Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    Well yes. If he sits on his arse enjoying his wealth he would be criticised, if he gets involved and tries to help he is also criticised-can't win really.

    Although advising people not to vote is absurd.

    Why is it it absurd? If you don't agree with a) what ANY of the parties are offering or b) don't agree with the system in which voting takes place, then not voting at all seems fairly sensible, unless of course you think you should be voting people you don't like for no reason other than because you can.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    You are going to have to clarify to me how Russel Brands rent is relevant ???

    The only reason to have brought it up would be to distract from the issue at hand and reduce the argument to 'Russel Brand is rich so he can't help poor people'.
    It was a simple question. The journalist said something along the lines of aren't you adding to the problem being super rich and paying a huge amount of rent for a London property. Okay he didn't exactly say that but that is what he meant. Russell on the other hand can't handle grown up conversation. He wouldn't even be able to last 2 minutes on this board. He loves to talk down to people but he cannot handle a real political argument. The man is a fake and nothing more than a colossal idiot.

    If you want some bad boy to take political inspiration from at least take it from someone who has had decent life experience like John Lydon.

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    Why is it it absurd? If you don't agree with a) what ANY of the parties are offering or b) don't agree with the system in which voting takes place, then not voting at all seems fairly sensible, unless of course you think you should be voting people you don't like for no reason other than because you can.
    Or c) start your own party and get other disillusioned voters to join.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by illegaltobepoor)
    It was a simple question. The journalist said something along the lines of aren't you adding to the problem being super rich and paying a huge amount of rent for a London property. Okay he didn't exactly say that but that is what he meant. Russell on the other hand can't handle grown up conversation. He wouldn't even be able to last 2 minutes on this board. He loves to talk down to people but he cannot handle a real political argument. The man is a fake and nothing more than a colossal idiot.

    If you want some bad boy to take political inspiration from at least take it from someone who has had decent life experience like John Lydon.

    So we are going to criticise Russel Brand, a man who has no formal education in said matters and has really only being doing this kind of thing for about a year (?) and then completely let a journalist of the hook who has had formal training and years of experience interviewing people.

    Anyway, the conversation we have had is part problem. We have spoken about Brand and whether he is or isn't right to support a particular cause with literally NO mention of the cause itself. This has been the media reaction to Brand for sometime now, to totally ignore or misrepresent the actual content of his musings and instead try to distract the public onto attacking him as a person. This is futile and will not solve any problem.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by illegaltobepoor)
    X
    I don't particularly like Brand, I disagree with his "brand" of apathy-driven cynicism.

    But the accusation of champagne socialism is weak and confused. When Brand complained about inequality when he was poor, he was called envious. When he complained about inequality when he was rich, he was called a hypocrite. It seems like the basic message is that you're not "allowed" to be against inequality, period. In the eyes of the right, they don't even deign to actually make a counter-argument, rather they attack the messenger and play the man rather than the ball. That is typically a sign of someone's insecurity about their own political positions

    Why is it that it is somehow considered impermissible for a person of means to have left-wing politics? If anything, it is a tribute to their political commitment for them to advocate policies that will make them poorer and see them pay higher taxes
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    Why is it it absurd? If you don't agree with a) what ANY of the parties are offering or b) don't agree with the system in which voting takes place, then not voting at all seems fairly sensible, unless of course you think you should be voting people you don't like for no reason other than because you can.
    By not voting, you are essentially ensuring that your views will not be taken into account.

    Why do poor people consistently get shafted? Because they don't vote. If you vote a government into power then they will always have some consideration for your policy preferences (in the aggregate); governments tend to want to get re-elected.

    My view is that people should always vote, but also join the political party they vote for to ensure that their voice is heard to the maximum possible extent and keep their party's feet to the fire
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    So we are going to criticise Russel Brand, a man who has no formal education in said matters and has really only being doing this kind of thing for about a year (?) and then completely let a journalist of the hook who has had formal training and years of experience interviewing people.
    I don't particularly like Russell Brand. I do agree with many of the issues he raises, and the accusation of champagne socialism is completely hypocritical. I applaud his stances on inequality and drug policy reform. But telling people not to vote is astoundingly counterproductive and he kind-of places himself "above" politics, as if he is some kind of enlighted superior being. That is often what you see from parties like UKIP, or Communist parties, and so on.

    It's very easy to place yourself outside politics, and claim you are above it all when you don't have any interest in actually exposing yourself to scrutiny that would result from actually being involved in running the country, that would result from getting involved and taking solid political positions and contributing to the exceptionally difficult job of governing.

    Russell Brand could easily win a seat in parliament if he wanted. But of course that would mean having to make a serious contribution and be scrutinised rather than being able to swan around, proclaiming oneself superior and sneering at all the hard-working people in politics who are trying to make a difference, compromised as they are and as flawed as it is.

    Parliamentary democracy is the least worst system and overall, we actually live in quite a good society. I think a huge amount has been achieved in the last 100 years. To sneer at that is a luxury I believe we can't afford

    This has been the media reaction to Brand for sometime now, to totally ignore or misrepresent the actual content of his musings and instead try to distract the public onto attacking him as a person. This is futile and will not solve any problem.
    You cannot be serious? There are few people in the country who are given as much media airtime, attention and coverage as Russell Brand is. The man is constantly invited on Newsnight as if he is a serious political figure.

    The Guardian breathlessly covers his every move. He is ubiquitous on the telly. Brand is probably the most media savvy and most published/broadcasted non-politician in Britain today.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    I don't particularly like Brand, I disagree with his "brand" of apathy-driven cynicism.
    He isn't going on Newsnight and writing a book called Revolution telling people to be apathetic and indifferent. His message is that people have more power than they realise and if they want to see a change in their community they should use it in the form of organised protests and boycotts.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomclarky)
    He isn't going on Newsnight and writing a book called Revolution telling people to be apathetic and indifferent. His message is that people have more power than they realise and if they want to see a change in their community they should use it in the form of organised protests and boycotts.
    His entire message is completely undermined by then going and telling people not to vote, which basically ensures they will be marginalised and powerless.

    People under 24 have shockingly low rates of turnout, whereas older people are consistently turning out in elections. There's a reason why the government increased tuition fees while it locked in pension rises and freebies for the elderly
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    To me Brand just represents the typical Stalinist Socialist who doesn't have any solutions other than nationalize everything and shove the rich into the freezing gulags. It won't be long till he starts condemning the wealthy working classes as kulaks (rich peasants).
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.