Paxman vs Brand

frankus

then "perhaps" rather than giving them money to cure poverty - you give them education and hope, which is kinda what Brand was saying ... I'm a bit shocked that's got turned to "let them eat cake" so early on.

digitalscream

frankus said:

If something is irrelevant to you, it doesn't make you apathetic.

Do you care what I had for breakfast? No? Do I have a right to call you apathetic?

From the OED:

Apathy: lack of interest, enthusiasm or concern

Indifference: lack of interest, concern or sympathy

Given the context, Brand is certainly both enthusiastic and sympathetic on the subject, so they're removed as options leaving the only definitions of either word as identical.

And yes - as to what you had for breakfast, I am both indifferent and apathetic

frankus

It was Two Weetabix, Oats and Shredded Wheat.

So if Brand has enthusiasm either for or against Politics but no sympathy for Politicians then he'd be indifferent but NOT apathetic.

viz

That's just maslow. Widescreen telly, food, safety, friends, esteem, self-actualisation.

digitalscream

frankus said:

It was Two Weetabix, Oats and Shredded Wheat.

So if Brand has enthusiasm either for or against Politics but no sympathy for Politicians then he'd be indifferent but NOT apathetic.

I still don't care what you had for breakfast

Wouldn't you agree that the sympathy part is irrelevant given his usage of the word (and in the context of everything else he said)?

chillidoggy

In my opinion, any monied celebrity that gobs off about inequality whilst living in luxury whilst not giving all their money away to help those in need is an utter Bono. You got into the game to make money, Russell. Now you've got it, so either be quiet, or give it up.

As for Paxman, if I never heard mention of him again it wouldn't change my life.

Col_Decker

I have'nt actually watched the video, am I right to still dislike Mr.Brand for being a bit of a prick?

Evilmags

He's a bit naive tbh. Name one revolution that did not result in more misery than it aimed to stamp out? After about 3000 years of written history anybody suggesting revolution in a western democracy needs a sharp kick in the nuts. The mass murder seen over the course of the last century was down to two ideas (solicalism and national socialism) both of which were polylogistic and both of which attracted plenty of idealistic young idiots without the logical ability to analyse what their consequences would be. Hatred of profit and attempts to enforce equality led to 50 million deaths in the great leap forward. Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, various Kims, all justified their horrors as "for the workers" and Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet ect justified theirs as "for the state/motherland". Between the lot of them they murdered over 100 million people. Polylogism, which states the superior validity of The proletariat/The Germans/The Whites/The poor (Check your privilege is a. Good example of polylogistical thinking) is both dangerous and dumb. If people want to see more wealth spread around then a completely free and unhindered marketbis the best way to do it.

frankus

I think Brand was saying "revolution is almost definitely going to happen" he wasn't saying he supported it.

He's right, the system is fucked.

He might be right that a revolution is coming, lawlessness and riots appear to be more common.

Is he naive? Yes, compared to the cynical fuckers taking back-handers from fracking companies or trading firms and betraying the constituents they swore to represent. The question is which is better for people?

bertie

frankus said:

I think Brand was saying "revolution is almost definitely going to happen" 

 so is that like certainly may be not going to happen

Cirrus

bertie said:

he is absolutely, and lots of famous/wealthy people have shouted it loudly from the roof tops before,  but I dont see him or them  giving up their "unfair share" 

I hate this argument. Firstly, he's trying to express a viewpoint, effect a change. He might be an idealist but that doesn't make him an idiot, which you would have to be to give up all your money for a little short-term gain - and for what else? To put yourself in a position of relative poverty that you don't think is fair, that you don't think should even exist? Because once that money's gone, you can be sure no one will give a shit what you think and you'll likely never have the chance to make that kind of an impact on the world again.

Secondly, you don't know what his bank statement looks like. So you're just standing at the sidelines throwing stones.

I just don't buy this argument that if you try to make the world a better place you can't have moral authority unless you debase yourself first. It just reeks of jealousy and offers no solution.

frankus

I think it also means someone is expected to risk everything they have in a move intended to help everyone.

Phil_aka_Pip

Evilmags said:

If people want to see more wealth spread around then a completely free and unhindered marketbis the best way to do it.

I was tending to agree with Mags until this bit and not just because of his typo. There is no such thing as a "completely free and unhindered market", and even if there were (with no legal or state financial or behavioural constraints upon it) then the driving factor would still be the greed of the powerful.

VimFuego

Evilmags said:

He's a bit naive tbh. Name one revolution that did not result in more misery than it aimed to stamp out?

American revolution? French revolution? and that's without any effort.

VimFuego

Phil_aka_Pip said:

Evilmags said:

If people want to see more wealth spread around then a completely free and unhindered marketbis the best way to do it.

I was tending to agree with Mags until this bit and not just because of his typo. There is no such thing as a "completely free and unhindered market", and even if there were (with no legal or state financial or behavioural constraints upon it) then the driving factor would still be the greed of the powerful.

basically. There never has been a free market, so it's a theoretical position not based in fact, just supposition. It's one I share and I do think that free markets are the way forward, but we don't have and never have had anywhere near such a thing.

Fretwired

VimFuego said:

Phil_aka_Pip said:

Evilmags said:

If people want to see more wealth spread around then a completely free and unhindered marketbis the best way to do it.

I was tending to agree with Mags until this bit and not just because of his typo. There is no such thing as a "completely free and unhindered market", and even if there were (with no legal or state financial or behavioural constraints upon it) then the driving factor would still be the greed of the powerful.

basically. There never has been a free market, so it's a theoretical position not based in fact, just supposition. It's one I share and I do think that free markets are the way forward, but we don't have and never have had anywhere near such a thing.

^
Spot on.

And those that say the system is screwed need to explain what they see as 'the system' - there's no such thing, nor is there some form of global conspiracy. As for a revolution people are too apathetic in the UK.

VimFuego

there is a system, it's the plutocratic system, which has replaced democracy. It's a weird kind of conspiracy in that it doesn't consist of people sitting around in darkened rooms with one trouser leg rolled up, it's more where those kind of people who are likely to be successful in the system are the ones who make the rules to benefit them that keep the system perpetuated. I've heard it called business as usual (though things like the federal reserve were conspiracies). 

randomhandclaps

VimFuego said:

Evilmags said:

He's a bit naive tbh. Name one revolution that did not result in more misery than it aimed to stamp out?

American revolution? French revolution? and that's without any effort.

Was just about to post those two.

 

Evilmags said:

If people want to see more wealth spread around then a completely free and unhindered marketbis the best way to do it.

Wealth doesn't spread in an unhindered market place, it gravitates to the wealthy.  If this were not true there would be no need for a monopolies commission.  In any market it is far easier for a man with money to generate more than it is for someone with none to generate some.  Making the market place free from restraint would mean large corporations would buy up or destroy everything in their way and control all the wealth and hence all the power.  We already produce government after government who regardless or election promises cower to every large organisation who wield a bit of unfair influence.  Look at the embarrassing amount of governmental actions that were unduly influenced by a spoiled Aussie Hobbit?  It's impossible to maintain true democracy in any state without market boundaries.

daveyh

randomhandclaps said:

stickyfiddle said:

Paxman's standard technique of asking the same question over and over again is being mistaken for proper journalism as usual. 

Brand comes across very well imo. I don't agree with him entirely, but you can't argue with his thoughts on voting. 

Are you saying he is overrated?  Are you?  Is that what you are saying?  Are you saying Paxman is overrated?  Well, are you?  It's a fairly simple question.  Do you feel he is overrated?  C'mon, yes or no?  Is Paxman overrated?  Do you feel people overrate Paxman?  In your opinion, is Paxman overrated?  Are you saying he is overrated?  Are you?  Is that what you are saying?  Are you saying Paxman is overrated?  Well, are you?  It's a fairly simple question.  Do you feel he is overrated?  C'mon, yes or no?  Is Paxman overrated?  Do you feel people overrate Paxman?  In your opinion, is Paxman overrated?Are you saying he is overrated?  Are you?  Is that what you are saying?  Are you saying Paxman is overrated?  Well, are you?  It's a fairly simple question.  Do you feel he is overrated?  C'mon, yes or no?  Is Paxman overrated?  Do you feel people overrate Paxman?  In your opinion, is Paxman overrated?Are you saying he is overrated?  Are you?  Is that what you are saying?  Are you saying Paxman is overrated?  Well, are you?  It's a fairly simple question.  Do you feel he is overrated?  C'mon, yes or no?  Is Paxman overrated?  Do you feel people overrate Paxman?  In your opinion, is Paxman overrated?

5 Lols at this point. Sorry, this post is overrated.

Fretwired

VimFuego said:

there is a system, it's the plutocratic system, which has replaced democracy. It's a weird kind of conspiracy in that it doesn't consist of people sitting around in darkened rooms with one trouser leg rolled up, it's more where those kind of people who are likely to be successful in the system are the ones who make the rules to benefit them that keep the system perpetuated. I've heard it called business as usual (though things like the federal reserve were conspiracies). 

A plutocracy is a system of government in which the richest people in a country rule or have power. On the face of it the UK fits the bill as the three main party leaders are millionaires as are those who influence policy. However, their power is being eroded by external forces from membership of the EU and the International Court of Human Rights through to the mega businesses like Google, Amazon, Microsoft which are so large that they can effectively stand up to governments, and in the case of Google collude with foreign governments to spy on people. Then you have the interlinked financial systems, banking systems that create money out of nothing, resource producers which can rig the price of gas and oil (OPEC) and what you end up with a complex web of vested interests over which no one government has control. I can't see how this can be described as a system nor how a revolution will change anything.