[Me. I Am Salman]

Why can't people just speak in a way that everyone understands. Stop using fancy words you found from google

[Stu]

Originally Posted by Salman!

Why can't people just speak in a way that everyone understands. Stop using fancy words you found from google

Why is the onus on those of us who paid more attention to self education in our youth to tone our diction down you dull bastard.

Tune your mind up. I'm not getting a downgrade.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Stu

Why is the onus on those of us who paid more attention to self education in our youth to tone our diction down you dull bastard.

Tune your mind up. I'm not getting a downgrade.

Utter Bliss Stu

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Salman!

Why can't people just speak in a way that everyone understands. Stop using fancy words you found from google

LOL Post of the year. Its a sorry state of affairs that Stu is being asked to dumb down his comments. Nice to see Stu posting. Welcome back.

Interesting interview but I 'm unfortunately on the side that this is the romantic ramblings of a comedian/actor/Tv personality. Paxman is astonishing ignorant in this interview and doesn't do himself justice what so ever. It seems Russell|Brands reference to Paxmans 'Who do you think you are' episode shows he seems to have done much more research that the 'serious' journalist

Russell Brand has always been reasonably political but I'm of the opinion that if he wants to get into politics then he has the means and the following to actually be successful. Not voting and refusing to vote due to the broken system doesn't impress me at all. Russell Brand is in a much better position to affect change than anyone of us but seemingly refuses to cuz it would be too difficult. Ok then stick to stand up then Russell and let the politicians deal with politics.

I no understand wha the stu man he say.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

I no understand wha the stu man he say.

He is younger
thats all.

[Me. I Am Salman]

I understand what Zee is saying though so that doesn't apply to him

[Marc]

I would say this thread is going off topic but this is exactly how Russell Brand speaks to it's sort of relevant

[Me. I Am Salman]

Whatever you're just using a thesaurus, noone speaks like that and no one needs to speak like that

[Kizzy]

My guess is he's read 'The New Few' and it made him think.

[In the Drunk Tank]

I can't see anyone using that complex language in this thread, if you can't understand them then maybe you are the one who could benefit from google

[Me. I Am Salman]

Originally Posted by MTVN

I can't see anyone using that complex language in this thread, if you can't understand them then maybe you are the one who could benefit from google

oh please don't tell me this is everyday language

His discourse is obviously very romantic but there is nothing to what he is saying that cannot conceivably be accomplished by the human race. Passing it up as the fairytale wonderland of a stand up comedian only fosters the sort of apathetic complacency that will impede our inevitable and long overdue spiritual and social revolution.

[In the Drunk Tank]

Originally Posted by Salman!

oh please don't tell me this is everyday language

Not saying it's everyday spoken language, but don't think it's that out of place for written language - which has always been more elaborate - in a serious debate thread. Like I wouldn't talk in the same way that I write an essay, but that doesn't mean I'm just poring over a thesaurus

And if you did watch the video in the OP then Brand uses more complex language than anything in this thread

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Salman!

oh please don't tell me this is everyday language

What words in that post do you not get? Out of all of Stu's posts in here I'd have said that was the easiest to understand

[Z]

Political non-participation doesn't achieve anything other than the ability to fester in knowing just how terrible this broken system is for another term, though. The logic that "you've never voted so you've signed away your right to have a say" is annoying, but it's still true. If you didn't vote, you let the country get into this mess by doing nothing. First past the post is a deeply flawed system but it's not going to get any better by doing nothing about it.

Firstly, the country needs a proportional representation system. We'd get more coalition governments but at least people would feel more inclined to vote, knowing that their votes actually count for something rather than being wasted. If you really want to vote for the Greens but you feel there's no point in doing so because they don't stand a chance - they'll never stand a chance. Voter participation in the UK is shockingly low. The Tories want to keep it that way, it's the only way they'll manage to hold on to power, if everyone feels too apathetic to get down to a polling station and vote. That's why Paxman was bringing it up so much - who is Russell Brand to criticise the system if he's never engaged with it? Not because Russell Brand is a comedian, not because Russell Brand is an actor, but because Russell Brand is a British citizen who has never voted for any government and really just wants to see it all collapse to make way for something new, without ever actually specifying what that something new should be.

Communism has never worked because the figurehead of any communist state thus far has been too greedy to relinquish their grip on leadership. What's that old adage about democracy being a terrible system but it's better than all the rest? We get what we vote for, and many people don't vote at all; so when they complain about the government they have, it's a bit of a slap in the face to those of us who do vote, those of us who tried to vote for what we wanted.

The government supports big businesses because big businesses support the country's interests. How does he propose to break that cycle without plunging the country into some kind of Great Depression? I don't know, there are so many tangents you could go off into when discussing political overhaul, I don't want to open any cans of worms, but I basically just think that he said a whole lot of nothing and people are heaping praise onto him because he's a celebrity who's taken an interest in politics and has an unusual way of speaking. That's a good thing, generally, that people are pleased that a celebrity is interested in politics, but he needs to be better at expressing himself more concisely.

(Which, if you couldn't already tell, isn't a skill I have )

[Stu]

Originally Posted by Salman!

oh please don't tell me this is everyday language

Maybe not to you but I take a daily interest in bettering my knowledge of the world. And though it sounds it I don't consider that to be some mad ass ego trip either. I think it's a free right that should be available and encouraged to everyone. When my kids are born once they've learned how to walk and talk I'm sending their asses to the library and surrounding them with books like my parents done for me. Beyond their love, their food and their shelter it's the greatest thing they've ever done for me and I am indebted to them for it.

Language is something to be proud of and something that should continue to be cultivated. It's not enough to understand the words on the type of television that you watch. The idea that I must be using a thesaurus because you of all people cannot understand me is hysterical.

I hope this was all easy enough to understand. You could always return to a favored pop thread to communicate in moving pictures like a child with an etch-a-sketch, my blood.

Originally Posted by Zee

Political non-participation doesn't achieve anything other than the ability to fester in knowing just how terrible this broken system is for another term, though. The logic that "you've never voted so you've signed away your right to have a say" is annoying, but it's still true. If you didn't vote, you let the country get into this mess by doing nothing. First past the post is a deeply flawed system but it's not going to get any better by doing nothing about it.

Firstly, the country needs a proportional representation system. We'd get more coalition governments but at least people would feel more inclined to vote, knowing that their votes actually count for something rather than being wasted. If you really want to vote for the Greens but you feel there's no point in doing so because they don't stand a chance - they'll never stand a chance. Voter participation in the UK is shockingly low. The Tories want to keep it that way, it's the only way they'll manage to hold on to power, if everyone feels too apathetic to get down to a polling station and vote. That's why Paxman was bringing it up so much - who is Russell Brand to criticise the system if he's never engaged with it? Not because Russell Brand is a comedian, not because Russell Brand is an actor, but because Russell Brand is a British citizen who has never voted for any government and really just wants to see it all collapse to make way for something new, without ever actually specifying what that something new should be.

Communism has never worked because the figurehead of any communist state thus far has been too greedy to relinquish their grip on leadership. What's that old adage about democracy being a terrible system but it's better than all the rest? We get what we vote for, and many people don't vote at all; so when they complain about the government they have, it's a bit of a slap in the face to those of us who do vote, those of us who tried to vote for what we wanted.

The government supports big businesses because big businesses support the country's interests. How does he propose to break that cycle without plunging the country into some kind of Great Depression? I don't know, there are so many tangents you could go off into when discussing political overhaul, I don't want to open any cans of worms, but I basically just think that he said a whole lot of nothing and people are heaping praise onto him because he's a celebrity who's taken an interest in politics and has an unusual way of speaking. That's a good thing, generally, that people are pleased that a celebrity is interested in politics, but he needs to be better at expressing himself more concisely.

(Which, if you couldn't already tell, isn't a skill I have )

I sense the can of worms, brother. I'm wary of discussing specific things at length too because it could go on and on and I respect the view that you're obviously not going to change for my white ass.

With regard to non participation it's an odd one because in a sense the only thing I can do is do the impossible and actually speak for Brand himself. He seems to view the entire system presently as corrupt. We can play the blame game with voters and non voters alike earning the nation a succession of bad governments but at present he views all the mainstream voting options in their entirety to be unsuitable for the type of world he wishes for and seems to think that non compliance on a mass scale is the favored way to shift the prevailing paradigm - obviously combined with having, importantly, a replacement system ready to go. It's an interesting theory.

In regards to communism Brand's admittedly vague description of a 'socialist egalitarian' state may not correspond greatly to some of the whims of it but it's odd that you mention the C word because I recall a previous Brand rant where he described communism as a system like a computer, and it's not the computers fault that some people abused it to do things like go and have a wank. Or something like that.

I don't think one needs to bankrupt the economy and encourage a depression just to remove some of the more nefarious elements of political bias towards big corporations. Refusing to bail out bigwigs who have already had a chance and refusing to sanction some of the big corp practices that seek to abuse workforces and natural resources isn't going to cripple the economy. This isn't as idealistic as some "kill all business and let's go back to nature" type ideal. It's just a matter of being kinder to one another and balancing the wealth more. Helping those who need it more than those who really don't. Now that is horrifically vague, I know. But at the end of the day I think Brand put his views across just fine. It was a ten minute newsnight interview and I found him concise and engaging. Maybe if he were to base an entire show around his revolution we could gain a better picture.

Also I'm a paddy and I can say that my knowledge of your political system is limited to Have I Got News For You, the odd TiBB news thread and morning mong outs set to the tune of Sky News. If we're going to get into specifics about British politics I'm going to go running like a little bitch.

[Z]

Originally Posted by Stu

I sense the can of worms, brother. I'm wary of discussing specific things at length too because it could go on and on and I respect the view that you're obviously not going to change for my white ass.

With regard to non participation it's an odd one because in a sense the only thing I can do is do the impossible and actually speak for Brand himself. He seems to view the entire system presently as corrupt. We can play the blame game with voters and non voters alike earning the nation a succession of bad governments but at present he views all the mainstream voting options in their entirety to be unsuitable for the type of world he wishes for and seems to think that non compliance on a mass scale is the favored way to shift the prevailing paradigm - obviously combined with having, importantly, a replacement system ready to go. It's an interesting theory.

In regards to communism Brand's admittedly vague description of a 'socialist egalitarian' state may not correspond greatly to some of the whims of it but it's odd that you mention the C word because I recall a previous Brand rant where he described communism as a system like a computer, and it's not the computers fault that some people abused it to do things like go and have a wank. Or something like that.

I don't think one needs to bankrupt the economy and encourage a depression just to remove some of the more nefarious elements of political bias towards big corporations. Refusing to bail out bigwigs who have already had a chance and refusing to sanction some of the big corp practices that seek to abuse workforces and natural resources isn't going to cripple the economy. This isn't as idealistic as some "kill all business and let's go back to nature" type ideal. It's just a matter of being kinder to one another and balancing the wealth more. Helping those who need it more than those who really don't. Now that is horrifically vague, I know. But at the end of the day I think Brand put his views across just fine. It was a ten minute newsnight interview and I found him concise and engaging. Maybe if he were to base an entire show around his revolution we could gain a better picture.

Also I'm a paddy and I can say that my knowledge of your political system is limited to Have I Got News For You, the odd TiBB news thread and morning mong outs set to the tune of Sky News. If we're going to get into specifics about British politics I'm going to go running like a little bitch.

Communism just popped into my head because he mentions that the world at large is a corrupt place and the slate needs to be wiped clean, essentially, which is what communism hinges on; the need for revolutions around the world to occur in order to establish a blank slate. In reality this never happened, because the figureheads for such movements needed to be selfless leaders who would step aside once certain goals had been achieved; and because one of those goals was getting all countries around the world to turn to communism, it could never happen anyway. Russell Brand wants the same thing to happen, the world to start anew, so I suppose that's why I brought communism into it.

I think it would be interesting to watch Russell Brand speak about his views in great depth, I think it would be deeply insightful and I think it would put a relatable face onto many of the issues that people in the UK feel but don't express publicly en masse. It's impossible to co-ordinate the entire country because there are huge conflicts of interest. I think I'll back out of this thread before I start writing essays about what could and should be done to make the country better

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Zee

Political non-participation doesn't achieve anything other than the ability to fester in knowing just how terrible this broken system is for another term, though. The logic that "you've never voted so you've signed away your right to have a say" is annoying, but it's still true. If you didn't vote, you let the country get into this mess by doing nothing. First past the post is a deeply flawed system but it's not going to get any better by doing nothing about it.

Firstly, the country needs a proportional representation system. We'd get more coalition governments but at least people would feel more inclined to vote, knowing that their votes actually count for something rather than being wasted. If you really want to vote for the Greens but you feel there's no point in doing so because they don't stand a chance - they'll never stand a chance. Voter participation in the UK is shockingly low. The Tories want to keep it that way, it's the only way they'll manage to hold on to power, if everyone feels too apathetic to get down to a polling station and vote. That's why Paxman was bringing it up so much - who is Russell Brand to criticise the system if he's never engaged with it? Not because Russell Brand is a comedian, not because Russell Brand is an actor, but because Russell Brand is a British citizen who has never voted for any government and really just wants to see it all collapse to make way for something new, without ever actually specifying what that something new should be.

Communism has never worked because the figurehead of any communist state thus far has been too greedy to relinquish their grip on leadership. What's that old adage about democracy being a terrible system but it's better than all the rest? We get what we vote for, and many people don't vote at all; so when they complain about the government they have, it's a bit of a slap in the face to those of us who do vote, those of us who tried to vote for what we wanted.

The government supports big businesses because big businesses support the country's interests. How does he propose to break that cycle without plunging the country into some kind of Great Depression? I don't know, there are so many tangents you could go off into when discussing political overhaul, I don't want to open any cans of worms, but I basically just think that he said a whole lot of nothing and people are heaping praise onto him because he's a celebrity who's taken an interest in politics and has an unusual way of speaking. That's a good thing, generally, that people are pleased that a celebrity is interested in politics, but he needs to be better at expressing himself more concisely.

(Which, if you couldn't already tell, isn't a skill I have )

if he wrote a manifesto he would be mocked and ridiculued and hung out to dry

Obviously it is easier to stand outside politics and talk.
But if it is informed intelligent cutting edge based opinion, it is relevant
I agree at this moment he cant be taken particularly seriously as its mostly theory. But if millions listen to his words, that alone can enter the british consciousness. itll be fascinating to see if he gets more serious and active

[Z]

Originally Posted by the truth

if he wrote a manifesto he would be mocked and ridiculued and hung out to dry

Obviously it is easier to stand outside politics and talk.
But if it is informed intelligent cutting edge based opinion, it is relevant
I agree at this moment he cant be taken particularly seriously as its mostly theory. But if millions listen to his words, that alone can enter the british consciousness. itll be fascinating to see if he gets more serious and active

But I didn't say I think he should have had a manifesto. Just some ideas beyond stating "the system is broken and needs fixing" - many people agree with him, but he shouldn't be applauded for stating the obvious in my opinion. If he'd gone into that interview and said "the first step is..." then that would have sufficed. Just some evidence that he knows what he's talking about, politically, rather than using archaic language to essentially state that the country, and world at large, needs an overhaul.

[Shaun]

oh salman finds intelligent conversation difficult, this is news to me

[Me. I Am Salman]

seriously? like I'm not dumb or anything but it's annoying having to read through all of that
Perhaps choosing to study English Language & Linguistics next year isn't such a good idea

[Jack_]

I'm being serious LOL there's no words in that particular post that are difficult, surely you know what discourse is, you've done Sociology?

[Me. I Am Salman]

Omg of course I know what discourse is, although discourse is not something they teach in sociology lmao

It's the second half of the sentence I don't get

[Kizzy]

Right I'm confused I can see what sociology has to do with the thread, but not semantics.

[Kizzy]

All you have to know about for the current party in power the venture capitalist is king.
And as we hurtle towards oligarchy private industry is preferable, not alongside... but instead of public.