russell brand - C or D?

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.

There's a relatively blurry line between the idea that people with privilege shouldn't co-opt the movements of those without it and the idea that people with privilege who vocally support those without it are automatically drawing attention away from the people who should be listened to. From some sections of the left, active solidarity isn't necessarily a good thing.

the woman in the clip played a good game there against the bbc moron and his tired accusations

It was Channel 4 News, I don't know why I would expect better of them, I suspect their up and coming reporters thinks it's a good idea to try to out-Crick Michael Crick.

... good idea for their careers that is

xxpost Yeah, in many respects there's the 'support causes, but let people fight their own battles' sentiment which makes sense. but then all too often, it can turn into effete armchair activism or ineffectual charity (again, BandAid etc), whereas sometimes it's good to just muck in and help out - especially if one's status allows access for a cause to reach a bigger platform.

Well, unlike a lot of well-off media people who might wind up questioning his motives, I don't think Russell Brand's house was given to him or otherwise deposit-enabled by a parent.

I don't think Russell Brand's house was given to him or otherwise deposit-enabled by a parent.

― resting rich face (suzy),

exactly, or should i say, self.token = loop do?

Much though Brand gets my back up, I don't think he's co-opted this movement so much as used his celebrity leverage to get more press coverage. There's a difference between taking up space that could be filled by someone more deserving and expanding the space available. "automatically drawing attention away from the people who should be listened to"? No, it's not automatic.

it is more than slightly annoying. channel4 news, or any of the major news outlets in this country, have never in the time I can remember been interested in the struggles of decanted social tenants in London. Something has happened that has caused a change in this recently, but the Focus 15 mums and the New Era tenants have managed to garner more press attention and public scrutiny and pressure than large scale evacuations like the Heygate for eg. were able to muster. Even now that there is a public interest, news corporations can only tell the story through the language of hypocrisy and celebrity.

the collapse between journalism and publicity, the public sphere and the spectacle of celebrity. the failure of print journalism to keep power in check. half the stuff that comes up on my bbc news app everyday seems like an ad for something. recent data has been released by the government. consumer confidence is on the rise. think tanks, big pharma, international sports. there is no longer room for journalism to function in the old way exposing corruption and conflicts of interest. In the contemporary language government and business speak in the same language, with the same set of overlapping interests, in public private partnerships and private finance initiatives. corruption is a moral discourse now. I saw the focus e15 mums being told they were a front for the RCG, that they couldn't speak in good faith with the moral purity of evicted single mums because they were in cahoots with some political group. but when local government sells off masses of social housing way below market value to private speculators, this is merely policy.

it just annoys me when i see that channel 4 guy smugly telling russell brand he's part of the problem. i mean. yes russell brand is part of the problem, but channel 4 news is not really helping anyone either.

the destruction of public services in the uk is a scandal, and it is straightforwardly not necessitated by current economic constraints.

basically lex otm if that was clearer

great post ico

yes very great!

thirded!

Great post indeed Plax.

That's Channel 4 News nailed. By the way, in last night's C4 News, it was utterly repulsive that in a news story about refugees drowning one by one in the Mediterranean they felt it necessary to play "sad music" underneath the report.