Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
JFC. What an utterly thunderous bellend.
(wasn't Eddie izzard meant to be doing this?)
which is all well and good, but it's not going to happen if Labour win this time around and the candidate wants a second term.
it's not as if he's not making some good points; but I feel like, when it comes to what he's offering up as an alternative, he's got far too much confidence in this vague idea of revolution without understanding that the blank canvass of anarchy doesn't necessarily have to, and therefore isn't necessarily going to, give birth to the utopian society that he specifically seems to have in mind.
what a thunderous bellend eh?
getting the numbers wrong ffd
who does he think he is?
i think you've missed the point completely there creaks.
He's just 'invented' corporation tax. Which Tesco is already paying.
before waffling out more utter bollocks.
now who's being naive
me being a little naive isn't going to cause an issue. He is. He flies the flag for 'in my humble opinion' armchair politics.
their opinions seem more lowbrow, hang on they're (political parties) all lowbrow, at least all the discussion that we hear about is.....with just enough detail and granularity (to cover the day-to-day (in this case 'day' could longer than a day) which is sufficient to fool the public into thinking they are not niave in the medium to longer term.
(actually it may also be inaccurate to describe UKIP as 'humble opinion armchair politics'.....more like arrogant opinion toiletseat (rim......apparently some men NEVER put the seat down.....even for number 2's) politics
it's UKIP. And Brand.
are you saying that people running in elections are thunderous bellends?
are you saying Jesus Christ is thunderous bellend?
are you saying that Russel Brand is a thunderous bellend?
Or are you saying Russell brand is a bellend because hes running for political post? and if so is it because he is a) russel brand b) a comedian c) A celebrity? d) someone who isn't in an established political party (who might not have a detailed (although flawed or deceiptful/lying) manifesto?)
If it is d) then I am doubtful as to whether or not a detailed yet incorrect/illogical or lying manifesto disqualifies you from being a bellend, in fact not lying about where you have doubt is surely a non-bellendish thing to do, rather than deceiving the public into believing something that is not certain or true.
Perhaps honest/niave/sincerity is more bellendish than pragmatic short term realistic deceipt
on any level, and has in fact offered, strongly, that people shouldn't be voting at all. Bellend.
I'm saying fucking Johann Hari works with him on his intertron atrocities he produces. *Bellend*
And more than anything he just sort of has a go at sounding bright on whatever subject he's tripped over into on any given day without anything in the way of real consideration other than....the scripts of Johann Hari? *Mechabellend*.
asking them to vote for him? wha?)
I do not know who Johan Hari is.......I shall find out about this person and get back to you, alas it may be a while, I have to visit my mum
IS the system working properly?
you don't tell everyone not to back it and then run for mayor. Fuck they system guys! but... don't worry I'm erm... I'm going to...take it down from the inside?
Often it is most effective method to take down from the inside.
Systems tend to protect themselves by hardening their shell against the outside.
Political parties can often damage themselves from within, far more effectively than the opposition parties can from without.
I don't disagree with your point though
dissembled by somebody with some skill from within
personally preferred the longer version
MARLON: We're getting lots of telephone letters Roscoe
ROSCOE: Hang on (kicks a football out the window, puts his hand on his brow to signify looking a distance) I think I got it on the green, Marlon
MARLON: I think the messages are about the congestion charge
ROSCOE: How did they know about what I did in the toilet
MARLON: I think there is a leak
ROSCOE: Well yes my leaky back end is how that mighty charge congested the toilet in the first place
[ham-fisted attempt at satire]
Tynchy can help them with focussing them on London
Would probably vote for him, but i dont live in London.
having spoken out against the system doesn't preclude him from being part of it. ways to achieve power and effect political change: 1) peaceful; 2) violent. and seeing as peaceful protest basically has no effect in the western world, if you want peaceful political change, you have to 'play the system'.
if it makes him a hypocrite, that's fine. hypocrisy is the natural state of humanity. i don't trust people who call out hypocrisy at every turn as if they're not - they're either lying, kidding themselves, or worse.
not saying i'd vote for him, but this is essentially about people who don't want any revolution, telling him he's going about revolution the wrong way.
I mean it's certainly a bit rich to say 'don't vote' and then ask people to vote for you, but equally I'm to the hind teeth with entitled wankshafts being posted on Facebook claiming Brand's talking rubbish and you HAVE to vote otherwise you can't complain. What utter, utter shit. If there was event a smidgen of decency or honour in more than a couple of MPs this might be a point worth making, but they're all 'thunderous bellends'. None of them are worth voting for.
but that goes without saying.
but argues that you dont have to be perfect to desire change.
just folk holding others to higher standards than they hold themselves
And actually the hypocrisy angle is probably the least annoying thing. If anything being a hypocrite is perfect for the current state of politics.
For me it's that it's very easy for privileged people to idly decide they'd like a revolution without deciding what happens on the other side of it. He's not actually trying to engage with ideas towards a solution to anything, at all. He's leveraging public dissatisfaction to increase his celebrity. And he's doing it in collaboration with that utter ballsack Hari.
I have no problem with those who don't vote either. That's a part of democracy. But Theo below basically sums it up inadvertently. None of them are worth voting for, sure. But that includes Brand. They're all thunderous bellends - just because one has a Youtube channel and fingerless gloves and says revolution inbetween godawful faux-Dickensian wafflings doesn't make him different.
(but not as funny)
As is he regarding his most recent Newsnight performance.
Any of the many `Brandites` on this site gonna read his book?
Was he at West Ham much last season when they weren't winning?
a few months ago. He was telling the lady he was with as she texted while walking that he thought doing that was a false economy, you'd be better off stopping, texting and then walking again.
Maybe I would vote for him.
The Better Together parties will reunite and stop him by any possible means. I reckon they'll not engage with his policies, just start a smear campaign and dig out any old skeletons in his cupboards. Drugs, sex, anything sleazy, it's all gonna come out.
and it won't take smear campaigns to stop him. Yet again it'll come down to a personality contest between the Labour candidate and the Tory candidate in the absence of a big name backed by the Lib Dems or Greens.
I'm a bit slow after a week off sick last week!
It's hard to attack someone for things they've talked about openly on national television. Much easier to make political capital out of secrets.
just have to read any comments section on a piece about him and someone will be blabbering on about how hes a drug addict and hes gonna be dead within a year.
Next time I'll be less subtle.
I don't think you could base a whole new society on him (!) but I think the stuff he says is really valuable
but not so much for his solutions. Saw quite a good piece the other week that suggested he missed his moment by going away to write a full book rather than a pamphlet and capitalising on his original Newsnight appearance at the time (if those are still a thing these days) which I think has something to it.
We're all well-versed in the problems of modern capitalism though. Brand articulates them in a very lucid and entertaining way, I'll grant him that. But there needs to be more to him than silver-tongued idealism...
i think its good to have a famous person with an audience bringing the attention of this stuff to people who might not normally care about it but i dont really agree with his answers. Dont think that really matters a great deal though. No one has all the answers.
a bit predictable. The Guardian snark fest contained the phrase "Beverley Hills Buddhism". Dont even know what that means.
Was this in Hadley Freeman's review? I don't remember it but her review is excellent.
I fink the problem is, he 'as been somewhat vociferous in 'is opprobrium to the way in which we designate dominion over the working man. If he is wanting to become an bigger part of what we see as the establishment, then he needs to cognize that he can't be seen as too capricious. What wiv his latest flip-floppy-wopping it seems like he may well be losing 'is touch wiv the 'ard-working proletariat
and attempts to control and belittle the interviewer who is female?
generally i think he's ok, and the people arguing against his "dont vote" message are completely failing to engage with what he's actually saying, which is, afaik, "let neoliberalism dig its own grave as fast as possible so we can pass through this painful period and into a genuine change" instead of how people present it which is "dont vote lol theyre all cuntz no point lets all just smoak wwed"
i don't know about the second para though. I get why people railing at him for the don't vote schtick is actually a pretty moot point, too. That's a low-level gripe for me.
I think he is doing an excellent and necessary job at the moment. Bringing people's attention to a number of lived-experiences that have struggled to get attention in the media.
Also, how much worse could he POSSIBLY be as mayor?? - you've seen who is there currently right? - surely someone vaguely humane who isn't utterly in thrall to the kind of policies that are ravaging people's lives would be an improvement of some degree... even if it was just as a moderating force or slight corrective.
"Bringing people's attention to a number of lived-experiences that have struggled to get attention in the media." He's a millionaire celebrity. Not entirely sure he's ever struggled with media attention before he vagued Paxo into a stupour.
Unless you mean he's bringing the media's attention to those dissatisfied and jaded by the system? Because no, he's not. He's bringing him back to him, making more and more profit from denouncing profit.
He makes me angry because he's no different to the shit currently staining the plush upholstery of Westminster, but he's understood that people are so desperate for him to be better that he can leverage that.
He was banging on about amplifying the voices of the firemans union strike and the New Era housing estate struggle ... seems valid enough considering he has probably shone a much needed light on them.
Also, I might be wrong, but I think the book's profit are for some sort of social enterprise.
But even being MASSIVELY cynical, say his motives aren't any better than your run of the mill MP, surely the popular support of his views would at least act as a corrective on the current monolithic bum-licking of neoliberalism that goes on across the parties?
just been watching more recent vids and you can certainly see where the game's been upped since he took on his chum.
I just... he's no less scattergun in just sort of having-a-go-at-saying-whatever-see-what-sticks than Boris. He's probably about as rich too.
I just find it maddening that he's so easily been able to create a character that makes others believe they can identify with him. You can't. He was a creature built for media exposure.
BUT .. I suppose I am suggesting that, at worst, he is a useful lie.
... in a world full of useless lies.
that brand hasn't swung from big ben in his underpants screaming 'power to the people'
If he really wanted to make a political difference he would be climbing down from his ivory tower and perhaps start finding out what this country really needs - and make a valuable contribution to finding a solution - not harping on about American conspiracy theories and spurting out stupidity that we should all not vote and that the government is out to get us. I don't mind that he has a past what I do mind is that he has this platform and instead of actually making a difference he's just using it to promote his very obvious narcissism
he regularly goes outdoors and talks to people
without youtubing it.
Also, his major bug-bears have been social housing, cuts to public services, privatization of the NHS ... etc. These are real issues, no?
Not even a fan tbh, but there doesn't seem to be much engagement with what he is saying here.
what is there to engage with?
calling for changes in inequality without having a definitive solution is worthless? Dont know what your angle is her apart from the fact you dsilike him, and some people he might associate with.
Feel like im having to defend him more than i want to here.
and people who have no solution at all. And he's the latter, imo. And I genuinely think he's just rinsing folk of their money. Bah humbug etc.
I think the more that is said the better, and the more people who hear about it, whatever the source, the better.
What makes you so sure about his motivations?
The infamous Paxman interview when he made 'Don't vote' statements surprisingly coencided with the release of his show Messiah complex. Then he goes quiet, now he;s piped up again and leading demonstrations through New York right when he has a new book released. You don't here anything from Brand unless he's promoting...well..his Brand. I'm sorry to be a cynic, but for me actions speak louder than words.
Especially seeing as the content of his books and shows is entirely congruent with the content of his interviews?
Maybe you're right. You don't hear anything from Brand... apart from when he's on one of his world tours. Presenting his ideas to audiences of literally thousands.
Seems fairly normal.
He does a youtube show almost daily so maybe you dont hear about him unless the main stream media is covering him but he talks about this stuff all the time for the people that want to hear it.
he won't run, I don't think he is being disingenuous and he might care but he has idea what to do about it.
could actually start a publically-noticed discussion on 'revolution', whether or not you like him.
so he's selling a book? great, people writing books all across the political spectrum do publicity around a book they're selling, generally in the spirit of said book. otherwise, people wouldn't know about the book and no-one would find out about their ideas.
the argument about him being a priveleged millionaire so how can he call for revolution? well, i'm fairly sure there are plenty of non-priveleged non-millionaires doing the same. except they're just normal folk going about daily lives. if they wrote a book, you'd never hear about it. would you be interested in it? i suspect you wouldn't.
Brand's ideas are vague and a bit crap, but fuck me if we couldn't use more people actually coming out with arguments of their own, putting a new argument out there rather than just saying X is shit, which is all the rest of this waste of a generation that sits on the internet making nothing better and some things worse seems to do. many people here are far more part of the problem than Russell Brand, despite how underwhelming his arguments might be
I think this is where we disagree. I don't think his ideas are crap for one: I don't think he has any ideas at all other than 'things are mean'.
Second, you see him being an alternative to people just consuming endless shit on the internet all day, and I see him as the natural evolution of it.
he gives them enough rope to look spectacularly phoney
Russell Brand could eviscerate the conjunctional normality and preternaturally obfuscate the British willies of oOoOoOoH silly people!
as Brand is.
The difference is that Brand dresses and acts like he is superficial and shallow as well, in a way it is a form of deconstruction, he may not totally intend it, but he is well aware (and revels in) being underestimated by people who are just as shallow and pompous but dress like they're not, dress like they believe in their own pomposity.
Brand is also not MORE more hypocritical, what he does is to not hide his inconsistancies.
Every argument that proposes 'Answers' (the lack of which is what seems o annoy people about Brands stance) is used by political parties/individuals, also rely on a degree of certainty that is false ans a lie, they fail to identify the true problems, because they tend to phrase and describe 'problems' in terms that will make their 'answers' fit.
What Brand is doing Is being more honest with the 'problem' description.
For a long time now people have been dealing with inexact inaccurate descriptions/ideas of the 'problems' (this is something that I always tried to do too.....but also with a lack of practical success)
Brand (and I (and others)) are not heartless monsters who want to wrest power with force of arms, so although we do not think that th ecurrent democratic voting process is fit for purpose, it is the only option for us to try to change......i.e. we have to try to overcome its inadequecies and nonfitforpurposeness, by being cleverer (but this is very difficult.....even more so because we do not believe that any particular type of people should be made to suffer disproportionately, we really do believe that everyone can love, be loved.
Brand may have been nastyish sometimes, he admits this, he feels ashamed of this, yet he doesn't m=necessarily hide it, (in the one autobiog, were he spits in the face of the woman who was his lover just a little earlier, is shocking and he knows its shameful and awful and ugly.......and yes he will continue to make mistakes and fall into traps, especially if he goes into territories that he hasn't before.
Many people seem to think that there is not good enough reason to 'abandon the rules' in the way in which he does, you think that the process that we have is better than the alternative.
From my pov the process we have is not better than the alternative, because the process that we have will not be sufficient to save us.
(blah blah blah creakyrant as per usual should be inserted here)
This is probably what Brand thinks too, hence he is doing something that you think is supremely arrogant and foolish, but it makes some sense to me as he far more charismatic and successful at communicating than I, I may think I have a more sophisticated, subtle understanding of the problems, but I don't possess the pre-requisite skills to convince people of something that requires them to see clearly through the influence of the extant systems which 'Appear' to be omnipotent due to their position at the top of the hierarchy.
But ultimately some of the truth he speaks about the problems of democracy will be undermined by his standing here regardless of the results
Just as the truths he speaks about misleading vapid mass media is diluted by his willing involvement in it
If he got on we might get more liberal drug laws in london, so that's good I suppose
is that it's ridiculous that a self-interested egomanical clown with no grasp of policy or details should entertain the thought of becoming Mayor.
He's no more or less qualified or capable of doing the job than Johnson is.
He was being really creepy to lindsay lohan, touching her and stuff and she was recoiling. It was uncomfortable viewing.
I quite liked him up until that point.
just saw the extract in his book about Tower 7 and controlled demolitions. truly a revolutionary for our times
Can't believe people are taking anything a 9/11 'truther' has to say at all seriously.