russell brand - C or D?

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

Fair enough. It's not like anyone's under any illusion that Brand can probably afford a decent sized house.

Haha "alright, let's do one."
Yeah; not a fan but Team Brand there.

guessing 10 downing street is fairly low rent actually

Fair play. That was a cheap shot.

so you've gotta be badly-off yourself before you care about the problems of others who are badly-off? stuff like this just puts more people in Brand's corner. who can blame em.

yeah it's one of the big informal fallacies in situations like this. it's like a bastardised version of privilege checking whereby you shouldn't be allowed to express solidarity or support for people outside your immediate societal group. And it's not really the same as the justified cynicism surrounding Bono/Geldof/Band Aid either.
I'd like to hear more arguments against his overall message beyond Brand = Brand ∴ his entire rhetoric is wrong. You've got the whole 'no vote' thing, which is understandable, but I don't believe that that's the central idea.

"you're rich so you're a hypocrite if you talk about inequality" accusations tend to come from the right - the same people who accuse poor or unprivileged people who talk about inequality of bitterness or envy.

important to distinguish this nonsense from the many other criticisms of brand of course.

I dont know anything about Brand but the woman in the clip played a good game there against the bbc moron and his tired accusations as Brand was struggling a bit under attack (but Im guessing being attacked in this way is kind of new for him). Rhetoric from the right of "well why dont you give them your house if you love them so much" is fundamental and wilful misunderstanding as its the right that love charity because they believe in hierarchy, natural order and paternalism, and of course power and self-importance, but really please, no crumbs from the table

def generate_token
self.token = loop do
random_token = SecureRandom.urlsafe_base64
break random_token unless Trail.where(token: random_token).exists?
end
end

oops

i hope that was a random cut/paste error. i just spent a fair amount of time trying to work out if you were trying to cleverly illustrate your point in code.

it was meant for a different window sorry

"you're rich so you're a hypocrite if you talk about inequality"

using this idea, white people shouldnt talk about racism, heteros shouldnt broach gay issues, etc etc.

self.token = loop do

otm.