russell brand - C or D?

yes russell rose from her vagina like a phoenix

The edited/missing posts here maybe have made this thread difficult to be certain in comprehension but let's be clear: Brand is an idiot. His overall message seems no more complicated than "oh no the system is broken and bad people get away with doing bad things" which is not really an insight - and that's not a message you have to be on a liberal side to identify with - and his method of dealing with that, "don't vote", is completely disempowering to the minority voices and groups that he claims to care about but actually seems to be using to massage his public ego. Like, if he can't see how saying "don't use your voice" is a contradiction to "people in power need their privilege checked", then he absolutely does not deserve any position of influence in any post-coalition voice of protest I want to be part of. I am not willing to settle for "well it's better than nothing" and I think it is patronising to think anyone should accept it.

Also I'm sure he could do something about his live set on DVD, the one where he basically says "oh Sachsgate was really just a big lol" and doesn't seem to acknowledge how #banterculture is why women still don't seem to have safe spaces or sexual liberties (because who, male or female, needs respect or privacy?), he could easily denounce it or been seen to be doing something to delete it from his career narrative.

Fuck this guy, basically

Huh so people really hate this guy? He seems relatively harmless from this side of the pond.

Why I am I not surprised that a worthless fuck like you is a Brand apologist as well as many other worthless fucking things?

Oh you

Simple explanation: the Brits have a vigourous tall poppy syndrome.

Haha

More like certain Americans suffering from fucking clueless arsewipe syndrome.

Your insightful discourse is truly delightful old chap wot wot

This poppy is just opiate for the masses

I mean, I really liked seeing Brand on MTV Dance interviewing E'd up ravers with a mix of affection and mocking between video links, and what he wrote in the Guardian after the death of Amy Winehouse about addiction seemed insightful and honest, I don't believe Brand is a creature without merit. However, much as I'm willing to engage with someone in the public sphere with a radical yet intelligent approach to the failings of the contemporary culture, in this context Brand just seems like a high school student with a set of pens and paper and a general pass in Modern Studies with poorly-conceived good intentions. And that just isn't enough.

Stephen Fry seems to get a pass unlike Brand which often surprises and disappoints me.

Fry is loathed by ilx UK massive iirc

I watched a few minutes of his thing on the Ottawa shooting - seemed OK but I can't stand to listen to him talk for very long

if ilx has taught me one thing it's that british ppl hate their celebrities, especially the ones americans have heard of

V true

It is possible to be a comedian or even a comic actor and use wit and satire and humour to make extremely relevant points about politics. Many, many comedians have done this in an extremely effective way.

It is possible to have substance abuse issues and still have relevant points to contribute. I feel like this is actually *part* of the message of the left (whatever the left is at this point) or should be - that substance abuse is an illness, not a moral failing.

However, many, many people seem to be in a total lack of understanding about what misogyny actually is. It is not some harmless foible or personality trait tacked onto an otherwise-alright human being. It is a refusal to recognise half the human race as fully human. It is a deep and perhaps fundamental flaw in a person's entire worldview. A flaw which is deeply incompatible with the fundamental aims of the left movement - how can you talk about rights for all and justice for all, when your very concept of the "all" that is human excludes half of humanity?

His 'overall message' is meaningless if it only applies to one half of humans. That is not justice. And someone who says facile things like 'Oh, just ignore the misogyny, concentrate on the message' - I am concentrating on the message very clearly. But the fact that a person is willing to ignore the bit of the bit of the message that doesn't apply to them tells me a lot about who *they* consider fully human and worthy of consideration.

'Equality for women' is not some disregardable add-on bonus to be applied 'after the revolution' (whenever that comes - I mean, spare me) and pushed aside in favour of 'more important messages' for now. If it is not part of your movement from day one, that movement is meaningless.

I was thinking of this in relation to Beppe Grillo/Five Star. At least he is not starting a political party and movement/doing anything like work or activism. It could be a lot worse.

Amen, Branwell - I do understand your point fully.

typical brits with their tall misogynist syndrome

Branwell has a good point for every thread - and we all enjoyed reading it once again today.

there's nothing those grumpy limeys hate more than an unrepentant scumbag who sets off a fuckton of screaming alarm bells about what an obvious creep he is!!

I was OK with him til I found out Americans had heard of him.

probs worth pointing out that he's still a relatively obscure figure even to The Man In The Street. his Facebook page has 2.7 million likes which is pretty weedy on the celeb scale of things.

Presumably Robbie Williams' 2nd baby birth video is getting millions of new likes as we speak.

I find it hard to argue with the point that Brand has got a lot of people talking and thinking about politics and speaks to a large constituency which is alienated, angry and inchoate. But we've had a year of this now and it's time other voices were given even an ounce of the attention he's been getting.

Re: misogyny, I covered David Icke's Wembley show for work and was struck by how good this constituency is at compartmentalising. Lots of people I spoke to didn't buy his central space-lizard hypothesis but were willing to set it to one side and concentrate on the bits that they agreed with. I think Brand fans do the same with his enormous flaws. I live in hope that other, better people will be able to harness this energy.

The one thing that always struck me about him is that he does give the impression that it's all "considered", that doesn't mean he's right always but I've not seen anyone that can argue and make connections as fast.

It still comes down to which side you tend to favour. I've seen his initial Newsnight interview with Paxman, my impression is that he held his own and came out 'on top' if that was the important thing (which I don't think it is).

Other colleagues told me they thought Paxman 'won' and made Russell look completely ridiculous.

TBQH, I'd put Russell Brand on the same level, political standingwise, as Jeremy Clarkson.

i.e. it's meant to entertain, make people 'think', but you would not want them 'in charge' or anything like it.

I don't even think they say what they truly think, more what their respective characters want you to think they think.

Everybody is very good at compartmentalising and overlooking when they agree, and very good at decompartmentalising and sleuthing, when they dont

Because they can say "I agree with that" or "I don't agree with any of it"

no

but being able to compententalize isnt a virtue in itself

The one actor/comedian everyone could agree on liking, John Sessions, has turned out to be a UKIP voter :(((

All this and no-one's even mentioned Johann Hari yet

i thought they had?

I actually rather suspect that the reason Brand gets so much traction is not *despite* offering no answers and no solutions, but rather *because* he is offering no answers and no solutions.

That he offers an *image* of rebellion and revolution as a stylish haircut and a cool t-shirt, which appeals to segments of the population not usually interested in politics, while providing no actual toothed threat to the establishment he claims to be so against.

It's opposition *theatre*, rather than engagement. He's a showman, he makes good television, so that's why television will get him and Nigel Farage on again and again, providing rebellion in the form of entertainment. Rather than getting on Caroline Lucas or Natalie Bennett being sensible but boring and suggesting pragmatic solutions that are not as entertaining. Part of the reason he reaches people who 'don't normally care about politics' is because he is given a platform that many others aren't. And it's necessary to interrogate the motives of the people giving them that platform as well as the compartmentalising skills of those who respond to the attractive theatre performed in front of them.

Yeah, which is why the 'comedians' (broad term, Clarkson included) get the platforms (newspaper columns and soon).

The 'solutions' are harder to deal with whereas the problems are evident.

The one actor/comedian everyone could agree on liking, John Sessions, has turned out to be a UKIP voter :(((

What that smug little git? Honestly, try watching the early Whose Line Is It Anyway, he is unbearable... and not remotely funny.

I actually rather suspect that the reason Brand gets so much traction is not *despite* offering no answers and no solutions, but rather *because* he is offering no answers and no solutions.

That he offers an *image* of rebellion and revolution as a stylish haircut and a cool t-shirt, which appeals to segments of the population not usually interested in politics, while providing no actual toothed threat to the establishment he claims to be so against.

It's opposition *theatre*, rather than engagement. He's a showman, he makes good television, so that's why television will get him and Nigel Farage on again and again, providing rebellion in the form of entertainment. Rather than getting on Caroline Lucas or Natalie Bennett being sensible but boring and suggesting pragmatic solutions that are not as entertaining. Part of the reason he reaches people who 'don't normally care about politics' is because he is given a platform that many others aren't. And it's necessary to interrogate the motives of the people giving them that platform as well as the compartmentalising skills of those who respond to the attractive theatre performed in front of them.

― Jacques Lacan let me rock u; let me rock u, Jacques Lacan (Branwell with an N), Tuesday, October 28, 2014 12:37 PM (25 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Bingo

It's the equivalent of when people say 'Agree with him or not, you've gotta love Boris because he tells it like it is'.. Of course he doesn't - he blethers and whinnies and backtracks and generally talks bollocks all the time. However you can't deny or discount that he holds a lot more sway over the public conscience than a vast majority of politicians. Same as Farage. They capture the public's imagination - especially those who otherwise have no interest in politics; and like it or not, I think this is extremely important.

I know a lot of intelligent, connected people who simply shun party politics because they genuinely feel helpless to make change or believe that all the parties are the same, or simply think politics are 'boring'. Ho many people really read the news past the headlines or tune into BBC Parliament to watch actual debates? I'd wager that it's only a fraction of the voting public, never mind those who don't vote. Ukip have got the idea down pat - saturate the market with gobshites and poster campaigns; plaster Farage's face all over the media; sweep accusations under the carpet; allow party members to say what the fuck they like in order to get a headline and then deal with them accordingly out of a doleful duty to the 'PC brigade'. It's working beautifully for them.

The only way UKIP will be defeated is not by discrediting their policies or opinions, it's by proving that actually they are incompetent in what they do: Can't keep a position and stand on it, useless at actually doing anything, hypocricy in "this is what I think everyone should do, however I can do different because I'm me"

Still, "Get him to the Greek" was quite good, weren't it?

The one actor/comedian everyone could agree on liking, John Sessions, has turned out to be a UKIP voter :(((

What that smug little git? Honestly, try watching the early Whose Line Is It Anyway, he is unbearable... and not remotely funny.

― ... and a Martin Parr photo essay (Tom D.), Tuesday, 28 October 2014 12:58 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

friend of mine you only need to mention him and his entire being contorts with loathing, purely based on his WLIIA appearances. And yes, there was a nasty little fawning interview with him recently which included his lol voting UKIP.

xp ukip's general incompetence has been evident for a long time and it doesn't seem to be having much impact

incompetence that the public at least can follow is a lot more popular than incompetence thats just slightly more complicated than what yer average person understands (while falling some way short of yknow ability to run a functioning country, which is p complicated)

TS: Aligning with Holocaust deniers so as to continue to receive moneyfunds vs Mike Read's Calypso song.

Funny how they both appeared as news stories the same day.

Which bears out darraghmac's point.

He'S inspiring potentially millions of people, highlights social causes corporate media does not, and using his huge platform to spread awareness of inequality and fostering a spirit of disobedience to power.

always mistrust what compromises must be made ito basic decency and actual workable policy in order to inspire millions of ppl tbh

not that he is doing any such, obv

https://vine.co/v/Ohr7AWWZ7T3 good basis for actual workable policy

amazing excerpt from writer & activist russell brand's new book Revolution

http://www.russellbrand.com/store/

Surprised no one brought up his recent legal threats too

https://vine.co/v/OOVeIFamDdJ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dAFbpk9_GM

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