What do ye think?
Annoying hypocrite or spot on??
Personally, I agree with some of his analysis. Once you get past the annoying appearance and attitude...makes some decent points.
Hard not to argue with anything raised here regarding the war on ISIS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnhqtaHuHEU
I don't think he's a hypocrite. The argument that you can't be rich and argue for social justice is nonsense. The man is a loose cannon though. Putting that Daily Mail reporter's details on Twitter was the behaviour of a Coked-up (as opposed to coked-up) 12 year old.
Quote from: deiseach on December 09, 2014, 02:38:24 PM
I don't think he's a hypocrite. The argument that you can't be rich and argue for social justice is nonsense. The man is a loose cannon though. Putting that Daily Mail reporter's details on Twitter was the behaviour of a Coked-up (as opposed to coked-up) 12 year old.
it'll tighten him
I liked his reaction to the sun slating him too.
He's a but over the top but in general he has some very valid points in this regard. The daily mail is a xenophobic gutter press rag so it's kind of hard to feel sympathy for any of it's people.
He's very intelligent. And knows how to press the right buttons.
He calls out hypocrisy especially in the media. But he can't change anything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2eDj39q0Fo
Quote from: seafoid on December 09, 2014, 09:43:30 PM
He's very intelligent. And knows how to press the right buttons.
He calls out hypocrisy especially in the media. But he can't change anything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2eDj39q0Fo
He is a hypocrite himself and there are plenty of debunkings of his nonsense online if you can be bothered to look, you won't find it in the Guardian though.
Quote from: Minder on December 09, 2014, 10:28:54 PM
Quote from: seafoid on December 09, 2014, 09:43:30 PM
He's very intelligent. And knows how to press the right buttons.
He calls out hypocrisy especially in the media. But he can't change anything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2eDj39q0Fo
He is a hypocrite himself and there are plenty of debunkings of his nonsense online if you can be bothered to look, you won't find it in the Guardian though.
it's not all nonsense and he is a hypocrite but when did that start disqualifying people from media appearances?
Quote from: seafoid on December 09, 2014, 10:33:40 PM
Quote from: Minder on December 09, 2014, 10:28:54 PM
Quote from: seafoid on December 09, 2014, 09:43:30 PM
He's very intelligent. And knows how to press the right buttons.
He calls out hypocrisy especially in the media. But he can't change anything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2eDj39q0Fo
He is a hypocrite himself and there are plenty of debunkings of his nonsense online if you can be bothered to look, you won't find it in the Guardian though.
it's not all nonsense and he is a hypocrite but when did that start disqualifying people from media appearances?
Nobody is saying he should be disqualified from media appearances, just don't know why he is indulged so much.
Silly fcuker most of his life but has a good brain and most of his current thoughts are v interesting. Would like to see how far he will go.
I don't get the hypocrisy charge. Do you have to be St Francis of Assisi before you can comment on possible redistributive solutions to poverty?
Quote from: deiseach on December 10, 2014, 10:44:08 AM
I don't get the hypocrisy charge. Do you have to be St Francis of Assisi before you can comment on possible redistributive solutions to poverty?
Agreed. It's impossible to make a point on capitalism in modern society without being inside it's structure..Brand uses YouTube which itself is owned by Google...I'm writing this off an iPhone sure.
Quote from: deiseach on December 10, 2014, 10:44:08 AM
I don't get the hypocrisy charge. Do you have to be St Francis of Assisi before you can comment on possible redistributive solutions to poverty?
I never understood why this was a hypocrisy either. A very intelligent man, but some of his ideas aren't well thoughtout. Revolution and non-voting isn't the way to go.
Quote from: Minder on December 09, 2014, 10:36:16 PM
Quote from: seafoid on December 09, 2014, 10:33:40 PM
Quote from: Minder on December 09, 2014, 10:28:54 PM
Quote from: seafoid on December 09, 2014, 09:43:30 PM
He's very intelligent. And knows how to press the right buttons.
He calls out hypocrisy especially in the media. But he can't change anything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2eDj39q0Fo
He is a hypocrite himself and there are plenty of debunkings of his nonsense online if you can be bothered to look, you won't find it in the Guardian though.
it's not all nonsense and he is a hypocrite but when did that start disqualifying people from media appearances?
Nobody is saying he should be disqualified from media appearances, just don't know why he is indulged so much.
A lot of stuff doesn't make it into the media discourse so if he can get around that fair play to him.
We are at a very interesting stage with capitalism under so many questions. A lot of elites don't know what's going on.
He points that out too.
I think he's too narcissistic but lots of people like him.
Quote from: ziggysego on December 10, 2014, 12:56:33 PM
Quote from: deiseach on December 10, 2014, 10:44:08 AM
I don't get the hypocrisy charge. Do you have to be St Francis of Assisi before you can comment on possible redistributive solutions to poverty?
I never understood why this was a hypocrisy either. A very intelligent man, but some of his ideas aren't well thoughtout. Revolution and non-voting isn't the way to go.
I was interested in the non voting rationale and watched this yesterday..
Can see his viewpoint at bit better after this..
http://youtu.be/3YR4CseY9pk
He is an ex junkie, he is a hypocrite and he is a self publicist.
But this does not exclude him from having a view point on this or any other topic. Also the fact that he is highlighting some of the social injustice of this society can only be a good thing, if it resonates with even a few people then it maybe is worth the more unpleasant things.
'Ex junkie' in that sentence very judgemental. A recovering drug addict would be a better description and trying to help other addicts.
Quote from: NAG1 on December 10, 2014, 02:31:42 PM
He is an ex junkie, he is a hypocrite and he is a self publicist.
But this does not exclude him from having a view point on this or any other topic. Also the fact that he is highlighting some of the social injustice of this society can only be a good thing, if it resonates with even a few people then it maybe is worth the more unpleasant things.
you're practically a saint
Quote from: NAG1 on December 10, 2014, 02:31:42 PM
He is an ex junkie, he is a hypocrite and he is a self publicist.
In what way is he a hypocrite? (He's obviously the first one and I'd agree with the last one. I think he'd probably even agree.)
It is not hypocritical to have an ideology that is a little bit out of step with what you practice. For example, you can have legitimate concerns about what corporations pay in tax and still work for a multinational.
However, your personal ideology or political worldview must be proportionate to the way you choose to live your own life. If you work for a multinational and that employment funds your comfortable, affluent western lifestyle and yet you spend every waking hour railing against the greed of said corporations then that is an inconsistency gone too far.
In the case of Brand , he is worth in the region of $15 million and he considers profit to be a "filthy" word.
He is the definition of hypocrisy.
Settle down lads, he would describe himself and has before as an ex-junkie, no judgement here I think anyone who comes back from that deserves credit.
Since when did I proclaim to be a saint.
My point was that because he was any of the things I described him as doesnt stop him having an opinion. Nor should it. Earlier posts were more or less saying that he shouldnt have an opinion.
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on December 10, 2014, 04:00:29 PM
It is not hypocritical to have an ideology that is a little bit out of step with what you practice. For example, you can have legitimate concerns about what corporations pay in tax and still work for a multinational.
However, your personal ideology or political worldview must be proportionate to the way you choose to live your own life. If you work for a multinational and that employment funds your comfortable, affluent western lifestyle and yet you spend every waking hour railing against the greed of said corporations then that is an inconsistency gone too far.
In the case of Brand , he is worth in the region of $15 million and he considers profit to be a "filthy" word.
He is the definition of hypocrisy.
How little would he have to earn before he wouldn't be a hypocrite?
Quote from: deiseach on December 10, 2014, 04:09:40 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on December 10, 2014, 04:00:29 PM
It is not hypocritical to have an ideology that is a little bit out of step with what you practice. For example, you can have legitimate concerns about what corporations pay in tax and still work for a multinational.
However, your personal ideology or political worldview must be proportionate to the way you choose to live your own life. If you work for a multinational and that employment funds your comfortable, affluent western lifestyle and yet you spend every waking hour railing against the greed of said corporations then that is an inconsistency gone too far.
In the case of Brand , he is worth in the region of $15 million and he considers profit to be a "filthy" word.
He is the definition of hypocrisy.
How little would he have to earn before he wouldn't be a hypocrite?
Oh, lets say 100k pa. Most people could live quite comfortably on that I think.
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on December 10, 2014, 04:23:34 PM
Oh, lets say 100k pa. Most people could live quite comfortably on that I think.
So no one earning (say) 150k pa is allowed argue for greater taxation on incomes or profits without being labelled a hypocrite. Good to know.
Quote from: deiseach on December 10, 2014, 04:25:11 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on December 10, 2014, 04:23:34 PM
Oh, lets say 100k pa. Most people could live quite comfortably on that I think.
So no one earning (say) 150k pa is allowed argue for greater taxation on incomes or profits without being labelled a hypocrite. Good to know.
It depends on how strongly you believe in what you are arguing for. A case of putting your money where your mouth is, literally. In the case of Brand he should make an example of himself first before preaching to others. Reducing his income to 100k seems like a reasonable place to start with him.
If he dials back the rhetoric a bit he might be due a raise..lets say 300k.
Seems reasonable...or do you think there should be no proportionate relationship between what a person practices and what they preach ?
I don't see why a rich person cannot argue for higher taxes without being labelled a hypocrite. The question is whether he has earned his money honestly and is paying his fair share of taxes. Asking them to reduce their income to some notional amount is so arbitrary as to be meaningless. The comedian Rob Newman doesn't own a car (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/my-secret-life-rob-newman-comedian-amp-writer-766090.html) and would probably view anyone who does as an exploiter. If Russell Brand were dumping his money in an offshore account, employing staff on minimum wage, or engaging in domicile chicanery à la U2 then that would be hypocrisy. Maybe he is. I await evidence that he does.
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on December 10, 2014, 04:38:38 PM
Quote from: deiseach on December 10, 2014, 04:25:11 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on December 10, 2014, 04:23:34 PM
Oh, lets say 100k pa. Most people could live quite comfortably on that I think.
So no one earning (say) 150k pa is allowed argue for greater taxation on incomes or profits without being labelled a hypocrite. Good to know.
It depends on how strongly you believe in what you are arguing for. A case of putting your money where your mouth is, literally. In the case of Brand he should make an example of himself first before preaching to others. Reducing his income to 100k seems like a reasonable place to start with him.
If he dials back the rhetoric a bit he might be due a raise..lets say 300k.
Seems reasonable...or do you think there should be no proportionate relationship between what a person practices and what they preach ?
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/oct/11/russell-brand-revolution-alienation-despair
He received a six-figure advance for Revolution, but insists he won't be keeping it. "I'm going to get a property in east London and set up a coffee and juice bar to be run by people in recovery from addiction." So he's going to give away his money? "No. I'm no longer interested in making money. And the money I get, I'm going to use for good. We need systemic change, not charity. I won't be in charge. They'll vote for how they want to run it."
Is he loaded? "Yeah!" How much is he worth? "I don't know, but I could probably never be poor again. When I see stuff in the paper like, 'Oh, he's worth £20m quid', I ain't worth that much. I don't know what I've done with my money. I've sorted my parents out, but all the money now, I'm going to use it for social enterprises..."
Quote from: deiseach on December 10, 2014, 04:51:28 PM
I don't see why a rich person cannot argue for higher taxes without being labelled a hypocrite. The question is whether he has earned his money honestly and is paying his fair share of taxes. Asking them to reduce their income to some notional amount is so arbitrary as to be meaningless. The comedian Rob Newman doesn't own a car (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/my-secret-life-rob-newman-comedian-amp-writer-766090.html) and would probably view anyone who does as an exploiter. If Russell Brand were dumping his money in an offshore account, employing staff on minimum wage, or engaging in domicile chicanery à la U2 then that would be hypocrisy. Maybe he is. I await evidence that he does.
He goes a bit further than simply calling for higher taxes...also there have been question marks about some of his financial dealings, specifically, wrt tax avoidance schemes.
https://www.accountancylive.com/bank-basher-russell-brand-raises-film-finance-city (https://www.accountancylive.com/bank-basher-russell-brand-raises-film-finance-city)
Quote from: dferg on December 10, 2014, 04:54:47 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on December 10, 2014, 04:38:38 PM
Quote from: deiseach on December 10, 2014, 04:25:11 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on December 10, 2014, 04:23:34 PM
Oh, lets say 100k pa. Most people could live quite comfortably on that I think.
So no one earning (say) 150k pa is allowed argue for greater taxation on incomes or profits without being labelled a hypocrite. Good to know.
It depends on how strongly you believe in what you are arguing for. A case of putting your money where your mouth is, literally. In the case of Brand he should make an example of himself first before preaching to others. Reducing his income to 100k seems like a reasonable place to start with him.
If he dials back the rhetoric a bit he might be due a raise..lets say 300k.
Seems reasonable...or do you think there should be no proportionate relationship between what a person practices and what they preach ?
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/oct/11/russell-brand-revolution-alienation-despair
He received a six-figure advance for Revolution, but insists he won't be keeping it. "I'm going to get a property in east London and set up a coffee and juice bar to be run by people in recovery from addiction." So he's going to give away his money? "No. I'm no longer interested in making money. And the money I get, I'm going to use for good. We need systemic change, not charity. I won't be in charge. They'll vote for how they want to run it."
Is he loaded? "Yeah!" How much is he worth? "I don't know, but I could probably never be poor again. When I see stuff in the paper like, 'Oh, he's worth £20m quid', I ain't worth that much. I don't know what I've done with my money. I've sorted my parents out, but all the money now, I'm going to use it for social enterprises..."
Really ? Sounds like someone with something to hide.
If he wont say how much he is worth then how can we tell if "all the money" is actually used for social enterprises ?
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on December 10, 2014, 05:24:01 PM
Quote from: dferg on December 10, 2014, 04:54:47 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on December 10, 2014, 04:38:38 PM
Quote from: deiseach on December 10, 2014, 04:25:11 PM
Quote from: Mike Sheehy on December 10, 2014, 04:23:34 PM
Oh, lets say 100k pa. Most people could live quite comfortably on that I think.
So no one earning (say) 150k pa is allowed argue for greater taxation on incomes or profits without being labelled a hypocrite. Good to know.
It depends on how strongly you believe in what you are arguing for. A case of putting your money where your mouth is, literally. In the case of Brand he should make an example of himself first before preaching to others. Reducing his income to 100k seems like a reasonable place to start with him.
If he dials back the rhetoric a bit he might be due a raise..lets say 300k.
Seems reasonable...or do you think there should be no proportionate relationship between what a person practices and what they preach ?
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/oct/11/russell-brand-revolution-alienation-despair
He received a six-figure advance for Revolution, but insists he won't be keeping it. "I'm going to get a property in east London and set up a coffee and juice bar to be run by people in recovery from addiction." So he's going to give away his money? "No. I'm no longer interested in making money. And the money I get, I'm going to use for good. We need systemic change, not charity. I won't be in charge. They'll vote for how they want to run it."
Is he loaded? "Yeah!" How much is he worth? "I don't know, but I could probably never be poor again. When I see stuff in the paper like, 'Oh, he's worth £20m quid', I ain't worth that much. I don't know what I've done with my money. I've sorted my parents out, but all the money now, I'm going to use it for social enterprises..."
Really ? Sounds like someone with something to hide.
If he wont say how much he is worth then how can we tell if "all the money" is actually used for social enterprises ?
why do the Kochs need all that money , Mike? Aren't they hypocrites ?
I'm sure they don't need all that money but I don't recall them describing profit as filthy so, no, they would not be hypocrites on this issue.
I suppose is how you define a hypocrite.. what about a pink faced commentator who accuses a team of playing puke football and when is team does the same says it is tactical masterclass?
Quote from: longballin on December 10, 2014, 06:48:21 PM
I suppose is how you define a hypocrite.. what about a pink faced commentator who accuses a team of playing puke football and when is team does the same says it is tactical masterclass?
There's a world of difference with a team who's default setting was puke football compared to a team who played puke football in a final to beat a another team who only play puke football. ;-)
Quote from: longballin on December 10, 2014, 06:48:21 PM
I suppose is how you define a hypocrite.. what about a pink faced commentator who accuses a team of playing puke football and when is team does the same says it is tactical masterclass?
If we could give 34 of our AI away to bring Tyrone up to our level, believe me we would. Unfortunately these riches are not our generations to give away so our existential angst at the unfairness of it all will have to continue.
It is a terrible cross to bear.
but Tyrone made yis cry :P
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/disgruntled-rbs-worker-writes-hilarious-open-letter-to-russell-brand-after-anticapitalist-publicity-stunt-leaves-him-hungry-9930135.html
This lad doesn't seem too impressed with Brand ruining his lunch ;D
"So unthreatening a revolutionary is Russell Brand that Stalin would not even have bothered to have him shot."
David Aaronovitch, The Times
On the other hand, even Gandhi would have had David Aaronovitch shot.