Russell Brand's "revolution"

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Let me sum up the video for you then. He basically says:

- Radical political change needs to happen world-wide. (He may have a point.)
- He has no ideas what that change should look like, nor does he have any ideas on how to begin making those changes.
- The only firm thing he mentions is that he doesn't vote, and nobody else should either.

I have a serious problem with telling people not to vote. Because we will never get to a point where nobody votes, at best you will end up with a situation where a person with the most corrupt friends is the one getting into power. His speaks of enabling the people, by asking them not to make choices.

So not only will his plan fail in somewhere like Canada, USA, or UK; but in countries like the Philippines where there is both widespread poverty as well as widepread corruption, it will only make things worse.

I may not know how to fix the world situation, but that doesn't mean I can't spot a fix that is horribly wrong. Just as I may not know how to launch a satellite into Earth orbit, that doesn't mean I am not qualified to tell the guy using sticks of TNT attached to a tin can that his plan will not work.

Originally Posted by blankall

A major problem I have with the messenger here is the total hypocrisy.

He talks about wealth disparity, yet he is someone who takes every possible opportunity to live as lavishly as possible. He dates models, drives fancy sports cars, is constantly seen partying, rides in private jets, constantly wears top end clothes and jewelry etc..

He complains about environmental issues, yet his main vehicle of transportation is his Range Rover. He constantly uses private jets.

It's as though he's just trying to pass the buck of responsibility to some abstract concept of "business". I'd have a lot more respect for him if he lived by example and did things like donate a lot of his excess money to charity and then drive a Prius. Brand does a lot of "charity work", but it's always highly publicized.

The reality of the situation is that consumers produce far more pollution than businesses do. Personal transportation results in far more CO2 output than the oil/mining industries as a whole. The first step in his "Revolution" might be downsizing his Range Rover and flying "first class" - as oppossed to on a private jet - with the commoners.

The whole thing just comes across as a rant from an aristocrat who's lost touch with reality. Mary Antoinette telling the peasants to "eat cake".

Yeah, as I mentioned, I haven't watched the video yet. I would also have a problem with someone saying 'don't vote'. That is a rather backwards way of addressing underlying problems in government or the election process.

As far as his lifestyle goes, again I don't know much about that, so I can't comment one way or the other. I have no reason to disbelieve you, it makes sense. And yes, consumers do (or rather, USUALLY) waste more than business, and bigger consumers waste the most. Though the part about dating models doesn't really swing one way or the other. Kinda falls into that jealousy paradigm I was talking about. In fact, maybe it's an environmental decision, they eat a lot less! Haha.

My agreement/mini rant was just directed to the hypocrisy on the other side of the fence. There are people in the public eye who do have good ideas and do put their money where their mouth is, so to dismiss ideas based on class is kinda silly.

Dismiss ideas based on their lack of merit. There's usually more than enough reasons to do that (for anyone). And if after looking at that, hypocrisy does come into the equation, then yeah, point it out. I don't like it either. But no reason to start an argument with, 'well, he's a celeb, what does he know?' It adds nothing, and really just says the same sort of thing about the person making the argument.

Not saying either of you were doing that. Just explaining what I was saying earlier.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Yeah, as I mentioned, I haven't watched the video yet. I would also have a problem with someone saying 'don't vote'. That is a rather backwards way of addressing underlying problems in government or the election process.

As far as his lifestyle goes, again I don't know much about that, so I can't comment one way or the other. I have no reason to disbelieve you, it makes sense. And yes, consumers do (or rather, USUALLY) waste more than business, and bigger consumers waste the most. Though the part about dating models doesn't really swing one way or the other. Kinda falls into that jealousy paradigm I was talking about. In fact, maybe it's an environmental decision, they eat a lot less! Haha.

My agreement/mini rant was just directed to the hypocrisy on the other side of the fence. There are people in the public eye who do have good ideas and do put their money where their mouth is, so to dismiss ideas based on class is kinda silly.

Dismiss ideas based on their lack of merit. There's usually more than enough reasons to do that (for anyone). And if after looking at that, hypocrisy does come into the equation, then yeah, point it out. I don't like it either. But no reason to start an argument with, 'well, he's a celeb, what does he know?' It adds nothing, and really just says the same sort of thing about the person making the argument.

Not saying either of you were doing that. Just explaining what I was saying earlier.

The problem is that he really does add nothing.

Yes, it would be great if there was less income disparity between the ultra rich and the ultra poor. Yes, it would be great if we didn't damage the environment so much.

These are not new concepts. There are very few who would disagree with this. Having a celebrity, who himself leads a life that can only described as a money wasting environmental disaster, re-iterate those concepts, and then have everyone applaud him for that, gets us nowhere.

Honestly, I'd have a lot more respect for him if he stopped riding in private jets, bought a Prius, decided he has enough money and donated everything he makes from now on, etc...That's the solution. He continually says he doesn't know what the solution is. The ultimate problem is greed. People like him need to be less greedy, that's the solution.

And no it's not just jealousy. There are plenty of richer people that have taken actual action, and I am in full support of that. When Warren Buffet and Bill Gates pledged to donate half of their wealth, I strongly supported that. I wasn't jealous of the other 50 billion they had. That was an actual step in the right direction.

I know I'm pushing this Prius issues, but here's a list of celebrities who drive them:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/toyota/celeb...e-a-prius-3d8x

All of them have done more for the environment than Brand and his Range Rover.

[Vulcan]

I haven't kept up on the hybrid car issues but is the Prius really the best choice for the environment?

The Autopia article and the original article in Wired Magazine both agree that buying a used car that gets great gas mileage is the best option for having less of a negative impact on the environment. In fact, many cars receive up to 40 miles per gallon on the highway, which is almost as high as the Prius' 45 highway mpg, and those other cars aren't killing the environment quite as much in their manufacturing process.

http://hubpages.com/hub/Prius

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by blankall

The problem is that he really does add nothing.

Yes, these aren't new concepts and he doesn't have a concrete plan on how to 'fix' the issues he's addressed but we're talking about it, as are others. That's better than ignoring it altogether. So, that's something, I guess.

The only issue I have with what he said was his stance that nobody should vote. In theory I get what he's saying: when you vote you tacitly endorse the system that you object to. That's fine, in theory only.

The political situation in the USA is a good example of what happens when conscientious people decide not to vote. It's been happening for years and generally it's the people on the left and in the middle that choose not to vote for ideological purposes. That has resulted in a stronger showing for the Republicans, and more recently the Tea Party, despite the fact that most of the country doesn't endorse most of their positions.

If everyone voted it would likely result in an overwhelming victory for most Democratic candidates. That, in turn, would force the Republicans (and Tea Party) to lean more to the left, even just a little. And that would be a positive thing in my opinion.

Liberals, in particular, have been historically too ideological when it comes to voting and not pragmatic enough. Ironically, conservatives tend to be pragmatic when it comes to voting but more ideological in governing whereas liberals tend to do the opposite (in the relatively recent history of American politics).

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by jammies

I find it interesting that a bunch of people on a message board with no qualifications on a subject can criticize a guy's opinion by saying he is unqualified to comment. How would you know? Either people without formal qualifications can form a defensible position on the subject, or they can't - if the former, then you can't argue his opinion is worthless because of who he is, and if the latter, you can't argue his opinion is worthless because of who *you* are.

Well said.

I think it's also important to note - when looking at all those posting here with their noses out of joint - that it's pretty clear Brand didn't call up the BBC and ask for a platform to spew his agenda.

The interview starts out with a very accusatory tone and simply asks him who he thinks he is to be editing a political magazine.

Paxman then brings up the fact Brand doesn't vote and starts grilling him on why that is...

and finally, Paxman takes the approach of asking Brand what gives him the right to hold the opinions he does (that were invited by the invasive questioning).

Brand seems like a bit of a clown in some ways but it's clear he's very intelligent and I thought he defended himself very eloquently while on the receiving end of some very aggressive questioning. He really hit the nail on the head when he said the onus wasn't on him to "devise a global, utopian system" on the spot when being grilled about his political beliefs.

[ae118]

Brand is no idiot even if he can be naive and lack coherence, is articulate and quick, and was on the receiving end of a pretty condescending interview. If you've read any of his pieces in The Guardian, you know he's at least thoughtful and passionate, even if you don't agree with him.

I don't agree with everything he says (particularly about not voting), but he's contributing well to the public discourse and I wish more citizens, famous or not, did the same and held thoughtful opinions. I don't know why being a celebrity should automatically count against him.

How does anyone know what he does with all his money anyway? Some people donate totally anonymously.

[ae118]

Originally Posted by polak

They are the absolute worst. Sociologists.

I had no idea Harper was on the board.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by ae118

I don't agree with everything he says (particularly about not voting), but he's contributing well to the public discourse and I wish more citizens, famous or not, did the same and held thoughtful opinions.

From what I got from the interview; he had 2 things to say:

- Don't vote
- There should be changes; however he has no idea what those changes should be or how to even begin.

Obviously we all agree that things would be better if things were better. So what else is he saying that you agree with? I ask because from this interview, I have no desire to seek out more from him. He failed to peak my interest in any way.

[Julio]

Probably a better overview of what Brand is saying, and perhaps the reason that he was on BBC, was his column as a guest editor of the New Statesman. It can be found here: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...-on-revolution

As for what he says, he didn't lose me at the first 'I don't vote', but by about the third time he stated proudly that he never has voted, I was weary of what he had to say. At that site there is also some interesting rebuttals to Brand.

[ae118]

Originally Posted by ken0042

From what I got from the interview; he had 2 things to say:

- Don't vote
- There should be changes; however he has no idea what those changes should be or how to even begin.

Obviously we all agree that things would be better if things were better. So what else is he saying that you agree with? I ask because from this interview, I have no desire to seek out more from him. He failed to peak my interest in any way.

Well first, I don't think everyone has the same critiques of society, so it's not really obvious, no.

And it's not okay to comment on society without proposing point by point solutions to every problem? You agree with his general observations but don't think people should talk about them? Bah humbug.

[ken0042]

The problem is he is too general. You seem to think I'm asking for point by point, I am asking for general ideas. He says he doesn't vote because our current system of gov't doesn't work. Fine, then what system would work better?

For a general example, take the first Starship Troopers movie. In that movie only citizens can vote; and to become a citizen you had to perform a certain level of public service. That was really a tertiary point of the movie, but the writters had come up with it. And I described it in one line.

As for my critiques of society, I think the single biggest one is the level of poverty world-wide. Some things that could be done:

- Tax (North) American junk food, and that tax money goes towards creating infrastructure in the 3rd world.
- Allow for engineers, doctors, teachers, and others who would have to travel to those 3rd world countries to set up said infrastructure to have free post secondary. This could be done with student loan forgiveness.
- Give other tax breaks to individuals who would help with building in those 3rd world countries. However the charities receiving the help would have to be subject to serious audits. Even allow airlines to offer free flights to people willing to travel to help, and the airlines can get a tax credit of a full fare.

There- 3 examples off the top of my head; and I wasn't even called for an interview by the BBC.

[icecube]

I enjoyed this article from the same publication. From radical thinker and writer Daniel Pinchbeck.

Also one of the only times I've ever read a comment section and not wanted to gouge out my own eyeballs.

Edit: this article was edited by Russel Brand. It is worth reading just for the excellent discussion in comment section alone. There are some good radical ideas in here.

http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/...orged-manacles

[ae118]

Aw, here's the big ol' pat on the back you seem to want.

I like that you've proposed some ideas. I like that he's talking about the problem in this interview. That's head and shoulders above most celebrities. It's all a part of public discourse and I support it all. I see no reason to slam him. Maybe he's just getting started. Shrug.

[ken0042]

ae118- let me know when you would like to discuss the issue without the condescending attitude.

[ae118]

I would say the same for you, ken! Anyway, I don't want to pick apart his interview because like you and others have stated, he doesn't have a lot of specifics. As I said before, I just like that he's being vocal and I agree with his assessment of the big picture - I don't see the point in jumping all over him for having an opinion, or because he happens to be famous rather than credentialed.

[ken0042]

Please tell me which of my points you found condescending.

For yours- it was the "bah humbug" and then the "Aw, here's the big ol' pat on the back you seem to want."

Sorry, all I did was answer your question: And it's not okay to comment on society without proposing point by point solutions to every problem?

Which is why I asked you to discuss the issues without the attitude.

[ae118]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Please tell me which of my points you found condescending.

For yours- it was the "bah humbug" and then the "Aw, here's the big ol' pat on the back you seem to want."

Sorry, all I did was answer your question: And it's not okay to comment on society without proposing point by point solutions to every problem?

Which is why I asked you to discuss the issues without the attitude.

There was nothing condescending about "bah humbug" - it was a comment on the seeming negativity in the thread about someone voicing his opinion, not actually trying to provide some sort of detailed gameplan for the militant Bolsheviks over the Urals. The other comment was simply in reply to the last sentence in your previous post where you seemed to want congratulations for coming up with three suggestions "without even a BBC interview."

And please don't wag your finger at another adult for "the attitude," a pretty risky move for someone calling the other person condescending.

Anyway, please carry on with the regular discussion and let's end this tangent. My point was made several times over.

[jhunt223]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_LHuII-jYQ

Russell Brand on addiction. He really is an awesome speaker. This was a good watch.