Russell Brand destroys MSNBC host

  On 10/27/2013 at 3:19 AM, very honest said:

any attempt at revolution would go terribly, the odds at something better coming out of it are maybe a million to one. what i'm talking about is looking at the rationale inherent in our relatively reasonable systems (the us and britain) and causing change from within.

Well look I don't think anyone's talking about a violent overthrow of the government (at least not me, mr NSA agent!).

LimpyLoo. How old are you? I've been wondering for a while. What's your age? I'm 29. Nearly 30. How old are you?

  On 10/27/2013 at 3:19 AM, very honest said:

any attempt at revolution would go terribly, the odds at something better coming out of it are maybe a million to one. what i'm talking about is looking at the rationale inherent in our relatively reasonable systems (the us and britain) and causing change from within.

Well, what's going terribly is the attempt at not making a revolution (social democracy has a 60-year long history in Europe and the conclusion is that it's over - but a German-led pan-Thatcherism surely is not the answer.) I mean, what do you mean by "relatively reasonable"? Setting aside the many problems of the two countries you mention there's the simple fact that for this system to work somewhere, there must be somewhere else where it doesn't work - and the list of countries where democracy is becoming a farce and a more or less liberal economy a hindering element is growing. You can always say it's their fault for being lazy or unproductive or something, but then the stats wouldn't be on your side.

I mean, even when you look at what's happening in Europe right now, supposedly the heart of the first world alongside the USA and a handful more countries, it becomes clear that the statement that capitalist democracy "is not perfect but works" doesn't hold.

As for terror, what's the harm? A few heads need to be cut, or go to jail, and anything else would be a joke, because if we don't change the definition of what a criminal is to include those who are responsible for the current situation, then what kind of change would that be? Even a reformist outlook would call for this. Is it even possible to distribute what has been accumulated without some force? Not mob force, not even military force, but force nonetheless.

  On 10/27/2013 at 3:39 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 10/27/2013 at 3:19 AM, very honest said:

any attempt at revolution would go terribly, the odds at something better coming out of it are maybe a million to one. what i'm talking about is looking at the rationale inherent in our relatively reasonable systems (the us and britain) and causing change from within.

 

Well look I don't think anyone's talking about a violent overthrow of the government (at least not me, mr NSA agent!).

 

the government/media is constantly manipulating and playing games with the peoples fear. there have been plenty of situations where the government blundered into unintended consequences and all that needs to happen to provoke a sort of revolution or motivated actions from citizens is to give us just a little too much fear on the wrong monday

most people in this country are all tapped into the same news sources

we are all getting the same info at the same time so if the news fucks up a story or releases something they werent supposed to and we all get mad at once, something can happen

anything can happen, including the government starting a revolution on purpose

by the way, "change from within" has arguably always been the logic of most revolutionaries, anyway - i mean, why did marx spend his life writing about capitalism rather than socialism? (at the same time, though, some of you seem to dislike that Russell Brand is talking about capitalism and what he doesn't like in it and not about a hypothetical better system... so where do you stand? do we talk about something radically different which comes out of the blue or do we search for "change from within" i.e. taking the contradictions of the present system as a springboard? There's an interesting spin on the straw man argument where people against the idea of revolution are firm believers in a romantic idea of revolution, while revolutionaries are not...)

two idiots barking at each other.

  On 10/27/2013 at 5:29 AM, zaphod said:

two idiots barking at each other.

the human condition

TODOS SUFREN!

Haha

Still wondering about your age though

;D

  On 10/27/2013 at 6:54 AM, goDel said:

Haha

 

Still wondering about your age though

;D

I gave my age about two thousand posts ago if you're really curious.

CONSUELATE EN TUS AMIGOS!

At first I thought our leadsinger here might be THE ONE who made the Fedora big. But on second thought, no, he screwed it up big way. It'd take another ten years for the Fedora to be accepted. Also might have something to do with the time it took for the brownies to grow old.

... On third thought, nowadays bronies might be born around the time this video aired... REM SPAWNED THE BROWNIE MOVEMENT!?

Holy mother of gods

  On 10/27/2013 at 2:43 AM, very honest said:

revolutionary rhetoric, at best, is a red herring, and at worst, can lead to extremely bad things.

This is a very good point - which is why I prefer Zizek's call for thought, not action

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgR6uaVqWsQ

it's called the broken record technique.

repeat the question/statement over and over. imo it's a dirty rhetorical trick but it was fun to try it. came to mind because people mentioned paxman and he and guests on his show like to do these. really popular with local government officials and staff, feminists &BBC staff etc often study these to get ahead at work etc.

here are some more from wikipedia:

Manuel Smith, in his 1975 book When I Say No, I Feel Guilty, offered some of the following behaviors:

Broken record

The "broken record" technique consists of simply repeating your requests or your refusals every time you are met with resistance. The term comes from vinyl records, the surface of which when scratched would lead the needle of a record player to loop over the same few seconds of the recording indefinitely. "As with a broken record, the key to this approach is repetition ... where your partner will not take no for an answer."

A disadvantage with this technique is that when resistance continues, your requests may lose power every time you have to repeat them. If the requests are repeated too often, it can backfire on the authority of your words. In these cases, it is necessary to have some sanctions on hand.

Fogging

Fogging consists of finding some limited truth to agree with in what an antagonist is saying. More specifically, one can agree in part or agree in principle.

Negative inquiry

Negative inquiry consists of requesting further, more specific criticism.

Negative assertion

Negative assertion is agreement with criticism without letting up demand.

I-statements

I-statements can be used to voice one's feelings and wishes from a personal position without expressing a judgment about the other person or blaming one's feelings on them.

I would say TYT's analysis of the interview is pretty accurate:

Problem: Ego dominance and the refusal to admit that you can be wrong. It's somehow seen as a weakness to reply "yeah, you know what? I was totally wrong in that. You are right. Let's work towards a solution."

I am no different. I am trying to be more humble and benevolent. I also try to shy away from "mental masturbation" or solely relying on my thought process to guide me to a conclusion. It's my mind's dominance, my powerful ego, who not only says that I can be grand, but also says that I can't do something ("you are weak. you suck. why are you even considering doing this?")

It's that dominant voice that that tells me what I can and can't do (or as Mingyur Ripoche names it: the crazy monkey mind)

I am immensely opposed to Zizek, who says "don't act, think." I say act more, and think less, though I am aware that is probably my own battle that has to be fought.

Still, I think it's the biggest challenge of these times: for humanity to get over it's inflated notion of itself, and in fact be humble again.

I start with myself:

I apologize for trying to invoke negative emotions through my sad attempts of trolling in the past. It was just me being insecure and not knowing how to handle myself. I will work on a better me, with being more affectionate, compassionate and supportive.

I'm not sure about what to think of Zizek. I do agree with his "don't act, think" however. Or in other words to think more critically, like others already mentioned. All this acting without some actual critical thinking is pretty useless, imo. Would Iraq have happened if people were more critical in general? It's a bit of an utopia, I know, but the point is, the act of going into Iraq was pretty fucking stupid.

edit: the TYT thing was pretty pathetic, btw. It really doesn't deserve the praise it seems to get, imo.

i turned off that tyt analysis after 2 minutes. such horrible.

Ive never liked the Young Turks. Snarky bastards that really make watching the clip unnecessary.

More like The Young Trolls?

Cenk's mockery is Limbaugh-esque.

I demand an explanation for Breads mockery! Bread, my young revolutionist buddy, speak up!

"i do declare, russell brand, comedian, he doesn't know anything"? did one of the "young turks" really say that in an ironic english accent? why does anyone watch this shit? what brand is doing is nothing new or notable. he's an intelligent, verbose comedian getting on a soapbox speaking in an overwhelming manner about lowest common denominator populist talking points that make you look really good in easily digestible segments on the internet. none of his points were particularly developed or interesting. i don't know anything about the guy interviewing him but he just seemed a bit tired of the same line of celebrity bullshit.

Bread, that was a pretty pathetic analysis. They spent half of the video making fun of Paxman's eyebrows. Did they even bother to research his interview method or history? The comment section of that video is rightly taking TYT to town for such a display of buffoonery.

My feeling is that Paxman and Brand like each other. Paxman is used to holding politicians accountable and his baiting style was just used to tease out a passionate response from Brand, which it did.