He doesn't do much acting anymore so has to make money by talking crap on YouTube.
Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,711
New update on my phone this morning.
"Sony Nuke Alert system [nuke-u]"
Nuke-u - what a name for an app.
New update on my phone this morning.
"Sony Nuke Alert system [nuke-u]"
I expect Apple to release the iNuke next
I'm not surprised, a lot of them probably think they're next for some Putin freedom.
Yes he uses some sensationalism, definitely the clickbait headline but this is typical across any commentary including regulated news media. I don't like it, but I don't think it undermines his fundamental arguement. He's quite self aware, although it isn't as apparent in this video as it is in others. As for the rest of your post, whatever helps you rationalise people enjoying content from non news-media outlets that presents alternative points of view in an entertaining manner I guess.
Crazy
I watched the Russell Brand video, and he's certainly not defending Russia. But he's also suggesting that whilst this isn't sanctioned by the west, it's certainly been allowed to happen because of resources and money. That's not true.
His answer? Some sort of popular uprising to replace the governments of today with a international coalition of people and seemingly death to the rich and powerful (somewhat ironic). His suggestion that people are different to our current leaders is shaky at best. People are people the World over, he's right there. However, he does nothing to tackle the truth that it is power which corrupts. This isn't a solution, and it certainly isn't helping those in Ukraine or any other war torn country. In my opinion whilst he is intelligent, he ascribes to the Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees Mogg school of debate which is to use big words to try and make the 'normal' person think that because they are articulate they must know what they are talking about.
His solution seems to be that the people must rise against these powers and overthrow them. Very easy to say when you haven't got the FSB kicking down your door and taking you away for 'reeducation'.
His answer? Some sort of popular uprising to replace the governments of today with a international coalition of people and seemingly death to the rich and powerful (somewhat ironic). His suggestion that people are different to our current leaders is shaky at best. People are people the World over, he's right there. However, he does nothing to tackle the truth that it is power which corrupts. This isn't a solution, and it certainly isn't helping those in Ukraine or any other war torn country. In my opinion whilst he is intelligent, he ascribes to the Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees Mogg school of debate which is to use big words to try and make the 'normal' person think that because they are articulate they must know what they are talking about.
His solution seems to be that the people must rise against these powers and overthrow them. Very easy to say when you haven't got the FSB kicking down your door and taking you away for 'reeducation'.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 16,835
I'm struggling to understand what people have against the brand video, considering he talks about both sides of the argument.
The first is very aligned with John Mearsheimer. I'm not saying John Mearsheimer is right, although he probably known a hell of a lot more than what I do.
So what has been going on for the past 15 years? are those against brand saying the Americans didn't want Ukraine to join NATO?
The first is very aligned with John Mearsheimer. I'm not saying John Mearsheimer is right, although he probably known a hell of a lot more than what I do.
So what has been going on for the past 15 years? are those against brand saying the Americans didn't want Ukraine to join NATO?
I hope they have thought it through - not to knock anyone prepared to stand up and make themselves count but there is a lot of brutality and a very high chance of death, and not a nice one at that, which isn't being portrayed by the media, etc. not to mention the level of skill and experience vs what is required for the situation without getting themselves or someone else harmed unnecessarily.
He did a great piece with death on the Nile recently. Should probably stick to acting rather than talking crap on YouTube.
Yeah without a doubt it wasn't what he was expecting. It also goes to show what the world can achieve by uniting.
In some ways this was absolutely crucial, some articles i was reading yesterday had pointed out this would terrify the Chinese. If they decided to invade Taiwan, there's a high chance the world could absolutely wreck the Chinese economy.
Probably his anti-vax comments in previous videos among other things making him seem a bit conspiracy theorist and a bit crazy in the head etc
Yeah absolutely this. If he has no military experience, then he's just becoming a number, and will more than likely end up being killed.
The only issue I have with people pushing the idea that the US wants countries in NATO (an organisation which requires unanimous approval) is that firstly Finland isn't in it so where is the Euromaiden-esque 'coup' that supposedly made Ukraine want to be in NATO? Secondly, the inalienable right for Ukrainians to want whatever they want to do without being violently repressed for it.
Now on the other hand I think Ukraine should have just let Crimea go and made a referendum in west Donbas to see if they wanted to join their east Donbas in being independent whilst respecting the result, not sure that would have done anything in reality considering the Kremlin's desires but it ought to have defanged a lot of the Kremlin's rhetoric.
Now on the other hand I think Ukraine should have just let Crimea go and made a referendum in west Donbas to see if they wanted to join their east Donbas in being independent whilst respecting the result, not sure that would have done anything in reality considering the Kremlin's desires but it ought to have defanged a lot of the Kremlin's rhetoric.
OK, he cites the two opposing positions and says 'both are wrong.' But he doesn't explain why he thinks both are wrong, he just dismisses them as both propaganda from different sides.
This is classic contrarianism: disagreeing with everyone without really addressing the facts or evidence behind their arguments, while affirming some kind of magical 'middle ground' that is somehow morally and intellectually superior by virtue of the fact that it rejects the two prevailing narratives.
This is not balance, it's just a refusal to address two arguments while asserting a poorly defined third. It's nice that Brand 'condemns armed conflict of any kind', but that would mean condemning Ukraine's acts of self defence as well as Russia's acts of aggression (ironically, this is itself a removal of nuance). So where does that get us? Nowhere.
What is his solution to the problem of Russia's invasion? He doesn't appear to have one. He plays the 'both sides are wrong' game while claiming to hold a superior alternative without ever clearly articulating what that might be.
That's a cute throwaway line that means very little. Tyranny is the oppression of people. That's literally what tyranny is. The deliberate removal of nuance is something else entirely: a rhetoric ploy. Brand is just playing with words here.
I think we need to stop listening to people who say 'Well both sides are wrong' without actually being able to identify what's right.
That's Brand in a nutshell.
'If only the people were in charge instead of the government!' But the people are in charge. The people are the government, and the rest of the people voted them into power.
It's hilarious that he uses the clickbait title 'We're not allowed to discuss this' and then proceeds to quote all the people who are discussing the thing he claims were' not allowed to discuss. It's just absurd, and reeks of bad faith.
Last edited:
- Status