival of the fittest. Humans aren't lovey dovey, "Here's an apple, can I get a carrot? Sure mate!" Doesn't happen, our survival instinct is to obtain power. Would you sacrifice your whole family for 2 other better peoples families to survive? Course not, you're self serving, naturally! I was saying don't be deluded into thinking we're not products of the society WE built. I'll be able to die happy when I own a slush puppy makermaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zetterlund Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 So if humans are all mindless, self-serving animals driven by instsinct, why do we (generally) live in mutually beneficial societies with respect for others' lives, property, money etc? You might suggest we do so out of a self-serving desire to protect ourselves from punishment for breaking the laws which 'control' us, but that would be suggesting that we all instinctively want to murder our neighbours for the contents of their fridge. More likely, we are social creatures with the intelligence and awareness to realise that it's for the benefit of everyone to exist in a civilised society. The negative traits you attribute to the entire human race occur in a percentage of the population of course - they're known as sociopaths or psychopaths. Funnily enough these are handy traits to have if you aspire to be in a position of power. I don't have a 'survival instinct' to obtain power. I would just like to see someone in power who doesn't consider it progress when our country surpasses 100 billionaires while the dependence of the poorest on foodbanks also increases. Is this just unavoidable as a result of human nature? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotlandGer Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Just thought I'd post this Trews. It's pretty interesting and he also has a wee reference to the Parklife meme. And, this one about the US mid-terms is pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SANTAN Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 So if humans are all mindless, self-serving animals driven by instsinct, why do we (generally) live in mutually beneficial societies with respect for others' lives, property, money etc? You might suggest we do so out of a self-se rving desire to protect ourselves from punishment for breaking the laws which 'control' us, but that would be suggesting that we all instinctively want to murder our neighbours for the contents of their fridge. More likely, we are social creatures with the intelligence and awareness to realise that it's for the benefit of everyone to exist in a civilised society. The negative traits you attribute to the entire human race occur in a percentage of the population of course - they're known as sociopaths or psychopaths. Funnily enough these are handy traits to have if you aspire to be in a position of power. I don't have a 'survival instinct' to obtain power. I would just like to see someone in power who doesn't consider it progress when our country surpasses 100 billionaires while the dependence of the poorest on foodbanks also increases. Is this just unavoidable as a result of human nature? Apologies I never meant that everybody is self serving, mindless etc.. You hit the nail on the head, it's the sociopaths that end up in the power positions. I do think it's an unavoidable, natural occurance. Nice guys finish last type theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom McB Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 So if humans are all mindless, self-serving animals driven by instsinct, why do we (generally) live in mutually beneficial societies with respect for others' lives, property, money etc? You might suggest we do so out of a self-serving desire to protect ourselves from punishment for breaking the laws which 'control' us, but that would be suggesting that we all instinctively want to murder our neighbours for the contents of their fridge. That is a recent development and many historians would point out that the establishemnt of codified laws within communities brought respect for lives property etc, read "Leviathan". Don't forget Smith It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. also I don't have a 'survival instinct' to obtain power. I would just like to see someone in power who doesn't consider it progress when our country surpasses 100 billionaires while the dependence of the poorest on foodbanks also increases. Is this just unavoidable as a result of human nature? You do know that Norway, that epitome of Scandi socialism has foodbanks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paranoid android Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 That is a recent development and many historians would point out that the establishemnt of codified laws within communities brought respect for lives property etc, read "Leviathan". Salus populia suprema lex esto (the most important law is that which concerns the safety of the people) - from Leviathan (and elsewhere) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom McB Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Salus populia suprema lex esto (the most important law is that which concerns the safety of the people) - from Leviathan (and elsewhere) Populi, not populia but yep, defo part of Leviathan. Good book in many ways. Meanwhile, Brand does summat good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 Not entirely sure what the ins and outs of the row were but a lot of people calling Brand a hypocrite but should he really be made to feel this way for having a bit of money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForzaDundee Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForzaDundee Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 Not entirely sure what the ins and outs of the row were but a lot of people calling Brand a hypocrite but should he really be made to feel this way for having a bit of money? Establishment are scared of mass mobilisation so aim to divide and rule to dilute the voice of the movement that Russell Brand is building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 Establishment are scared of mass mobilisation so aim to divide and rule to dilute the voice of the movement that Russell Brand is building. The journalists comments just acted as deflection really as if Brand should feel guilty for having money and deflecting away from the real inequality issues that we face! I suppose i have judged Brand over the years as he often acts quite shifty when put on the spot light but when he's doing his own videos you can see him a lot more chilled out and sensible than he comes across in videos like the one i posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamamafegan Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 I couldn't care less if he's rich. He wants to help those less fortunate than him and give a voice to the people and that by my book makes him a pretty sound c**t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom McB Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 I suppose i have judged Brand over the years as he often acts quite shifty when put on the spot light but when he's doing his own videos you can see him a lot more chilled out and sensible than he comes across in videos like the one i posted. So when someone puts questions to him he comes the c**t but when he has total editorial control he doesn't. He has issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.