russell brand - C or D?

inaccessible bijou of privilege??

Have you read anything Fisher's written btw? Because anti-intellectual he ain't.

yeah again I haven't read the article but I remember back in the day he used to go off on one about "grey vampires" but this was so ill-defined it just came off as "everyone who disagrees with k-punk on anything is a counterproductive squabbling troll" bs

xxp

DL the thing is that the Left must - must - strive to engage with every voice, no matter how briefly - and engage with it until clarity is achieved.

Strive perhaps, but sometimes you've just got to let it go because there's no clarity on the horizon.

wins otm I think. When you find yourself writing an article like this then you should stop.

xps ha, I'd forgotten about his 'grey vampires' thing. These are different vampires!

Fisher's criticisms of neo-anarchism are fine as far as they go, but as far is they go isn't very far at all. Sure, we have no reason to take secessionist Guy Fawkes mask chumps particularly seriously (though someone should remind Mark that Russell Brand is basically one of these) but he then leaps straight from that, over the serious and thoughtful anarchists like SolFed, and then right back into parliamentary democracy. There's a vast amount of political thought between naive anarchism and ~vote Labour 2015~ that he just doesn't bother accounting for.

Though that said, his politics is defended much more convincingly and even-handedly laid out in this discussion with Jeremy Gilbert http://www.lwbooks.co.uk/journals/newformations/pdfs/80_fishergilbert.pdf than in the ad hominem nonsense he's been throwing around elsewhere, although it's Gilbert doing most of the heavy lifting.

I've read this article, which I perceive to be anti-intellectual in the way it dismissed various exceptionally important parts of our ongoing sociological discourse as vampirism & forms of identity consumerism when they quite fucking clearly aren't - they're quite clearly, in fact, sincere attempts to refine & improve the discourse

merdeyeux searingly otm there

although i'd be wary of being too dismissive of the guy fawkes mask wearing chumps or indeed russell brand as they're providing a lot of useful energy that can be subsequently moulded with a dash of intersectionality but is needed in the first place to stoke sentiment

The problem is that he doesn't want to kick the hornets' nest by naming his targets but without names he only has confusing and inaccurate generalisations. I know exactly who he means by neo-anarchists and I don't think he means there aren't thoughtful anarchists as well but the distinction isn't clear.

He needs to state the precise nature of his complaint, with examples, and explanations as to why these examples are unfair. Not doing so is for me a sign that he feels that his masculinity is under threat, at which point I'm in battle mode

I know exactly whom he means by 'neo-anarchists' - me :D

idk while his broadside against n0v4r4 types was a neat little easter egg, it's still super facile and doesn't add to the argument.

are n0v4r4 types unpopular around here? iirc that one n0v4r4 type who's very nice really wrote a lucid and reasonable response to fisher's criticism of neo-anarchism from a while back, which fisher doesn't seem to have taken on board at all.

He's otm re: the neo-anarchists though

― Deafening silence (DL), Thursday, 28 November 2013 12:48 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

how so?

― veneer timber (imago), Thursday, November 28,

because they pick on his media friends...laughs. actually the way that theorybros have circled the wagons around Fisher is not too dissimilar to how certain writers behave when one of their number gets called out for something. make u think.

the funny thing is that after complaining about "neo-anarchists" Fisher praises SolFed...which is composed in large part of the same people he's bashing.

Matthijs Krul was good on why the Fisher piece was a load of shit http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=11339

are n0v4r4 types unpopular around here?

I don't know, I don't know what n0v4r4 is

i don't really know which specific neo-anarchists are good and which bad but i am very much pro both n0vara types and the intersectional feminist twitter crew.

about a year or so ago i actually did think there was a chance of a reasonable debate and learning when these divisions started coming to light but neither side seems much interested in that now

i have no idea if they are unpopular around here! everyone is unpopular around here, surely. i like some n0vara types tbh (i would never go as far as "very nice really", what an insult) but in as much as there is a type there's a pleased flush of recognition when one sees it characterised.

It's scattergun, I'm not denying that. One jarring note was his dig at anyone who called Brand out on his sexism when the writers I've seen doing that (two women and a black man btw) did so in reasonable terms that made clear they weren't saying that he was therefore beyond the pale and should be ignored. As the Gothic Politics guy points out, "He accuses his opponents, without otherwise naming or identifying them, of being bourgeois, academic, posh, and privileged," in order to make them fair game, when in reality many of the people he seems to be criticising are some combination of black, gay, female and working class.

The general vibe of the essay is what I believe Gramsci described as "butthurt".

Sure, we have no reason to take secessionist Guy Fawkes mask chumps particularly seriously (though someone should remind Mark that Russell Brand is basically one of these)

This is where Kerplunk's argument basically collapses in on itself. Also it's pretty obvious that he doesn't really take the accusations of sexism seriously, which when you consider this is a guy who prank called a rape hotline is pretty dodgy.

uh what

Also he doesn't seem to understand that many of the objectors are not being "snarky", they're left-wingers who are appalled at the prospect of this person becoming some kind of standard bearer and who fear it may ultimately turn out to be counterproductive.

I find it utterly baffling that anyone of Fisher's age and intellect would be so seduced by Brand that he thinks any criticism is heresy.

which when you consider this is a guy who prank called a rape hotline is pretty dodgy.

He didn't prank call a rape hotline.

Ummm, yes, I can't really understand why (a tiny number of internet) people are still going on about an interview with Russell Brand as if it has any significance whatsoever. Desperation stakes! (xxxp)

Or, to elaborate, left-wingers who are happy this is being brought into the mainstream and horrified at Brand being the person responsible.

(xpost - okay he prank called a police hotline set up in the aftermath of a spate of sex attacks).

He didn't prank call a rape hotline.

he did - http://www.theguardian.com/stage/theatreblog/2008/jul/16/russellbrand

not as high profile a stunt as prank calling someone to boast about sleeping with their granddaughter but the fact that he did BOTH...

A thing that I've notice with Fisher (I quite like some of his work, used to read his posts on Dissensus, liked Capitalist Realism) is that he loves the idea of The Big Transformative Event. He was sure that the ruling class in the UK would collapse after the Murdoch/phone-tapping thing, and there were some other instances before and after. I think this is why he's so into Brand.

Wasn't it Jonathan "rossy" Ross who blurted out the thing about Sachs's granddaughter? This is all kinda beside the point re brands sexism tho

Jonathan Ross, the Engels to Brand's Marx

Take it to the jonathan ross thread

he did - http://www.theguardian.com/stage/theatreblog/2008/jul/16/russellbrand

not as high profile a stunt as prank calling someone to boast about sleeping with their granddaughter but the fact that he did BOTH...

Well, again, it's not a "fact".

All the initial reports of the call appeared in tabloid newspapers (Sun, Mail, Mirror) and describe him calling the police.

By the time the story spread elsewhere (i.e. the Guardian article you link to here, which links to the Mail piece as its source), this has turned into an "emergency rape line set up by police".

Five years later, I see it mentioned all over the place that he was trolling Rape Crisis or something.

Here's the call, to the police, as in the original reports. Just the normal police line, which rings for a long time before being answered:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iwAIxb5M_M

It's not that funny or anything, but still. He probably shouldn't be calling the police and joking about polka-dotted rapists or whatever, but this is not the act that you were describing.

I can't say that I know exactly how sexist Russell Brand is. He certainly sometimes speaks about women in curious ways. But he definitely ends up being misreported about this an awful lot, for all kinds of reasons. Another example:

"SEX-MAD comic Russell Brand was told off by Billy Connolly after he refused to start filming until a wardrobe girl flashed her boobs at him."
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/4469260/Russell-Brand-refuses-to-film-What-About-Dick-until-wardrobe-girl-flashed-boobs-at-him.html

"That [widely reported] story," says Connolly evenly, "is a total invention. A complete fabrication. It's total bollocks. It never happened. Russell was very well-behaved, and I found him very interesting."
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/comedy/features/yin-and-yang-how-billy-connolly-calmed-down-just-dont-mention-piers-morgan-8412113.html

brand loyalty

yomp

not as high profile a stunt as prank calling someone to boast about sleeping with their granddaughter but the fact that he did BOTH...

He did neither. It was Jonathan Ross what did the "boasting"

"curious ways" hmmm

Krul article absolutely brilliant btw

no seriously fuck off russell brand, we can find someone else who can blather about revolution

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/russell-brand-accused-of-homophobic-slur-after-he-tells-cambridge-students-shut-up-you-harry-potter-pfs-9058126.html

Literally unbelievable.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/apr/02/russell-brand-rewrites-fairy-tales-childrens-books?CMP=twt_fd

http://i.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/4/2/1396432449155/-Russell-Brand-at-the-clo-012.jpg?width=620&height=-&quality=95

Bloke (re-)writes stories based on old folk tales.

Outrageously following in the footsteps of, ooh, how many?

Accelerating the contradictions. That always works out well.

gu.com/p/428me/tw

slightly amazed he didn't make that new statesman white men thing

this thread's been pretty quiet.

it's probably really unfashionable to say this, but i largely agree with Brand on most things. Recent suspect Truther things (which have been blown out of all proportion anyway) aside, pretty much the only thing I disagree with is that you shouldn't vote.

thing

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/oct/27/revolution-review-russell-brand-beverly-hills-buddhist?CMP=twt_gu

on Twitter DL was saying that he can comes across as chippy and bullying and i agree, he does he does talk over people and can be crazy pass-ag.

but then again so does every wacko right-wing reactionary equivalent. i hate to say it but when you've got BoJo, Farage and how many others constantly spouting rubbish in the press and media, i almost feel as though the left needs some sort of equivalent outspoken loony just to stop it from being drowned out.

Like, Brand's whole schtick is abhorrent, many of his arguments are flawed and his methods are potentially damaging. But the fundamentals of what he's arguing - the current political system being bankrupt; too much power in the wrong places; corruption through-and-through; severe disillusionment among young people; significant change needed in order to stop politics falling-in on itself - are undeniably shared by a large number of people.
And yet he's pretty much the only high-profile figure who is out there arguing the case. The tactics are brash and blunt as a stone, but I don't really see anyone else shouting this loudly - certainly not the Greens, definitely not the Lib Dems, and all the other smaller left-wing parties are too busy arguing with each other to get a look in.
Meanwhile, right-wingers have the lion's share of shouty, opinioned maniacs willing to throw themselves to the lions with over-the-top, headline-grabbing viewpoints, and yet no matter how ridiculous they seem, they don't seem to do their causes too much harm at all. In fact it seems the louder they shout, the more exposure their causes get.
It seems that it doesn't seem to matter what you say, it's how loudly you say it. Brand has a voice like a foghorn, and while right-thinking people will be quick to point out his flaws, I'd be wary of calling him un-useful to left-wing causes. If anything, he is introducing left-leaning ideas to a mainstream platform by using his profile to express it in the most extreme language possible.
Event he no-voting thing; I mean, it's not like everyone was out there voting anyway. I doubt voting members of the public will be swayed not to vote by Brand. I also get the feeling that, if anything, he is encouraging non-voters to reassess whether or not they should vote, or at least become more politically engaged.

otm