Russell! Brand! Unleashed!

it's not democracy that saves anything, you're just reiterating intellectual hipsterism talking points. what helps is that when right, well meaning people get in position of power, and that position happens to be the state. usa would benefit a lot if republicans were completely banned from elections for example.

the che t-shirtism revolutionary discourse needs to fucking go away already, it's totally vapid.

Why do I keep reading this shitty thread?

albert einstein

"everywhere in economic as well as political life, the guiding principle is one of ruthless striving for success at the expense of one's fellow men...this competitive spirit prevails even in school and, destroying all feelings of human fraternity and cooperation, conceives achievement not as derived from the love for productive and thoughtful work, but as springing from personal ambition..."

so how should officials be appointed? people say democracies are corrupt, how would any alternative be less corrupt? no one says democracy is perfect, it's just the least horrible.

  On 3/14/2015 at 10:19 PM, very honest said:

so how should officials be appointed? people say democracies are corrupt, how would any alternative be less corrupt? no one says democracy is perfect, it's just the least horrible.

a watery tart distributing swords

  On 3/14/2015 at 6:26 AM, tauboo said:

I was only responding to you accusing everyone who disagrees with Brand of not contributing anything themselves (which is clearly untrue isn't it?). And now you're saying you don't see the use in "slagging someone off for "not contributing enough""... erm, that's what you were doing. This conversation is irritating.

 

I was saying I have a problem with Brand's contributions,obviously he doesn't just do bad but he's doing damage IMO. Unless he's change his mind, on Newsnight etc. he denied that he's starting a revolution and has admitted he doesn't offer any solutions. He just helps people feel satisfied that they've done enough caring that day, and then he makes some money off it. I wasn't commenting on his wealth as excuse for what I do myself (I'm working my way towards that, and I obviously don't intend to do things that I don't personally believe will have a positive effect just cuz other people will naively believe i'm doing good,), I was just implying that he could easily do more because not much of his 'actions' are deniable as self-marketing.. i doubt his sincerity and much of it is extremely tasteless and exploitative! Only exception is the drug-related stuff he's done, which is clearly something he's genuine about and has put effort in to. Even then though, I saw he get pissy with a drug addict because she was too happy,therefore ruining his documentary,and then a nearby drug addict grabbed a chair and gave a decent performance for him. blugh..whatever

 

also like 70% of news media does nothing but analyse the other 30% of news media pointlessly n that's all brand does

Well, I didn't accuse really. I speculated, and then asked for confirmation. No, it isn't what I was doing. There is a clear difference between sitting on the sidelines, doing nothing, and being overly critical of those people who are participating, and participating and also being critical of other people who are participating. Still overly critical in my eyes, but whatever.

Well, I was talking to my friend who has read his book yesterday evening, and he says that his book does actually contain systematic and structural changes that could be implemented to create positive change. He also says that he doesn't have all the solutions. That he is not the "leader", and shouldn't be looked upon as such, and that there shouldn't be any leaders in the new world. My friend even said as much as, " I need to read the book again as it is a lot of information to take in on one read through." So this leads me to believe there is a good chunk of well thought out material in there.

There is a perfectly logical explanation behind Brand's position of not wanting people to participate in voting, and that is because he believes the entire system is broken. By participating in it you are acknowledging that it is legitimate, and by doing so you are are perpetuating the current problems. He believes the proper course of action is to demolish the entire system, and start a new one. Now, I had a lengthy argument about how I disagree with this method, but it is a legitimate perspective nonetheless. Not practical in my opinion, and very risky, but it makes sense.

I don't believe there is any basis for your asserting that "all he does is make people feel satisfied with what they've done that day". I don't think this is a logical statement. I don't think there is data to support it. I don't think you can stand behind this.

I've never seen the specific instance you're referring to, and it would be interesting to see as I'm sure if I saw some really negative things regarding him that it would alter my opinion.

You're still downplaying the very important role that all media plays in society. You change the message of the media and you alter society. This is proven.

Anyway, I'm not trying to go around in circles about this shit.

  On 3/14/2015 at 10:19 PM, very honest said:

so how should officials be appointed? people say democracies are corrupt, how would any alternative be less corrupt? no one says democracy is perfect, it's just the least horrible.

officials are not necessary in the new world. the internet has made them irrelevant.

humans have this way of always making things more complicated then they need to be. all of us breath; so clean air might be important. we all piss and have shits so maybe more toilets? we all need to be kept from the weather sometimes and we need a bit of clothing and food. we need a place to bathe and somewhere warm to sleep. why is it so hard to figure this?

th solution therefore would be a bit of scientific permaculture & enlightened socialism; perhaps with th sprinkle in th alternative, artistic community and a bit of entertainment.

really not so hard actually, yet humanity has been continually fucking themselves out of simple solutions for thousands and thousands of years. i don't expect any real

substantial, sustainable change any time soon. we are completely out of control - so then, until we want to stop at that and wake th fuck up..

?

demagogue, tells you what you want to hear. doesnt work things out from first principles. think coriolanus. not well versed in basic history. ttc do good histories of britain. history of british empire + history of conservatism. not controversial, the presenter is quite neutral and moderate without pushing any particular view.

jonny rotten would be good, he's a straight talker, earns respect even if you dont agree with him. david mitchell is quite smart, dont really agree with his ideas but he's not foolish like russell brand.

with brand he doesnt get the history or the situation at all. he would step on the toes of masons and business, naturally they would fight back, the public would lose out. the banks have been there safe for 300-400 years, now brand comes along trying to push them out. thats the complete opposite of bismarckian realpolitik. brand=fakepolitik. he's all talk, complete bullshitter.

  On 3/15/2015 at 10:43 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

  On 3/14/2015 at 10:19 PM, very honest said:

so how should officials be appointed? people say democracies are corrupt, how would any alternative be less corrupt? no one says democracy is perfect, it's just the least horrible.

 

officials are not necessary in the new world. the internet has made them irrelevant.

 

in order to get to the point where that's possible we're gonna have to vote in some sensible legislators

or would brand's revolutionaries be able to implement the new headless internet government in the ensuing mayhem following his overthrow of western governments

  On 3/15/2015 at 10:43 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 3/14/2015 at 6:26 AM, tauboo said:

I was only responding to you accusing everyone who disagrees with Brand of not contributing anything themselves (which is clearly untrue isn't it?). And now you're saying you don't see the use in "slagging someone off for "not contributing enough""... erm, that's what you were doing. This conversation is irritating.

 

I was saying I have a problem with Brand's contributions,obviously he doesn't just do bad but he's doing damage IMO. Unless he's change his mind, on Newsnight etc. he denied that he's starting a revolution and has admitted he doesn't offer any solutions. He just helps people feel satisfied that they've done enough caring that day, and then he makes some money off it. I wasn't commenting on his wealth as excuse for what I do myself (I'm working my way towards that, and I obviously don't intend to do things that I don't personally believe will have a positive effect just cuz other people will naively believe i'm doing good,), I was just implying that he could easily do more because not much of his 'actions' are deniable as self-marketing.. i doubt his sincerity and much of it is extremely tasteless and exploitative! Only exception is the drug-related stuff he's done, which is clearly something he's genuine about and has put effort in to. Even then though, I saw he get pissy with a drug addict because she was too happy,therefore ruining his documentary,and then a nearby drug addict grabbed a chair and gave a decent performance for him. blugh..whatever

 

also like 70% of news media does nothing but analyse the other 30% of news media pointlessly n that's all brand does

 

Well, I didn't accuse really. I speculated, and then asked for confirmation. No, it isn't what I was doing. There is a clear difference between sitting on the sidelines, doing nothing, and being overly critical of those people who are participating, and participating and also being critical of other people who are participating. Still overly critical in my eyes, but whatever.

 

Well, I was talking to my friend who has read his book yesterday evening, and he says that his book does actually contain systematic and structural changes that could be implemented to create positive change. He also says that he doesn't have all the solutions. That he is not the "leader", and shouldn't be looked upon as such, and that there shouldn't be any leaders in the new world. My friend even said as much as, " I need to read the book again as it is a lot of information to take in on one read through." So this leads me to believe there is a good chunk of well thought out material in there.

 

There is a perfectly logical explanation behind Brand's position of not wanting people to participate in voting, and that is because he believes the entire system is broken. By participating in it you are acknowledging that it is legitimate, and by doing so you are are perpetuating the current problems. He believes the proper course of action is to demolish the entire system, and start a new one. Now, I had a lengthy argument about how I disagree with this method, but it is a legitimate perspective nonetheless. Not practical in my opinion, and very risky, but it makes sense.

 

I don't believe there is any basis for your asserting that "all he does is make people feel satisfied with what they've done that day". I don't think this is a logical statement. I don't think there is data to support it. I don't think you can stand behind this.

 

I've never seen the specific instance you're referring to, and it would be interesting to see as I'm sure if I saw some really negative things regarding him that it would alter my opinion.

 

You're still downplaying the very important role that all media plays in society. You change the message of the media and you alter society. This is proven.

 

Anyway, I'm not trying to go around in circles about this shit.

  On 3/14/2015 at 10:19 PM, very honest said:

so how should officials be appointed? people say democracies are corrupt, how would any alternative be less corrupt? no one says democracy is perfect, it's just the least horrible.

 

officials are not necessary in the new world. the internet has made them irrelevant.

 

The way you talk about politics has led me to put you and Brand in the same box in my brain, previously labeled 'natural law party'. This is such naive bullshit. As long as there are competition for resources the world will remain a mostly awful place with isolated pockets of less awfulness. The combination of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the limits of human nature sadly prevent anything else working out. Brand will never convince anyone that matters to get his ill-defined revolution going, because no-one in the end really wants what he's selling.

  On 3/16/2015 at 9:06 AM, Redruth said:

humans have this way of always making things more complicated then they need to be. all of us breath; so clean air might be important. we all piss and have shits so maybe more toilets? we all need to be kept from the weather sometimes and we need a bit of clothing and food. we need a place to bathe and somewhere warm to sleep. why is it so hard to figure this?

 

th solution therefore would be a bit of scientific permaculture & enlightened socialism; perhaps with th sprinkle in th alternative, artistic community and a bit of entertainment.

 

really not so hard actually, yet humanity has been continually fucking themselves out of simple solutions for thousands and thousands of years. i don't expect any real

substantial, sustainable change any time soon. we are completely out of control - so then, until we want to stop at that and wake th fuck up..

 

?

people don't want permaculture or enlightened socialism though, so what do you do then? permaculture would necessitate the deaths of billions of people too, would you be cool with that?

u obviously don't know much about permaculture - and yes th human majority is set against these types of things atm and that my internet friend is precisely th problem - we have been brainwashed to want what is not good for us and discard that which we need. we shit where we eat. we continue to live as th example of this same behavior for others who in turn learn from us - until th cycle of this misinformation is broken, the world will continue to suffer and we will all continue to suffer more and more..

it is unfortunate because this is really quite a good little plant we have here and we've been given many advantages and as a species we have given back the equivalent of diarrhea - actually even diarrhea would be better then what we have given back.

I know plenty about it actually, I know there are lots of people who make claims about being able to scale it up to feed the planet, I don't buy it though.

edit, also as time has progressed human society has started to suffer less and less, not more and more. this is a strange notion in the liberal western sphere that has started to become more and more popular in recent years.

  On 3/16/2015 at 8:08 PM, caze said:

also as time has progressed human society has started to suffer less and less, not more and more.

is this really true thought?

  On 3/16/2015 at 8:08 PM, caze said:

I know plenty about it actually, I know there are lots of people who make claims about being able to scale it up to feed the planet, I don't buy it though.

 

edit, also as time has progressed human society has started to suffer less and less, not more and more. this is a strange notion in the liberal western sphere that has started to become more and more popular in recent years.

permaculture, multi-level food forests etc r basically recreating th 'garden of eden' aesthetic as a food production model; to varying degrees, on every usable inch of open land on th planet. food, clean water, clean air, paradise etc etc.. i could not see how this would not feed th planet considering we have 57 million square miles of land on earth. permaculture is quite literally metamorphic and transforms land that was once completely barren and unusable. it would increase useable land many many times..

nah, the future of sustainable food production is bioengineering, meat farms, massive GM, vertical farming, farming in space, etc. nature is for suckers.

Fuck's sake

smartypants. unbridled human ingenuity is what has gotten us into this huge mess to begin with. i'll see u in th human engineered hell my friend :) we can drink gmo robot meat through th straw together there; have a romantic moment whilst watching th toxic ooozes seep..

  Quote

 

Is this really true thought?

yes

  Quote

 

smartypants. unbridled human ingenuity is what has gotten us into this huge mess to begin with. i'll see u in th human engineered hell my friend :) we can drink gmo robot meat through th straw together there; have a romantic moment whilst watching th toxic ooozes seep..

 

what mess?

  On 3/16/2015 at 6:41 PM, caze said:

 

  On 3/15/2015 at 10:43 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 3/14/2015 at 6:26 AM, tauboo said:

I was only responding to you accusing everyone who disagrees with Brand of not contributing anything themselves (which is clearly untrue isn't it?). And now you're saying you don't see the use in "slagging someone off for "not contributing enough""... erm, that's what you were doing. This conversation is irritating.

 

I was saying I have a problem with Brand's contributions,obviously he doesn't just do bad but he's doing damage IMO. Unless he's change his mind, on Newsnight etc. he denied that he's starting a revolution and has admitted he doesn't offer any solutions. He just helps people feel satisfied that they've done enough caring that day, and then he makes some money off it. I wasn't commenting on his wealth as excuse for what I do myself (I'm working my way towards that, and I obviously don't intend to do things that I don't personally believe will have a positive effect just cuz other people will naively believe i'm doing good,), I was just implying that he could easily do more because not much of his 'actions' are deniable as self-marketing.. i doubt his sincerity and much of it is extremely tasteless and exploitative! Only exception is the drug-related stuff he's done, which is clearly something he's genuine about and has put effort in to. Even then though, I saw he get pissy with a drug addict because she was too happy,therefore ruining his documentary,and then a nearby drug addict grabbed a chair and gave a decent performance for him. blugh..whatever

 

also like 70% of news media does nothing but analyse the other 30% of news media pointlessly n that's all brand does

 

Well, I didn't accuse really. I speculated, and then asked for confirmation. No, it isn't what I was doing. There is a clear difference between sitting on the sidelines, doing nothing, and being overly critical of those people who are participating, and participating and also being critical of other people who are participating. Still overly critical in my eyes, but whatever.

 

Well, I was talking to my friend who has read his book yesterday evening, and he says that his book does actually contain systematic and structural changes that could be implemented to create positive change. He also says that he doesn't have all the solutions. That he is not the "leader", and shouldn't be looked upon as such, and that there shouldn't be any leaders in the new world. My friend even said as much as, " I need to read the book again as it is a lot of information to take in on one read through." So this leads me to believe there is a good chunk of well thought out material in there.

 

There is a perfectly logical explanation behind Brand's position of not wanting people to participate in voting, and that is because he believes the entire system is broken. By participating in it you are acknowledging that it is legitimate, and by doing so you are are perpetuating the current problems. He believes the proper course of action is to demolish the entire system, and start a new one. Now, I had a lengthy argument about how I disagree with this method, but it is a legitimate perspective nonetheless. Not practical in my opinion, and very risky, but it makes sense.

 

I don't believe there is any basis for your asserting that "all he does is make people feel satisfied with what they've done that day". I don't think this is a logical statement. I don't think there is data to support it. I don't think you can stand behind this.

 

I've never seen the specific instance you're referring to, and it would be interesting to see as I'm sure if I saw some really negative things regarding him that it would alter my opinion.

 

You're still downplaying the very important role that all media plays in society. You change the message of the media and you alter society. This is proven.

 

Anyway, I'm not trying to go around in circles about this shit.

  On 3/14/2015 at 10:19 PM, very honest said:

so how should officials be appointed? people say democracies are corrupt, how would any alternative be less corrupt? no one says democracy is perfect, it's just the least horrible.

 

officials are not necessary in the new world. the internet has made them irrelevant.

 

 

The way you talk about politics has led me to put you and Brand in the same box in my brain, previously labeled 'natural law party'. This is such naive bullshit. As long as there are competition for resources the world will remain a mostly awful place with isolated pockets of less awfulness. The combination of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the limits of human nature sadly prevent anything else working out. Brand will never convince anyone that matters to get his ill-defined revolution going, because no-one in the end really wants what he's selling.

 

One day you will realize how silly you are. or you will die. But one of those things will happen.

It just boggles my mind.... why, in your opinion Caze, (putting aside the concrete example of Brand) no-one in the end really wants what he's selling? what makes you believe that?

people being pissy because the system isn't how they imagine it should be are childish. it invites participation. theres nothing stopping you from making a party and running a candidate. talking about how people shouldnt vote and a revolution is needed is like pissing on the graves of the millions who've fought and died defending a system which is replete with channels for citizens to enact change.

over here in america at least political parties can just spring up. the tea party just showed up one year. they had some big donors, sure, but who's to say it's not possible to attract some big donors with solid ideas? and these days there is crowd-sourcing, too. donald trump toyed with the idea of running for president. a poor black guy who was first in his class at harvard studying constitutional law ran for president and won. oh right he didn't fix everything, sorry.

probably the best way for russel brand to actually get something like the results that he wants is to organize a political movement including candidates to be voted for

yeah, I'm pretty sure one day I'll die, unless I manage to upload my consciousness into a computer or something, but even then all the protons will decay eventually.