Russell Brand - In Plain Sight

[throbber]

40 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

It is completely meaningless.  If you analyse what he actually says it's gibberish most of the time.

He’d fit in well on here then.

[Monkey Tennis]

3 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

I think his guests were good in the early days and some of them were worth hearing. He had an excellent podcast about disability, one really good one with a film-maker. Some of them were great.

He was just massively out his depth. Like I said, a fraud. So much of what he came out with was just word salad pish being sure to hit a few buzzwords.

I think he was doing a degree at the time? He was just parroting out combinations of the big words he'd read and trying to pass the resulting paint chucked at a wall as thought-out opinions. As mentioned, when pushed to justify or explain anything, he was fucked. Utterly clueless.

I did not have that sense of him at all to be honest.

I felt that he could frame things quite skilfully.  

[DeeTillEhDeh]

2 minutes ago, Ziggy Sobotka said:

Can't really see any resemblance to Shapiro or Peterson tbqh.

There's a big difference between the linkes of Brand and Petersen.

Brand is a narcissist whose arguments are fatally compromised by intellectual laziness. Petersen on the other hand believes in what he says and knows what he is talking about inside out.  Brand's intellectualism is puddle deep compared to Petersen.

[ICTChris]

1 minute ago, throbber said:

He’d fit in well on here then.

He’s probably on here, he likes football. He’s a West Ham fan, maybe he was Jimmy boo.

 

 

[oneteaminglasgow]

1 minute ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Petersen on the other hand believes in what he says and knows what he is talking about inside out.

What?

[Jaggy McJagface]

48 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

It is completely meaningless.  If you analyse what he actually says it's gibberish most of the time.

Jordan Peterson was a genuinely accomplished acadmic psychologist but his writing is appalling.  Peter Hitchens reviewed his book and said it's like bathing in porridge.  Also, and I'm not being facetious here, I think Peterson may have suffered actual brain damage.  He is clearly in cognitive decline since his stint in a drug withdrawal induced coma.  He now seems to get propped up in front of Twitter to pop out strange reactions. 

He’s a really bizarre character. I’ve seen a few videos of him break down crying out the blue over essentially nothing. He’s definitely not right and shouldn’t get the attention he does.

In hindsight, the Brand of 2013-16 kind of struck me as a sort of left wing version of Peterson. Pseudo intellectual word salad.

[ICTChris]

Anyway, it’s the view we all want to hear.

[Derry Alli]

7 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

He’s probably on here, he likes football. He’s a West Ham fan, maybe he was Jimmy boo.

[Jaggy McJagface]

10 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

There's a big difference between the linkes of Brand and Petersen.

Brand is a narcissist whose arguments are fatally compromised by intellectual laziness. Petersen on the other hand believes in what he says and knows what he is talking about inside out.  Brand's intellectualism is puddle deep compared to Petersen.

Peterson is a fraud. He’s a clinical psychologist who opines on absolutely everything from politics, history, science and climate change as if he is an expert in those fields as well.

If you deconstruct what he says in those fields it is (similar to Brand) usually a lot of nonsense hidden behind the veneer of respectability because they can throw out a lot of intellectual sounding words.

 

[Sergeant Wilson]

19 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

I think his guests were good in the early days and some of them were worth hearing. He had an excellent podcast about disability, one really good one with a film-maker. Some of them were great.

He was just massively out his depth. Like I said, a fraud. So much of what he came out with was just word salad pish being sure to hit a few buzzwords.

I think he was doing a degree at the time? He was just parroting out combinations of the big words he'd read and trying to pass the resulting paint chucked at a wall as thought-out opinions. As mentioned, when pushed to justify or explain anything, he was fucked. Utterly clueless.

I'm glad you're clever enough to explain it all to us.

[invergowrie arab]

2 hours ago, 101 said:

Only way anyone should be dug up about their posts on here is if they cheat at either the Chess League or Quiz League as clearly their lives are dangerously empty to prompt them cheating in an anonymous league table.

Tag me you coward 

[invergowrie arab]

23 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

There's a big difference between the linkes of Brand and Petersen.

Brand is a narcissist whose arguments are fatally compromised by intellectual laziness. Petersen on the other hand believes in what he says and knows what he is talking about inside out.  Brand's intellectualism is puddle deep compared to Petersen.

No no no no no

 

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by invergowrie arab

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

1 hour ago, Savage Henry said:

This is true.  The lovely lady threads have disappeared, for example. 

I remember how the prevailing view on the 2015 Women's World Cup thread was that the women should know their place and giving any coverage to the event at all was PC gone mad.

[Gibby82]

18 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

Anyway, it’s the view we all want to hear.

He looks about six weeks away from a coronary event.

[Melanius Mullarkey]

17 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

I'm glad you're clever enough to explain it all to us.

Well it was him or thon TX googlebot boy.

[BFTD]

15 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

Anyway, it’s the view we all want to hear.

Let me guess - it's a good thing these women have the opportunity to have their stories heard, and hopefully charges will follow if the evidence is available. Meanwhile, questions need to be asked about the untouchability of popular performers - how much has really changed since Savile?

Sounds like the kind of reasonable conclusion Jim might have come to.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, doulikefish said:

^^^^^

Went to school with someone called champ 

For the record: "Went to school with a Scottish minor media 'celebrity', whom, in 1987, genuinely thought that 'The Smiths' was a set of tradesmen who dicked about with hammers, chisels, tongs and sets..... And was middle aged before he left school....."

[sparky88]

55 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

There's a big difference between the linkes of Brand and Petersen.

Brand is a narcissist whose arguments are fatally compromised by intellectual laziness. Petersen on the other hand believes in what he says and knows what he is talking about inside out.  Brand's intellectualism is puddle deep compared to Petersen.

You've obviously not seen the clips of Petersen havering word salad shite then.

[PB1994]

59 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

He’s probably on here, he likes football. He’s a West Ham fan, maybe he was Jimmy boo.

 

 

@LondonHMFC

[DeeTillEhDeh]

44 minutes ago, Jaggy McJagface said:

Peterson is a fraud. He’s a clinical psychologist who opines on absolutely everything from politics, history, science and climate change as if he is an expert in those fields as well.

If you deconstruct what he says in those fields it is (similar to Brand) usually a lot of nonsense hidden behind the veneer of respectability because they can throw out a lot of intellectual sounding words.

 

41 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said:

No no no no no

 

 

i completely agree he's a fraud and most of what he says is bullshit underpinned by pseudoscience..

Yes he uses intellectual language (as Brand does) but unlike Brand understands that language and the arguments underpinning his bullshit - I don't think the same is true for Brand.  Where Petersen struggles is when he comes up against those who are specialists in their fields - and why he rarely goes up against them face to face.