This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Russell Brand - class warrior or complete bell end
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
sanitycheck  04 Dec 14 1.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I was under the impression that people pay their rent to a landlord. If we all followed where every penny we spend went to I'm sure we'd all realise we're hypocrites. It's easy to point the finger but at least Brand is fighting to help with issues like the new era estate even if he does get flack along the way. Without his fame and riches no-one even would be listening - that's his entire point. If he lived in a £100,000 grand house the narrative would be that he's mentally ill, so there's always an angle. National Newspapers view those speaking out on these issues to be worthy of front page character assassinations. That is the real story.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 Johnny Eagles  berlin 04 Dec 14 1.31pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 1.16pm
I was under the impression that people pay their rent to a landlord. If we all followed where every penny we spend went to I'm sure we'd all realise we're hypocrites. It's easy to point the finger but at least Brand is fighting to help with issues like the new era estate even if he does get flack along the way. Without his fame and riches no-one even would be listening - that's his entire point. If he lived in a £100,000 grand house the narrative would be that he's mentally ill, so there's always an angle. National Newspapers view those speaking out on these issues to be worthy of front page character assassinations. That is the real story.
Before we get too carried away, how interested would Brand be in all this if it didn't result in lots and lots of media coverage for Mr R. Brand Esq? I was at a gala dinner recently where they handed out a charity award. The ten or so charities on the shortlist were run by modest people who devote their lives, quietly and not in front of the cameras, to helping people worse off than them. But some alleged comedian who went out with Katy Perry spouts some facile, intellectually redundant student lefty rubbish and the media are all over him like a tramp on chips. I understand the reasons why, but let's please put Mr Brand's supposed do-gooding into perspective. He's not exactly Robin bleeding Hood.
...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread... |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| sanitycheck 04 Dec 14 1.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Johnny Eagles at 04 Dec 2014 1.31pm
Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 1.16pm
I was under the impression that people pay their rent to a landlord. If we all followed where every penny we spend went to I'm sure we'd all realise we're hypocrites. It's easy to point the finger but at least Brand is fighting to help with issues like the new era estate even if he does get flack along the way. Without his fame and riches no-one even would be listening - that's his entire point. If he lived in a £100,000 grand house the narrative would be that he's mentally ill, so there's always an angle. National Newspapers view those speaking out on these issues to be worthy of front page character assassinations. That is the real story.
Before we get too carried away, how interested would Brand be in all this if it didn't result in lots and lots of media coverage for Mr R. Brand Esq? I was at a gala dinner recently where they handed out a charity award. The ten or so charities on the shortlist were run by modest people who devote their lives, quietly and not in front of the cameras, to helping people worse off than them. But some alleged comedian who went out with Katy Perry spouts some facile, intellectually redundant student lefty rubbish and the media are all over him like a tramp on chips. I understand the reasons why, but let's please put Mr Brand's supposed do-gooding into perspective. He's not exactly Robin bleeding Hood. Again, who isn't somewhat self serving and hypocritical? You don't have to be as pure as driven snow to help other peoples lives. That's what he's done in this particular case and he's being attacked for it by people who are even bigger hypocrites than he is. Maybe what the New Era Estate residents think of his actions here holds some importance too. Just a thought. Edited by sanitycheck (04 Dec 2014 1.54pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Johnny Eagles berlin 04 Dec 14 2.08pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 1.54pm
Quote Johnny Eagles at 04 Dec 2014 1.31pm
Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 1.16pm
I was under the impression that people pay their rent to a landlord. If we all followed where every penny we spend went to I'm sure we'd all realise we're hypocrites. It's easy to point the finger but at least Brand is fighting to help with issues like the new era estate even if he does get flack along the way. Without his fame and riches no-one even would be listening - that's his entire point. If he lived in a £100,000 grand house the narrative would be that he's mentally ill, so there's always an angle. National Newspapers view those speaking out on these issues to be worthy of front page character assassinations. That is the real story.
Before we get too carried away, how interested would Brand be in all this if it didn't result in lots and lots of media coverage for Mr R. Brand Esq? I was at a gala dinner recently where they handed out a charity award. The ten or so charities on the shortlist were run by modest people who devote their lives, quietly and not in front of the cameras, to helping people worse off than them. But some alleged comedian who went out with Katy Perry spouts some facile, intellectually redundant student lefty rubbish and the media are all over him like a tramp on chips. I understand the reasons why, but let's please put Mr Brand's supposed do-gooding into perspective. He's not exactly Robin bleeding Hood. Again, who isn't somewhat self serving and hypocritical? You don't have to be as pure as driven snow to help other peoples lives. That's what he's done in this particular case and he's being attacked for it by people who are even bigger hypocrites than he is. Maybe what the New Era Estate residents think of his actions here holds some importance too. Just a thought. Edited by sanitycheck (04 Dec 2014 1.54pm)
I criticised the journalist for the ad hominem stuff he went in for. I think you have to deal with the substance of what Brand says, not who he is as a person. But at the same time, let's not get carried away like he is some kind of saint. I have a lot of respect for people who are politically active and campaign for the things they believe in. It's just that Mr Brand's activism somehow seems to get relentlessly pumped at me via mainstream media to the point where every little thing he does is a media story. Maybe it's more the media's fault than his. Maybe it's a coincidence. Or maybe, just maybe, Mr Brand most favours causes that lead to his mug being plastered all over the place.
...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread... |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| serial thriller The Promised Land 04 Dec 14 2.08pm |
|
|---|---|
|
The idea of charisma politics articulated through one individual is pretty prevalent right now. I mean, Farage is a clear example of it, being so uniquely representative of his party alone, and we have seen numerous attacks on him about his activities in the European Parliament and his background, which have done little to deflate his image being generally quite positive for those who sympathise with his ideas. Similarly Boris Johnson is a man who seems to be able to ride the wave of personal criticism, although he's far less representative of any particular ideology. I guess it all comes down to your own stance. If you are on the left, you see hypocrisy within the Tory party as representative of the flaws in their philosophy. Similarly if you're on the right, attacking Russell Brand for his lifestyle and success appears a legitimate response. And that extends from him giving money to a dodgy landlord to wanting to, as Johnny says, appear in the media and further his career. I think both approaches are wrong. It is intellectually redundant and actually pretty cowardly to attack the person without engaging with the ideas. Russell Brand could be a Millwall-supporting top hat wearing rapist billionaire but if the ideas he as a human being channels are sympathetic to mine I see no reason that those personal facts should come in to it, just as I think it's puerile to have a go at David Cameron for going to Eton. His ideas are such bullsh*t you're almost letting him off the hook by attacking him.
If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| sanitycheck 04 Dec 14 2.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Johnny Eagles at 04 Dec 2014 2.08pm
Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 1.54pm
Quote Johnny Eagles at 04 Dec 2014 1.31pm
Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 1.16pm
I was under the impression that people pay their rent to a landlord. If we all followed where every penny we spend went to I'm sure we'd all realise we're hypocrites. It's easy to point the finger but at least Brand is fighting to help with issues like the new era estate even if he does get flack along the way. Without his fame and riches no-one even would be listening - that's his entire point. If he lived in a £100,000 grand house the narrative would be that he's mentally ill, so there's always an angle. National Newspapers view those speaking out on these issues to be worthy of front page character assassinations. That is the real story.
Before we get too carried away, how interested would Brand be in all this if it didn't result in lots and lots of media coverage for Mr R. Brand Esq? I was at a gala dinner recently where they handed out a charity award. The ten or so charities on the shortlist were run by modest people who devote their lives, quietly and not in front of the cameras, to helping people worse off than them. But some alleged comedian who went out with Katy Perry spouts some facile, intellectually redundant student lefty rubbish and the media are all over him like a tramp on chips. I understand the reasons why, but let's please put Mr Brand's supposed do-gooding into perspective. He's not exactly Robin bleeding Hood. Again, who isn't somewhat self serving and hypocritical? You don't have to be as pure as driven snow to help other peoples lives. That's what he's done in this particular case and he's being attacked for it by people who are even bigger hypocrites than he is. Maybe what the New Era Estate residents think of his actions here holds some importance too. Just a thought. Edited by sanitycheck (04 Dec 2014 1.54pm)
I criticised the journalist for the ad hominem stuff he went in for. I think you have to deal with the substance of what Brand says, not who he is as a person. But at the same time, let's not get carried away like he is some kind of saint. I have a lot of respect for people who are politically active and campaign for the things they believe in. It's just that Mr Brand's activism somehow seems to get relentlessly pumped at me via mainstream media to the point where every little thing he does is a media story. Maybe it's more the media's fault than his. Maybe it's a coincidence. Or maybe, just maybe, Mr Brand most favours causes that lead to his mug being plastered all over the place. The idea that someone cares more about the perception of how charitable they are than the acts themselves is a subjective measure. We can all say that it's obvious this way or that but ultimately he is still helping these people and only he knows how much of his heart is in it. If you don't like someone you don't like them but again, it doesn't mean that they aren't helping peoples lives. I don't recall saying that he's a saint, or anyone else doing so for that matter. I acknowledged that people tend to be hypocritical to varying degrees. I also don't care who his ex wife is or if he's a 'lefty'. I'm more concerned with factors that are relevant. If someone helps others, they help others. If they don't they don't. In this case he did something that was largely positive and received relentless and unfair attacks as a consequence of it. I'm okay with defending him over that.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| matt_himself Matataland 04 Dec 14 2.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote serial thriller at 04 Dec 2014 2.08pm
The idea of charisma politics articulated through one individual is pretty prevalent right now. I mean, Farage is a clear example of it, being so uniquely representative of his party alone, and we have seen numerous attacks on him about his activities in the European Parliament and his background, which have done little to deflate his image being generally quite positive for those who sympathise with his ideas. Similarly Boris Johnson is a man who seems to be able to ride the wave of personal criticism, although he's far less representative of any particular ideology. I guess it all comes down to your own stance. If you are on the left, you see hypocrisy within the Tory party as representative of the flaws in their philosophy. Similarly if you're on the right, attacking Russell Brand for his lifestyle and success appears a legitimate response. And that extends from him giving money to a dodgy landlord to wanting to, as Johnny says, appear in the media and further his career. I think both approaches are wrong. It is intellectually redundant and actually pretty cowardly to attack the person without engaging with the ideas. Russell Brand could be a Millwall-supporting top hat wearing rapist billionaire but if the ideas he as a human being channels are sympathetic to mine I see no reason that those personal facts should come in to it, just as I think it's puerile to have a go at David Cameron for going to Eton. His ideas are such bullsh*t you're almost letting him off the hook by attacking him.
If someone speaks for an ideal publicly and is seeking to change public opinion through their words and ideas, surely they should adhere to those words and ideas? A politician I disagree with but admire was Tony Benn because he followed through with his ideas and renounced his hereditary peerage to allow him to pursue his words and ideas. Brand is saying that rent prices are too high in London, saying that things should change, yet is adhering to the status quo by paying a high rent in a trendy area to a faceless landlord. If he really wanted to adhere to this words and ideas he would buy a one bed place in Croydon. Hypocrisy highlights the flaws in the mettle of the politician. Brand has showed his true colours. He is the same as most of the rest of them - a do as I say not do as I do merchant.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Jimenez  SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 04 Dec 14 2.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Serious question, how much are those flats worth what the people are protesting about worth?
Pro USA & Israel |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Johnny Eagles berlin 04 Dec 14 2.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote matt_himself at 04 Dec 2014 2.25pm
Quote serial thriller at 04 Dec 2014 2.08pm
The idea of charisma politics articulated through one individual is pretty prevalent right now. I mean, Farage is a clear example of it, being so uniquely representative of his party alone, and we have seen numerous attacks on him about his activities in the European Parliament and his background, which have done little to deflate his image being generally quite positive for those who sympathise with his ideas. Similarly Boris Johnson is a man who seems to be able to ride the wave of personal criticism, although he's far less representative of any particular ideology. I guess it all comes down to your own stance. If you are on the left, you see hypocrisy within the Tory party as representative of the flaws in their philosophy. Similarly if you're on the right, attacking Russell Brand for his lifestyle and success appears a legitimate response. And that extends from him giving money to a dodgy landlord to wanting to, as Johnny says, appear in the media and further his career. I think both approaches are wrong. It is intellectually redundant and actually pretty cowardly to attack the person without engaging with the ideas. Russell Brand could be a Millwall-supporting top hat wearing rapist billionaire but if the ideas he as a human being channels are sympathetic to mine I see no reason that those personal facts should come in to it, just as I think it's puerile to have a go at David Cameron for going to Eton. His ideas are such bullsh*t you're almost letting him off the hook by attacking him.
If someone speaks for an ideal publicly and is seeking to change public opinion through their words and ideas, surely they should adhere to those words and ideas? A politician I disagree with but admire was Tony Benn because he followed through with his ideas and renounced his hereditary peerage to allow him to pursue his words and ideas. Brand is saying that rent prices are too high in London, saying that things should change, yet is adhering to the status quo by paying a high rent in a trendy area to a faceless landlord. If he really wanted to adhere to this words and ideas he would buy a one bed place in Croydon. Hypocrisy highlights the flaws in the mettle of the politician. Brand has showed his true colours. He is the same as most of the rest of them - a do as I say not do as I do merchant.
Like Brand, Benn did a lot of posing and was pretty keen on the limelight. The main difference is that Benn had proper intellectual substance. Brand's ideas are the sort of student fag packet stuff you might find on one of Gusset's blogs. Edited by Johnny Eagles (04 Dec 2014 2.41pm)
...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread... |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Johnny Eagles berlin 04 Dec 14 2.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 2.19pm
Quote Johnny Eagles at 04 Dec 2014 2.08pm
Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 1.54pm
Quote Johnny Eagles at 04 Dec 2014 1.31pm
Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 1.16pm
I was under the impression that people pay their rent to a landlord. If we all followed where every penny we spend went to I'm sure we'd all realise we're hypocrites. It's easy to point the finger but at least Brand is fighting to help with issues like the new era estate even if he does get flack along the way. Without his fame and riches no-one even would be listening - that's his entire point. If he lived in a £100,000 grand house the narrative would be that he's mentally ill, so there's always an angle. National Newspapers view those speaking out on these issues to be worthy of front page character assassinations. That is the real story.
Before we get too carried away, how interested would Brand be in all this if it didn't result in lots and lots of media coverage for Mr R. Brand Esq? I was at a gala dinner recently where they handed out a charity award. The ten or so charities on the shortlist were run by modest people who devote their lives, quietly and not in front of the cameras, to helping people worse off than them. But some alleged comedian who went out with Katy Perry spouts some facile, intellectually redundant student lefty rubbish and the media are all over him like a tramp on chips. I understand the reasons why, but let's please put Mr Brand's supposed do-gooding into perspective. He's not exactly Robin bleeding Hood. Again, who isn't somewhat self serving and hypocritical? You don't have to be as pure as driven snow to help other peoples lives. That's what he's done in this particular case and he's being attacked for it by people who are even bigger hypocrites than he is. Maybe what the New Era Estate residents think of his actions here holds some importance too. Just a thought. Edited by sanitycheck (04 Dec 2014 1.54pm)
I criticised the journalist for the ad hominem stuff he went in for. I think you have to deal with the substance of what Brand says, not who he is as a person. But at the same time, let's not get carried away like he is some kind of saint. I have a lot of respect for people who are politically active and campaign for the things they believe in. It's just that Mr Brand's activism somehow seems to get relentlessly pumped at me via mainstream media to the point where every little thing he does is a media story. Maybe it's more the media's fault than his. Maybe it's a coincidence. Or maybe, just maybe, Mr Brand most favours causes that lead to his mug being plastered all over the place. The idea that someone cares more about the perception of how charitable they are than the acts themselves is a subjective measure. We can all say that it's obvious this way or that but ultimately he is still helping these people and only he knows how much of his heart is in it. If you don't like someone you don't like them but again, it doesn't mean that they aren't helping peoples lives. I don't recall saying that he's a saint, or anyone else doing so for that matter. I acknowledged that people tend to be hypocritical to varying degrees. I also don't care who his ex wife is or if he's a 'lefty'. I'm more concerned with factors that are relevant. If someone helps others, they help others. If they don't they don't. In this case he did something that was largely positive and received relentless and unfair attacks as a consequence of it. I'm okay with defending him over that.
I accept that someone who improves the world while banging on about how great they are is arguably better than someone who doesn't improve the world. (There are exceptions, but as a rule I would go along with this.) But I MUCH prefer people who improve the world and DON'T plaster it with self-promotion. I agree that we should deal less in who he is, how rich he is and how many celebrities he's slept with. We should deal much more with the - frankly facile and vacuous - arguments he uses. I took your initial post (at the top of this chain) to be praising Russell Brand and what he does, hence my comments about being a saint. I think it's highly questionable, not only in terms of its substance but in terms of his motivation for doing so. And, just in case my position wasn't clear, I'd like to state that I think he is most definitely an absolute bell-end.
...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread... |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| sanitycheck 04 Dec 14 2.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Johnny Eagles at 04 Dec 2014 2.47pm
Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 2.19pm
Quote Johnny Eagles at 04 Dec 2014 2.08pm
Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 1.54pm
Quote Johnny Eagles at 04 Dec 2014 1.31pm
Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 1.16pm
I was under the impression that people pay their rent to a landlord. If we all followed where every penny we spend went to I'm sure we'd all realise we're hypocrites. It's easy to point the finger but at least Brand is fighting to help with issues like the new era estate even if he does get flack along the way. Without his fame and riches no-one even would be listening - that's his entire point. If he lived in a £100,000 grand house the narrative would be that he's mentally ill, so there's always an angle. National Newspapers view those speaking out on these issues to be worthy of front page character assassinations. That is the real story.
Before we get too carried away, how interested would Brand be in all this if it didn't result in lots and lots of media coverage for Mr R. Brand Esq? I was at a gala dinner recently where they handed out a charity award. The ten or so charities on the shortlist were run by modest people who devote their lives, quietly and not in front of the cameras, to helping people worse off than them. But some alleged comedian who went out with Katy Perry spouts some facile, intellectually redundant student lefty rubbish and the media are all over him like a tramp on chips. I understand the reasons why, but let's please put Mr Brand's supposed do-gooding into perspective. He's not exactly Robin bleeding Hood. Again, who isn't somewhat self serving and hypocritical? You don't have to be as pure as driven snow to help other peoples lives. That's what he's done in this particular case and he's being attacked for it by people who are even bigger hypocrites than he is. Maybe what the New Era Estate residents think of his actions here holds some importance too. Just a thought. Edited by sanitycheck (04 Dec 2014 1.54pm)
I criticised the journalist for the ad hominem stuff he went in for. I think you have to deal with the substance of what Brand says, not who he is as a person. But at the same time, let's not get carried away like he is some kind of saint. I have a lot of respect for people who are politically active and campaign for the things they believe in. It's just that Mr Brand's activism somehow seems to get relentlessly pumped at me via mainstream media to the point where every little thing he does is a media story. Maybe it's more the media's fault than his. Maybe it's a coincidence. Or maybe, just maybe, Mr Brand most favours causes that lead to his mug being plastered all over the place. The idea that someone cares more about the perception of how charitable they are than the acts themselves is a subjective measure. We can all say that it's obvious this way or that but ultimately he is still helping these people and only he knows how much of his heart is in it. If you don't like someone you don't like them but again, it doesn't mean that they aren't helping peoples lives. I don't recall saying that he's a saint, or anyone else doing so for that matter. I acknowledged that people tend to be hypocritical to varying degrees. I also don't care who his ex wife is or if he's a 'lefty'. I'm more concerned with factors that are relevant. If someone helps others, they help others. If they don't they don't. In this case he did something that was largely positive and received relentless and unfair attacks as a consequence of it. I'm okay with defending him over that.
I accept that someone who improves the world while banging on about how great they are is arguably better than someone who doesn't improve the world. (There are exceptions, but as a rule I would go along with this.) But I MUCH prefer people who improve the world and DON'T plaster it with self-promotion. I agree that we should deal less in who he is, how rich he is and how many celebrities he's slept with. We should deal much more with the - frankly facile and vacuous - arguments he uses. I took your initial post (at the top of this chain) to be praising Russell Brand and what he does, hence my comments about being a saint. I think it's highly questionable, not only in terms of its substance but in terms of his motivation for doing so. And, just in case my position wasn't clear, I'd like to state that I think he is most definitely an absolute bell-end.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Johnny Eagles berlin 04 Dec 14 2.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Johnny Eagles at 04 Dec 2014 2.47pm
Quote sanitycheck at 04 Dec 2014 2.19pm
I accept that someone who improves the world while banging on about how great they are is arguably better than someone who doesn't improve the world. (There are exceptions, but as a rule I would go along with this.) But I MUCH prefer people who improve the world and DON'T plaster it with self-promotion. I agree that we should deal less in who he is, how rich he is and how many celebrities he's slept with. We should deal much more with the - frankly facile and vacuous - arguments he uses. I took your initial post (at the top of this chain) to be praising Russell Brand and what he does, hence my comments about being a saint. I think it's highly questionable, not only in terms of its substance but in terms of his motivation for doing so. And, just in case my position wasn't clear, I'd like to state that I think he is most definitely an absolute bell-end.
Let me put it in as few words as possible: ---- People who do stuff for charity = good Motivation for doing so = not that relevant ---- People who promote a political agenda = depends on the agenda, not the person Motivation for doing so = sometimes relevant Brand's agenda = a load of student bollocks with no substance Brand's motivation = almost entirely self-serving, but agree that it's not that relevant Edited by Johnny Eagles (04 Dec 2014 2.59pm)
...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread... |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.