Russell Brand's "revolution"

[Clarkey]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Because he's a guy who battled drug addiction and instead of letting it destroy his life he beat it and went on to become a successful star comedian and actor? I swear a lot of people's qualifications on Calgarypuck for "skids", "losers" and other extremely negative putdowns are just downright ######ed.

McDonald's started as a lowly mom and pop shop in the 1940's and now is one of the most popular fast food establishments in the world, therefor their food must be really good. Uhh, no it's garbage, and this guy is a big time skid and not funny.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

McDonald's started as a lowly mom and pop shop in the 1940's and now is one of the most popular fast food establishments in the world, therefor their food must be really good. Uhh, no it's garbage, and this guy is a big time skid and not funny.

I'll take false equivalence for $600, Alex.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Because he's a guy who battled drug addiction and instead of letting it destroy his life he beat it and went on to become a successful star comedian and actor? I swear a lot of people's qualifications on Calgarypuck for "skids", "losers" and other extremely negative putdowns are just downright ######ed.

I can respect the career he built for himself in light of his previous addictions, but I don't have to respect his opinion on the issue of this thread. Maybe a better way to describe him in the context of this thread is that maybe his experience doesn't lend itself towards the most thoughtful discussion of what's wrong with the world politically and how to fix it.

[_Q_]

Yeah, I can respect what he has done in the entertainment industry, even though I don't like his stuff. He, however, obviously has nothing to say with regards to this "revolution" and I simply can't take him seriously when he talks about trying to "fix" the world.

Just because he's famous, doesn't mean he has something important to say.

[Clarkey]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'll take false equivalence for $600, Alex.

[Ark2]

Gotta admit, he was funny as hell in Forgetting Sarah Marshall

[FlamingLonghorn]

Well regardless of whether Brand is an expert on the subject matter (he's not). It is an issue that is being discussed by experts all the time. Brand is being the mouthpiece for a large growing group of people that are becoming increasingly disillusioned with the status quo. Unfortunately, not a lot of people pay attention to what Economics chair at George Mason University Tyler Cowen (or any other academic) has to say, so someone who can actually get an audience to listen is better. I will follow this up with saying I am basing all of what I say in this thread on what I am guessing Russell Brand is talking about in this video as I can't stand him enough to make it through the whole thing.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I can respect the career he built for himself in light of his previous addictions, but I don't have to respect his opinion on the issue of this thread. Maybe a better way to describe him in the context of this thread is that maybe his experience doesn't lend itself towards the most thoughtful discussion of what's wrong with the world politically and how to fix it.

So basically you're taking the ad hominem approach then? This is one of the premises of his argument. We're appropriating political agency and/or advocacy to only those people who fit within an existing paradigm, and that paradigm is failing.

[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.

[Plett25]

Russell Brand is just as qualified to speak on these matters as most politicians, journalists and commentators. Maybe more qualified since he's not already bought and paid for.

[undercoverbrother]

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.

Jammies meet Internet, Internet meet Jammies.....

[Red Slinger]

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.

Pfft... Like your opinion matters! Why should we listen to you? I mean, your avatar is some dirty, long haired hippy who probably does drugs and doesn't have a job and leeches off society. And your user-name implies that you are too lazy and stupid to even get out of your pajamas. Yeah, okay so you're pretty entertaining on the internet, but just because you're some kinda pseudo-celebrity on CalgaryPuck doesn't mean you know anything about people in the REAL world!

Now Meatloaf, on the other hand. There's a guy worth taking seriously!

[Daradon]

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.

Exactly.

I can't comment on this case right now because I haven't looked at the video, but it's kind of annoying how many people are so quick to dismiss celebrities opinions because their celebrities. We all have opinions on pretty much everything, why would they be any different?

I think it comes down to jealousy most times (though said people would never admit it). Jealousy that these people have more money or fame, or more likely, perhaps that because these people have a soapbox to with which to air their thoughts, and said person does not.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that just because a celeb says it, that it's good or worth listening to, far from it. There's plenty of examples of dumb, naive, or spoiled celebrities saying really dumb things. Just that I get annoyed with the double standard or false sense of superiority. A celeb may make a really good point about an environmental issue, or a tax issue, and people will jump all over them because, what would they know? They have it so easy, easy for them to say. They're not trained in that field!

Guess what, neither are you in 99% of issues!

[Addick]

Originally Posted by GGG

A concept I like but would fall terribly on its face if ever implemented is that the highest paid person in any company shoudl not make more than 100 times more than the lowest paid person. If the minimum wage is $10 per hour no one could make more than $1000 per hour. Still enough to be quite rich but not mega rich. It also incentivises increasing your lowest paid employees pay. On the otherhand it would encourage companies to outsource low paying work in order to raise saleries for the executive so it would never work in practice but I like the concept that there should be an upperboundry on capitalism. You cant take away incentive to take risk and innovate but there is a point where you certainly dont need more.

I thought that Switzerland already had such a wage-cap ratio in place but it looks like next month they will be voting on whether not to to instill one.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Exactly.

I can't comment on this case right now because I haven't looked at the video, but it's kind of annoying how many people are so quick to dismiss celebrities opinions because their celebrities. We all have opinions on pretty much everything, why would they be any different?

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.

[Ark2]

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.

You make some great points. I think people would be more inclined to take Russel Brand seriously if he at least had some ideas, regardless of what they think of his acting career.

[FlamesAddiction]

I wouldn't say that "nobody" should vote (I personally don't, although I could be pursuaded to if a candidate I liked came around or if I believed they might actually do something good). I don't believe that people should vote for whom they think is the lesser evil just for the sake of casting a vote. I'd rather my non-vote be reflected in the voter apathy statistics if that is the case.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I'd rather my non-vote be reflected in the voter apathy statistics if that is the case.

That might be a better option. If there was a box you could mark on a ballot marking "abstain"- would you make a point of going out to vote to say that?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by ken0042

That might be a better option. If there was a box you could mark on a ballot marking "abstain"- would you make a point of going out to vote to say that?

Most of the time, I probably would.

I like to compare it to attendance at a hockey game. Sometimes a team needs to see the empty seats to realize that they need to do more on the ice. IMO, not caring enough to show up is a bigger statement than even voting for a protest party.

Not in my lifetime, but one day I would like to a see a system where people who want to get into politics have to go and pass a difficult series of mental and psychological tests that test both intellect and political leanings. The people then vote directly on specific issues. The statistics could then be compiled and the best candidates that are most likely going work towards those goals (or oppose them in a stength relative to dissenting opinions) could be selected from a pool of the best candidates. This way people wouldn't know if they were voting for an upper class elite or a working class shmo. Almost like getting called for jury duty, but instead you are called to be an MP candidate.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Exactly.

I can't comment on this case right now because I haven't looked at the video, but it's kind of annoying how many people are so quick to dismiss celebrities opinions because their celebrities. We all have opinions on pretty much everything, why would they be any different?

I think it comes down to jealousy most times (though said people would never admit it). Jealousy that these people have more money or fame, or more likely, perhaps that because these people have a soapbox to with which to air their thoughts, and said person does not.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that just because a celeb says it, that it's good or worth listening to, far from it. There's plenty of examples of dumb, naive, or spoiled celebrities saying really dumb things. Just that I get annoyed with the double standard or false sense of superiority. A celeb may make a really good point about an environmental issue, or a tax issue, and people will jump all over them because, what would they know? They have it so easy, easy for them to say. They're not trained in that field!

Guess what, neither are you in 99% of issues!

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".