Holy God... I don't even know what to say about this. "Care to join? No pressure." A group calling itself 10:10 wants to reduce carbon emissions by 10% by this Sunday, 10/10. And if you don't want to join their effort, no pressure. They'll just push a button and murder you. Even schoolchildren.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I'm thinking its not what you think it is.
If its something that wouldnt seem out of place in a Moffat written episode of Doctor Who I think your taking it too seriously.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Lisa, do you get angry at sitcom characters, as people, for being stupid? I mean, yeah, you can dislike the writers, but the characters are not real.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
You know what? I don't get angry at Kurt from Glee; I get angry at the writers. And I don't get angry at the characters in this film or the actors who play them; I get angry at the sociopaths who made the film in the first place.
And Blayne, what on earth do you mean it's not what I think it is? That film was made in earnest. In complete seriousness. The organization itself put out an apology and took it down from the site. But only after people saw it and went apes**t about it. It never crossed their minds not to post it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
No that's not what happened at all, they meant it as a joke, it wasn't serious at all.
None of the mainstream ecoactivist groups (except maybe PETA but they're the Scientologists of the activist world) would ever consider this as a reasonable course of action.
I frankly don't see it as threatening or a threat, it looks and feels like a joke, like a self parody, not as a serious manifesto of intent.
The ONLY way you can say otherwise is via making up what their intent is from your own pre concieved biases.
I dare you to find one lick of proof or statement from their site that says "we made this video in complete seriousness"
I'll wait.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I know it's supposed to be gross-out comedy, but it is odd that they portray the super environmentally concious as cold blooded murderers who are willing to traumatize their followers.
I'm sure that's not the impression they were going for - but yes, it was a bit Doctor Who. I'm thinking Adipose Industries. Only, obviously in that episode the person killing the general public was punished severely. Because they were evil and stupid and wrong.
I wonder who thought this film would be a good idea? Maybe it sounded better on paper.
Posted by Week-Dead Possum (Member # 11917) on :
I think at best these people could be found guilty of extremely poor taste. It´s definetly not funny, and it´s way off key, but it´s also not much of a death threat, and if you insist that it is, I´d say you need to get some perspective.
So what´s the game plan Lisa? They retracted and apologized, and nobody seems too inclined to defend them. do you just wanna cast some scorn on them? Do want to make out like this is an actual terrorist threat? God forbid you should actually write some substantive thoughts on how this is an example of how activists can be completely out of touch with reality and seem to act out of some compulsion to preach doom... But that might hit too close to home for you to touch on too long.
hem
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: And Blayne, what on earth do you mean it's not what I think it is? That film was made in earnest. In complete seriousness.
Man, you actually believe this, don't you. Yes, I'm sure they're earnestly, seriously saying to kill everyone who doesn't participate.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
No but seriously if you actually believe that, you're confirmably, legitimately paranoid.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Lisa, I think the commercial was in bad taste, and not exactly most effective at getting the message across. But I think that it should be obvious to someone of your intelligence that the point they're trying to make is that climate change is something that we just can't ignore any longer, and that we do so at our own peril, and at the expense of our and our children's futures.
I'm baffled at some of the thread's you've been posting recently. If the opposing ideology did anything even close you'd be jumping all over them.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: And Blayne, what on earth do you mean it's not what I think it is? That film was made in earnest. In complete seriousness.
Man, you actually believe this, don't you. Yes, I'm sure they're earnestly, seriously saying to kill everyone who doesn't participate.
No, obviously not. But even though it comes across as something anti-AGW people might put together to make AGW folks look like utter psychpaths, they actually did it themselves. They thought making something like that was okay.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yeah, and? You act like all of us have not been aware of that since we first watched the thing. I'd love it if you ever bothered to turn your caterwauling into something constructive.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
What if NOM had made it and they had people raise their hands to admit they were gay before blowing them up?
Would it still be ha-ha? or would it be taken as a threat?
If people feel comfortable joking about wanting to kill you, that's a HUGE red flag.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
You know why your analogy makes it seem worse? Becuase in your analogy, it *is* worse.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: If people feel comfortable joking about wanting to kill you, that's a HUGE red flag.
Of what?
The designers of this campaign having horrible taste and judgment is evidence of horrible taste and judgment, not of an underlying sociopathic mentality of people who recognize that anthropogenic global warming is an issue that should be tackled with action. It's not like after watching it, you should be worried that the 'global warmists' are out to blow you up.
I mean, unless you're legitimately paranoid.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Also, of note:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Would it still be ha-ha? or would it be taken as a threat?
Who's saying this is ha-ha?
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: You know why your analogy makes it seem worse? Becuase in your analogy, it *is* worse.
Why?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Because being gay isn't a threat to the future of our planet, and anyone who says it is, is arguing from hate and bias and ignorance.
Climate change IS a threat to the future of our planet as backed up by 99% of the scientific community.
That's why the analogy fails.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Its also more acceptable to eliminate people who dont share your political beliefs while killing people just because their different is bigoted.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Because being gay isn't a threat to the future of our planet, and anyone who says it is, is arguing from hate and bias and ignorance.
Climate change IS a threat to the future of our planet as backed up by 99% of the scientific community.
That's why the analogy fails.
There's also the point that while there is no credible danger to opting out of climate change action, people all across america still hide the fact that they are gay because of the threat of things like violence. For that reason alone, a video like this where gay people get blown up for revealing they are gay would be even worse.
Not that this is good either. Its amazingly tasteless and should result in people getting fired.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Probably could have been funny without the blood and guts.
Other than that, it's a complete tempest in a teapot.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Probably could have been funny without the blood and guts.
Yeah, even when you remove the shock value, it doesn't make any sense.
quote:Adam Corner, a research associate at Cardiff University with an interest in the pscyhology of communicating climate change, blogged that the video failed to communicate on a basic level:
At the most general level, the video fails to address basic principles of communication. What is the message? Who are the audience? The video literally doesn't make any sense – if it is aimed at supporters, what are we supposed to take from it? And if it is aimed at those who oppose the 10:10 campaign – or more pertinently, are not yet aware of or interested in it – then what is the video hoping to achieve?
But worse, he felt, was that it went against received wisdom on the best way to engage people on climate action:
quote:Beyond these general faults, many of the pitfalls of communicating climate change are gleefully skipped into. It is now well established that using shock tactics to pressure people into caring about climate change is of limited use: while fear of a negative outcome (e.g. lung cancer) can be an effective way of promoting behavioural changes (e.g. giving up smoking), the link between the threat and the behaviour must be personal and direct. Typically, climate change is perceived as neither a direct nor a personal threat – and so shocking people into doing their recycling is probably not the way to go.
We also know that while 'peer pressure' can be a remarkably effective way of promoting and spreading environmentally friendly behaviour, this is a process of social comparison that cannot be controlled by 'outsiders' to an individual's social group. People make their comparisons to people who are 'like them' – people that they respect, admire, or empathise with in some way. Observing other people engaging in pro-environmental behaviour is a fantastic way of generating a positive social norm. Blowing them up for failing to get with the programme is not…
[/quote]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Because being gay isn't a threat to the future of our planet, and anyone who says it is, is arguing from hate and bias and ignorance.
Climate change IS a threat to the future of our planet as backed up by 99% of the scientific community.
That's why the analogy fails.
And homosexuals are a class of people, not people making a choice. It's not right or tasteful to make light of the idea of violence against the apathetic, but it's just not as bad as that. Not all things are equivalent.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Because being gay isn't a threat to the future of our planet, and anyone who says it is, is arguing from hate and bias and ignorance.
Climate change IS a threat to the future of our planet as backed up by 99% of the scientific community.
That's why the analogy fails.
Right.
The analogy fails because, unlike homosexuals, global warming deniers really are evil scumbags and, though we certainly don't think it's come to that yet, murdering global warming deniers would be much more understandable than murdering gay people.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Its also more acceptable to eliminate people who dont share your political beliefs while killing people just because their different is bigoted.
That's really insightful Blayne. (not sarcasm) You got my point in one.
People who purge their dissenters and/or encourage violence against them are just as monstrous as those who go after minorities.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
It's so funny to see people tripping over each other, half of them saying the video is in poor taste and obviously nobody is defending it and half the people saying it's in poor taste but, really, those global warming deniers are just so terrible that it's a little bit understandable to want to exterminate them.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
In the interests of precision, the video isn't merely joking about blowing up global warming deniers (say 10 or 20% of the world by population), it's joking about blowing up anyone who is apathetic about meeting the 10:10 goal (say upwards of 99.5%) including specifically Gillian Anderson.
So the comparison to political repression of a minority simply lacks the proper sense of scale and isn't paranoid enough.
You should be worrying about the effective genocide of the human race. Just sayin'
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Right.
The analogy fails because, unlike homosexuals, global warming deniers really are evil scumbags and, though we certainly don't think it's come to that yet, murdering global warming deniers would be much more understandable than murdering gay people.
Noting why one would cause more popular uproar/interest isn't the same as saying that it seems 'much more understandable to murder' group y vs. group x. Especially when the noted subtext also includes the part where threats against group y are much more credible than threats against group x.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: In the interests of precision, the video isn't merely joking about blowing up global warming deniers (say 10 or 20% of the world by population), it's joking about blowing up anyone who is apathetic about meeting the 10:10 goal (say upwards of 99.5%) including specifically Gillian Anderson.
So the comparison to political repression of a minority simply lacks the proper sense of scale and isn't paranoid enough.
You should be worrying about the effective genocide of the human race. Just sayin'
But it's justifiable genocide, since people apathetic to global warming are endangering the whole planet!!! Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I saw the button in the video as an attempt to show an unavoidable consequence, rather than murder. It's done badly and comes off as murder, but you can be pretty sure that's not what they were going for.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Noting why one would cause more popular uproar/interest isn't the same as saying that it seems 'much more understandable to murder' group y vs. group x.
I don't know, I think if someone is less upset/interested then it's reasonable to assume it's because they find one example more offensive, and therefore find the other example more understandable.
quote:Especially when the noted subtext also includes the part where threats against group y are much more credible than threats against group x.
This, however, is a good point.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Because being gay isn't a threat to the future of our planet, and anyone who says it is, is arguing from hate and bias and ignorance.
Climate change IS a threat to the future of our planet as backed up by 99% of the scientific community.
That's why the analogy fails.
Right.
The analogy fails because, unlike homosexuals, global warming deniers really are evil scumbags and, though we certainly don't think it's come to that yet, murdering global warming deniers would be much more understandable than murdering gay people.
What a ridiculous exaggeration of what i said. Actually, exaggeration is being generous. Your comment really has barely any relation to my posts.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: It's so funny to see people tripping over each other, half of them saying the video is in poor taste and obviously nobody is defending it and half the people saying it's in poor taste but, really, those global warming deniers are just so terrible that it's a little bit understandable to want to exterminate them.
Or the funny people who, oh, I don't know... Have actual opinions rather than the plantings of a fevered imagination and an excessive eagerness to put words in other people's mouths and thoughts in other people's heads?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I don't know, I think if someone is less upset/interested then it's reasonable to assume it's because they find one example more offensive, and therefore find the other example more understandable.
What can be found more understandable is not that it's better to murder one group over another, but that it's understandable that gays would find these sorts of threats/conceptualized parodies of murder more imminently objectionable (because these threats of violence often at least mirror tangible real-world threats that gay people legitimately face) and threatening than 'people not inclined to participate in some global warming campaign run by the Guardian' (which is not yet a credible threat in any way, shape or form). The whole narrative about that is, well, you stuffing words and motives in the mouths of others, so far.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Noting why one would cause more popular uproar/interest isn't the same as saying that it seems 'much more understandable to murder' group y vs. group x.
I don't know, I think if someone is less upset/interested then it's reasonable to assume it's because they find one example more offensive, and therefore find the other example more understandable.
As was said before, I find threats against gay people much more credible than threats against the lazy, thus, I consider threats against gays to be more serious. The act in itself of blowing someone up is the same across the board- but the implied threat against someone who is just being lazy does not carry the weight of the same threat against a homosexual, not least because homosexuals have been regularly murdered for being gay.
Now, I *do* find it much more understandable that an activist group would come out with *this* commercial rather than an anti-gay activist coming out with pretty much the same one. Why? Because the implied threat against a homosexual would be so serious, I doubt any organization that wished to continue functioning would try such a thing. With the merely lazy, it's a rather grave mistake to make such a commercial, but it is not nearly as bad as one that might target gays, for reasons I've stated. Thus the fact that this commercial was made is more understandable to me than if one targeting gays had been made. It's because this concept is just not as incendiary. It's pretty freaking awful, but it's not the same. As I said before, "bad" and "bad" are not always equivalent. Some stuff is worse than other stuff. It's fine- you can let that one go, nobody really disagrees here.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: In the interests of precision, the video isn't merely joking about blowing up global warming deniers (say 10 or 20% of the world by population), it's joking about blowing up anyone who is apathetic about meeting the 10:10 goal (say upwards of 99.5%) including specifically Gillian Anderson.
So the comparison to political repression of a minority simply lacks the proper sense of scale and isn't paranoid enough.
You should be worrying about the effective genocide of the human race. Just sayin'
But it's justifiable genocide, since people apathetic to global warming are endangering the whole planet!!!
You can punch out your timecard at the strawman assembly plant, dan. It's time to come home.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
It's not a strawman, it's sarcastic hyperbole. But I'll stop regardless. Posted by Anthro (Member # 6087) on :
This whole damn thing just seems silly. Please don't tell me Hatrack is in an honest tizzy over it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Of course it's silly. But silly things have interesting aftereffects. especially when they are used to represent an entire movement by people who hate them and wish them to fail =)
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: But silly things have interesting aftereffects. especially when they are used to represent an entire movement by people who hate them and wish them to fail =)
I completely agree with this.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
You know, it's unfortunate that this film came from the brilliant Richard Curtis.
A couple of nights ago I saw "Notting Hill" again after quite a few years and forgot what a brilliant film it was. Early this year I also saw the hilarious "Blackadder" series in its entirety, and both were written by Curtis. He also created Bean and wrote Love Actually! Plus he created Comic Relief.
That video was a poor miscalculation from a talented and funny storyteller.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I felt it wouldn't have been out of place in Doctor Who.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I felt it wouldn't have been out of place in Doctor Who.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)