Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Russell Brand on Revolution

Basically Diana9, what irks is the fact you're defending Russell, when he doesn't need defending. As evident by his numerous videos, he is perfectly capable of defending himself. He doesn't need, and more to the point, the wider movement for social change does not need Russell Brand to be a talking point. I imagine that Russell himself would want people like you to learn more about the issues he talks about (New Era estate, for example) and defend the real struggles which involve real working-class people who don't have the luxury (and yes, it is a luxury in this case, and in most cases) of a paparazzi press pack slavering over their every word because it sells papers.

He is trying to use this situation to the advantage of the causes he celebrates, and I believe he believes that he's doing a good thing, and potentially, he is, but when people start to worship him or just post his videos / tweets without any comment whatsoever, as you have done numerous times in this thread, it seems a little sad. Especially that someone in California came so close to giving a shit about working-class issues in England but got stuck at the last hurdle of "Russell Brand".
 
taffboy gwyrdd said:
yeah, you ran that line already. He's probably just terribly cynical. After all, you seem to think so.
Click to expand...
Do i? Other than arguing the exact opposite of course. It's that attention to detail tha has gained you that deserved reputation. Everyonme yjay doesn't agree with me 100% = rat get rid.
 
butchersapron said:
Neither of these are fallacies btw
Click to expand...

They most definitely are fallacies and this thread is rife with them.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Need more?

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html


Straw man
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.

In the United Kingdom the argument is also known as an Aunt Sally, after the pub game of the same name where patrons throw sticks or battens at a model of an old woman's head.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
 
butchersapron said:
Do i? Other than arguing the exact opposite of course. It's that attention to detail tha has gained you that deserved reputation. Everyonme yjay doesn't agree with me 100% = rat get rid.
Click to expand...

Your attitude to him on here "nothing to do with me guv" displays cynicism. You seem a bit wobbly today, which could be why you're now shifting into the ad hom and general subject hopping.

From accusing RB from detracting from subjects, it's now you doing it, along with being back to your old habit of doing other people's thinking for them.
 
Diana9 said:
They most definitely are fallacies and this thread is rife with them.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Need more?

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html


Straw man
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.

In the United Kingdom the argument is also known as an Aunt Sally, after the pub game of the same name where patrons throw sticks or battens at a model of an old woman's head.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Click to expand...
Neither are fallacies. You're confusing a rhetorical tool for a fallacy. In fact ...nah you wouldn't get it anyway
 
taffboy gwyrdd said:
Your attitude to him on here "nothing to do with me guv" displays cynicism. You seem a bit wobbly today, which could be why you're now shifting into the ad hom and general subject hopping.

From accusing RB from detracting from subjects, it's now you doing it, along with being back to your old habit of doing other people's thinking for them.
Click to expand...
I'm not being funny but wut? I mean wut?
 
andysays said:
View attachment 64644

What would Jesus Russell do?

If it's true, as you claim, that RB isn't interested in becoming the issue, then why do you feel the need to pass on his pronouncements as if he was the new messiah?

And just so you're clear, this is not a criticism of him, it's a criticism of you for continuing to elevate him even as you say he doesn't want or need to be elevated.
Click to expand...

Ad hominem. I am not the issue, and neither is Brand.

Now, after 43 pages of vilifying Russel Brand and anyone who defends his right to use his celebrity to amplify the struggles of ordinary people, can we talk about the idea of Revolution and how that can be brought about?

I've written before about the American colonists using boycotts to unite the colonies against the British monarchy. Perhaps we can talk about how boycotts could be effective against today's powers-that-be? Or do you want to keep ranting about how Russel Brand should just shut up because "he's not one of us because he's a rich celebrity."

edited to add: I'm reading a fascinating book about the American revolution called "The Marketplace of Revolution" which I find highly relevant and instructive for our times. I'm reading it a second time because it's so dense. There is much to absorb.

From the review on amazon:

"The Marketplace of Revolution offers a boldly innovative interpretation of the mobilization of ordinary Americans on the eve of independence. Breen explores how colonists who came from very different ethnic and religious backgrounds managed to overcome difference and create a common cause capable of galvanizing resistance."

I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to do some serious delving into methods of mobilizing people to launch a successful revolution. I've found it in my library, but if yours doesn't carry it you can buy the book from amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Marketplace-Revolution-Consumer-Politics-Independence/dp/019518131X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1417901357&sr=8-1&keywords=The marketplace of revolution : how consumer politics shaped American independence
 
Last edited:
Diana9 said:
Ad hominem. I am not the issue, and neither is Brand.

Now, after 43 pages of vilifying Russel Brand and anyone who defends his right to use his celebrity to amplify the struggles of ordinary people, can we talk about the idea of Revolution and how that can be brought about?

I've spoken before about the American colonists using boycotts to unite the colonies against the British monarchy. Perhaps we can talk about how boycotts could be effective against today's powers-that-be? Or do you want to keep ranting about how Russel Brand should just shut up because "he's not one of us."
Click to expand...
You haven't read 43 pages.You are simply lying. Why lie?
 
Not all Greens are bad, the bloke that runs the Another Angry Voice blog is a Green and most of his stuff is pretty good but all the Greens on here seem shit
 
taffboy gwyrdd said:
All over the place. It's not even about E15 or Brand on here at the mo, but Butchers slagging people off.

I'd like to say how unusual that is. I'd like to.
Click to expand...
You had the floor.

Nothing.

People pointing out brand has become the issue and would become the issue should have had their common sense to know that becomes oh it's all about brand now. The people who were right were the wrong people to be right and far too early.

It's all about you and the media.
 
taffboy gwyrdd said:
Your attitude to him on here "nothing to do with me guv" displays cynicism. You seem a bit wobbly today, which could be why you're now shifting into the ad hom and general subject hopping.

From accusing RB from detracting from subjects, it's now you doing it, along with being back to your old habit of doing other people's thinking for them.
Click to expand...

Behold.
 
butchersapron said:
Where?
Click to expand...

My bad, I see now you meant the 43 pages on this thread. I never claimed to have read all of them, although I read a good many until the vitriol became repetitive and obnoxious ("Russell Brand is a rich celebrity blablablah"). The few posters who actually tried to talk about the issues were shut down with more "Russell Brand is a rich celebrity blablablah" and personal attacks.

Now, back to the topic "Russel Brand on Revolution." Anyone like to discuss the "revolution" part?
 
Diana9 said:
My bad, I see now you meant the 43 pages on this thread. I never claimed to have read all of them, although I read a good many until the vitriol became repetitive and obnoxious ("Russell Brand is a rich celebrity blablablah"). The few posters who actually tried to talk about the issues were shut down with more "Russell Brand is a rich celebrity blablablah" and personal attacks.

Now, back to the topic "Russel Brand on Revolution." Anyone like to discuss the "revolution" part?
Click to expand...
Read them. Then come back.
 
Diana9 said:
Ad hominem. I am not the issue, and neither is Brand.

Now, after 43 pages of vilifying Russel Brand and anyone who defends his right to use his celebrity to amplify the struggles of ordinary people, can we talk about the idea of Revolution and how that can be brought about?
Click to expand...

So stop making yourself and RB the issue. Those of us involved in campaigning in our own communities in our own quiet way (or not so quiet in some cases) were doing so before Russell turned up, and I suspect we'll be here after he's gone. We were certainly doing so before you showed up on this thread, and we'll certainly be here after you've gone.

Maybe you can point out where I have vilified RB or said that he or anyone else doesn't have the right to use any method they see fit to further the struggles of ordinary people (of course he has the right to use his celebrity, just as I have the right to point out the problems that type of celebrity campaigning can bring)*.

And when you can't find any examples of me actually doing that, maybe you can reconsider your use of terms like ad hominem and strawman, which you appear not to understand as well as you'd like to think...

ETA: * or where I've kept ranting about how Russell Brand should just shut up because "he's not one of us because he's a rich celebrity", in fact where I've even said it once.

(graphic removed because it takes up too much space, and because everyone knows Americans don't get irony anyway)
 
If anyone has something to say about the topic of this thread I'll be happy to engage with them. Otherwise, I can't give anymore time to this nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kid_Eternity
Is a revolution possible in the UK?
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
195
Views
7K
A380
A380
A380
For those who believe in revolution by force, a question?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
161
Views
6K
8ball
8ball
N
Jo Brand's "throw acid not milk" at politicians joke
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
231
Views
11K
hash tag
hash tag
editor
Iceland supermarkets to ban palm oil in own-brand products
Replies
20
Views
1K
friedaweed
friedaweed
editor
Lillian Bilocca and the "headscarf revolutionaries" from Hull [BBC documentary]
Replies
11
Views
890
dessiato
dessiato
Back
Top Bottom