Best alive philosopher?

Veeky Forums is just supremely bitter that he's a rockstar and a sexgod who gets to play the role of public ""intellectual"" with thoughts that are as trite as Veeky Forumss own.

redpill me on history & humanities Veeky Forums

Break down what you mean, at face value it doesn't make sense.

Nothing, it's a simple idea backed by experience. The conclusion has a kernel of ideology but it's not all that bad.

>Inequality
>bad

youtube.com/watch?v=vK9q3wC3Nwo

Believing that inequality is bad can rightly be called the 'last boss' of being blue-pilled.

Also, if you get your philosophy from a comedian, don't be surprised when it turns out to be a JOKE.

So talk about it. All he's saying is he finds the culture of silence around it suspicious.

youtube.com/watch?v=iX_gUQeZcB8

>culture of silence around inequality
what reality do you operate in

The reality where I'm posting in a thread about a particular quote. Yourself?

That's what he's complaining about to my mind: whether he was rich or poor when he tried talking about inequality people more or less told him to shut up.

>Wear V For Vendetta mask to be anonymous
>Take it off for news cameras
???

>digest a thesaurus while pinging off your head
>now qualified philosopher

What's the antithesis though?

Ridding our country of degenerate inferiors and rising to become the absolute greatest superpower ever?

>sex god
LITTLE

Seriously? Remember the 1950s: high taxes and fiscal/monetary policies that aimed at full employment policies... it's like people don't realize there actually existed a world before neoliberalism. All you need to do is implement old fashioned policies that don't only servicing all accumulated wealth stored in the form of intangible speculative financial assets and real-estate values at the sake of the majority who don't capture any of those gains.

That's a small peepee.

Hey guys, he's a show-er, not a grower.

Just as communism fucks things up due to being incompatible with human nature, high inequality can be seen as inevitably fucking things up in the long term because politicians can be bribed to do awful shit.

Cocaine is severely vasoconstrictive, and will make your dick shrink.

But that's still tiny.

Parklife!

>implying it's not changing in the opposite direction right now
Pure ideology. I'm not even memeing.

it isn't

it is

>i like russel brand, he is a cool guy
go to bed brand

kek

it actually isn't. patriarchy is slowly dying, but not changing in the opposite direction. it certainly won't die in our time, and to fight it and claim instant equality is retarded on every level, starting biologically. i'm against sjw and feminazi and demanding equality in areas which it's impossible. equal pay and to judge based on merit gets a pass, it's necessarily individualism vs instilled stereotypes(which aren't necessarily wrong. see: heuristics)

youtube.com/watch?v=YbVNZUHeg6o

I was talking about economic inequality, as was Mr Brand.

i can see these issues in the middle east but i can't in europe and the US. can you show some stats or something

lol is this what britain looks like nowadays?

The best thimg about that video was the link at the end to a video about Preston walking out of Never Mind the Buzzcocks.

oecd.org/social/OECD2014-Income-Inequality-Update.pd

Nobody paid the highest tax bracket, faggot. The US was only wealthy because we were the only country with non-bombed industry in the world.

where's the inequality in this

You don't got the stones to show off your stones, big man

The link didn't work but I assume it's about the 10% on top of the food-chain and such. I hope you know if you see the ideas solution to this issue would be socialism starting with redistribution of wealth. Here I'm neutral. However, I initially meant inequality between the sexes at an economical level. (forgive me, it's an unfair preconjecture due to my excessive arguments with feminists in real life)

>The link didn't work
Ad an f to the end.

It's Russel Brand dude, be real

Confirmed for not having ingested DRUGS EVA

Thank you, it looks so obvious now. Isn't it ridiculous that our countries fight for their survival and strategic strength even though the people are poor and weak? In such times I pray for a Muslim Caliphate. What options pop for you?

O N THE L I S T
N

T
H
E

L
I
S
T

Your name begins with an H, correct?

No, what are you talking about?
Soft spot for Muslims too? They fit me well, however, it is a great and difficult religion.

Your words are as little whipping weeds. A hive of honey to an MMMM hungry bear, correct.

Tell what is difficult, for you.

You think Yahweh too harsh or evil too strong?

They need are, but what's a loud mouth to a deaf ear?
Just not catchy enough.

>tfw the post-war boom and subsequent rise of middle class was an anomaly, but is used to justify neoliberal economic policies and dismiss any alternatives

i used to fall for the free market meme myself.

Anyone here interested in Distributism?

You need Anare indeed friend.

It is not a catchphrase, nor a gimmick, nor do I ask for your pay, so take it, it's yours.

>i used to fall for the free market meme myself.
>Anyone here interested in Distributism?

>i used to fall for the free market meme myself.
>i used to fall for the free market meme myself.
>i used to fall for the free market meme myself.
>i used to fall for the free market meme myself.
>i used to fall for the free market meme myself.
>i used to fall for the free market meme myself.

Worldwide pedophile ring

It's framed as "I'm right, and you unique person are also right, while everyone is wrong."
Most people who will hear him saying this agree with him, and when you preach to a choir like that it's really just him making himself feel good, and trying to make fans feel good, like they have the right opinion, even though the statement lacks an opinion.
The end part about not wanting to address inequality because it's a real issue furthers this.
>it's a problem and we see that but everyone else is wrong and corrupt
It's vague. An insipid statement framed as a brave stance.
>people said
>they say
>we have to stand up for (insert people you feel are oppressed) because (insert people you feel are oppressive) are being an assholes.

>a man walks on a stage
>the crowd hushes
>Anticipation rises
>"bad stuff is bad"
>the crowd goes wild, women orgasm, children speak there first words, cripples walk.

fuccing epic, this shit going on r/Veeky Forums

are nige

Total equality is impossible. Prove me wrong

Thanks user, guess I'm the best living philosopher.

not to mention ill advised. true equality would suck, like that vonnegut short, Harrison Bergeron, where everyone is artificially gimped to make everyone essentially equal, graceful people afflicted with heavy weights to make them stumble, smart people given helmets that make loud noises to stop them from having a train of thought that's too long.. equality is only as good as the possibility of raising the lowest people to the height of the highest people, and since it's easier to gimp the highest people, equality would inevitably reduce our shining stars to the same trash as the rest of us.

REI

mundusmillennialis.com/
mundusmillennialis.com/
mundusmillennialis.com/

inequality isnt bad, it may even be good

>vonnecuck
cuck

What the fuck am I reading?

...

Theres nothing really wrong with it, its just said by a person who probably isn't making any efforts to correct this problem he brings up.

true equality is possible but our entire lives would be boring and straight forward. If everyone was equal in the sense that everyone is worth the same as another and has the same necessities being met all the time then everyone would just be born, get everything they need all the time, learn everything everyone else does, mentally retarded people would probably be aborted immediately, careers would probably work in the same way they do now except anyone can be anything as long as they try as everyone is on equal ground. This sounds horrible.

why would you want equality lol

>This sounds horrible.
No, it sounds hilarious.

Certain people (nerds, mostly) just love to shit on Russel brand regardless of what he's saying. See: this thread.

I'm not convinced true equality can exist in a sense, but at the same time we also have a really shitty language around inequality that means we can't even point to certain issues. I'll post some shit from some papers if I have the time later.

That's my cock on drugs too. It ain't much longer when I'm sober.

Depends on his definition of inequality

/Thread

Inequality isn't inherently wrong. Instead, it should be a focus to make sure everyone has enough. It isn't a zero sum game.

Post WW2 was such an anomaly in human history. All industry except for Americas had been blown away. The middle class was completely unique to this time and place in human history and likely will never be repeated.

You could say Britain industrialsing but keeping free trade before that was also an anomaly, there's always a top dog and someone doing something different.

He regularly says we need to appropriate the wealth of bankers and "share it" while being a millionaire wanting to keep his millions.

How am I the only one to post the great orator of our time?

People becoming wealthy isn't an inherently immoral act, and morally attacking the creation of wealth itself has catastrophic effects on society. Russel may not be demonstrably hypocritical or bitter, but he is a fool who spouts opinions on shit when he should really be keeping his dumb ass mouth shut.

The guy stands in an empty room talking to a camera and he still stumbles over his lines.

U wut m8?

He has hours of discussion every week on his call in show and on his prepared videos he's remarkably articulate considering how few cuts there are and how long he talks for.

fuck i hate americans

I don't care about equality. I care about freedom.

Politics is literally and unironically divided between people who want to be left alone, and people who just can't fucking leave people alone.

> Philosopher

Fucking retard

>Americans invented inequality
It's sort of scary how many brainwashed moonbat teenagers think this. Just goes to show how malleable the human mind is, the weak ones I mean

What you're hand-waveing away as an "anomaly" was actually the logical result of the deployment of the Fordist mode of accumulation throughout most of the Western world and Japan which was based upon high wages and large public capital formation by governments to lower the overhead expenses for private business. Finance capital was neutered at this point in time and this allowed industrial capital to rapidly develop the productive forces at the expense of the shrinking power of the creditor class and their rentier incomes. The Fordist mode of accumulation differed radically from the more primitive Taylorist mode of accumulation being deployed today by Asiatic state capitalist regimes based on low wages and export oriented growth, as opposed to domestic consumption, where most of the profit is stolen by the financial elite.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post–World_War_II_economic_expansion
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrastructure-based_development

chicagofed.org/~/media/publications/economic-perspectives/1988/ep-may-jun1988-part2-aschauer-pdf.pdf
Government spending and the "falling rate of profit"... good article from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago admitting that statist intervention is necessary to offset the internal dynamic of capitalism: the tendency for the rate of profit to fall

Things today are becoming so bad that mainstream financial institutions are warning of the rapid growth of the lumpenproletariat as a result of neoliberalism
bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-20/a-164-year-old-idea-helps-explain-the-huge-changes-sweeping-the-world-s-workforce
>Today's modern parallel to porters, tinkers, and the "ruined and adventurous offshoots of bourgeoisie," might well be the growing mass of Uber Inc. drivers, temporary contractors and angry white men: the "Trumpenproletariats," according to a new note by Macquarie Group Ltd. analysts.
>Whichever name one chooses to describe the sweeping structural changes taking place across the world's workforce, they are undeniably upon us — borne out in persistently low labor productivity, the stubborn decline of manufacturing, and growing global income inequality.
>Macquarie Analysts Viktor Shvets and Chetan Smith use Marx, and data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), to highlight the extent to which the U.S. workforce is shifting towards the modern equivalent of Lumpenproletariat — in other words, how people are moving toward more transitory occupations. Unlike their 19th century forerunners, however, the 21st century Lumpenproletariat may prove more bitter, and less boheme.

Americans didn't invent inequality, but they seem to be some of the front runners when it comes to glorifing it. And it's pretty cringe to see someone use a vonnepleb short stort as proof that egalitarian socities don't work.

Are you implying you aren't equally weak and moldable? And haven't been?

He is a rich celebrity who is virtue signaling to curate a specific public image. Nothing wrong with the quote itself but most people who possess half a brain are very suspicious of the intentions of 'public intellectuals' like this guy (can we even call him that if his "ideas" amount to reciting hollow platitudes?).

Isn't the use of virtue signalling as a phrase inherently itself virtue signalling

>but they seem to be some of the front runners when it comes to glorifing it.

Brits are way worse. The entire culture, even poor people see "social mobility" as an actual real concept, and not just a capitalist propaganda tool.

>they seem to be some of the front runners when it comes to glorifing it.
it used to be the norm
egalitarian ideology is an anomaly, not the end point of society as some seem to think it is

why would a culture that praises inequality also praise social mobility?

>egalitarian ideology is an anomaly

In written history, and even then somewhat. For the majority of human history it's been just the opposite. Your norm has been simply just the blink of an eye in the span of human history.

inequality =/= inequity.

say you have 2 people, one has $10 the other has $1000. brand's argument is that the person with $1000 has done something immoral to have so much more than the guy with $10. in actuality the guy with $10 is in his predicament based on his character and has nothing to do with the guy with $1000