While reading the Statesman article about SteveMcIntyre, I clicked the link to the video:
I immediately started Googling to figure out if this was
- A stomach churning PR-disaster by a climate alarmist group who was advocating individuals cut their carbon emissions or
- A stomach churning video created by skeptics who wanted to make fun of climate alarmist groups who occasionally indulge in creating PR-disasters.
After clicking around, I found this 1010global.org/uk 1010global.org blog post, dated Oct 1, and entitled “Sorry”, which begins:
Today we put up a mini-movie about 10:10 and climate change called ‘No Pressure’.
With climate change becoming increasingly threatening, and decreasingly talked about in the media, we wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people laugh. We were therefore delighted when Britain’s leading comedy writer, Richard Curtis – writer of Blackadder, Four Weddings, Notting Hill and many others – agreed to write a short film for the 10:10 campaign. Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn’t and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.
Well… sure. Some might find it funny….
Don’t these guys the difference between Blackadder– a comedy set in another time, that doesn’t force the viewer to think “Hey! They are fantasizing about blowing me, my family and my friends up!” might not be seen as funny.
Oh well. Making that thing may not have been costly in money, but it sure was costly in terms of credibility. Bad mistake. Worse than polar bears falling from the sky.
Tom Fuller has a nice post on it at WUWT which puts some of the violence in context.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/01/blow-me-up-blow-me-down/
Bob Ward as their PR guy
10:10 as their (no) pressure group
Pachaury as their Leader
bugs as their intarnet troll
Green Peace as their guardian angel
Micheal Mann as their leading scientist
.
With friends like these, who needs enemies? LOL
.
http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/41000/Climate-War–41479.jpg
Just what we need is another propaganda video promoting violiance against non believers of AGW and environmental radicals. Isnt unibomber, ELF, ALF , the discovery channel attacker and numerous others enough . BTW, I think showing whale wars on animal planet is helping a terrorist organization and I think the japanese whalers show restraint in dealing with them. If you had endangered my ship I think I would respond with automatic weapons.
I saw this yesterday. It is a horrible video on so many levels. It doesn’t even make sense.
Boris– You said it!
Jeff–Thanks for the link to Tom’s article at WUWT.
I went to Romm’s blog and read McKibben:
That PR 10:10 video had a lot of contributors, some who have had quite a bit of professional success. It’s very odd it didn’t occur to 10:10 to send the storyboard around to sympathetic groups before wasting the time and effort on this PR disaster.
Great vid to move the undecided voter.
.
I do not think it will move these voters the direction that 10:10 wanted them to go though.
.
Best “own goal” I have seen in years.
The very fact that these folks thought up this outrage, went ahead and put it together thinking this was the right thing to do speeks volumes about some of the dangerous loonies on the alarmist side of the fence. Both about how far they are willing to go in their fascistoid methods and as a reflection of what they think should happen to skeptics. That Romm and McKibben should wash their hands of this -as opposed to a lot of the half-truths and propaganda they subscribe to- is simple self preservation.
I cannot imagine how anybody in his right mind who wants to achieve a certain goal can come up with something so revolting and counterproductive. These people are either nuts or double agents.
Lucia, I don’t think I’ve seen any videos made by Christians of people blowing up for not reading the Bible, I think it’s safe to say these people are out of their mind.
Yep, out of their mind. Have been reading up and it’s clear these people are not double agents. Stupid, arrogant lefties. Just as bad as the “AGW is a hoax” types on the other side of the fence.
Maybe. Reading McKibben’s post, I’m strongly inclined to believe McKibben is simply appalled by 10:10.
I’d rather see the world end up in flames due to AGW than force people to see it my way. Of course it’s really too bad that my fate is bound up with those who choose to stick their head in the sand, but what can I do?
The UK has been fighting a culture of bullying for two decades. That a UK agency would make a video showing that it’s okay to commit violence against children who don’t agree with you really seems over the top.
I would have thought that, after the Audi “Green Police” superbowl ad, that 10:10 would have taken a cue from general public reaction to this sort of message. I would have been wrong, I guess.
The pathetic attempts at justification by both the 10:10 campaign and The Guardian, compound the awfulness of the film. They do not have the guts to admit that this film is a terrible mistake.
As a Guardian reader since the mid 1960s, I am saddened by how low the paper has now sunk.
Neven,
The first refuge of the loser is equivalency.
Show me the skeptics wanting to murder believers, please.
The inevitable “Downfall” parodies have begun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IrtItfWn1E
The makers of the ad don’t want to murder people either. They are guilty of some jaw-dropping stupidity, but they are not seriously advocating murder. It was their attempt to mimic A Modest Proposal, but that have neither the style, the understanding, nor the wit of Swift.
Appalling is not strong enough. Maybe disgusting, obscene, obnoxious. No, none of these is quite right. Maybe the best word is immoral, which at least begins to capture some of what is wrong with this video.
.
A few misguided idiots at the fringe could be dismissed with little damage to ‘the movement’. Far more damaging is that no well known ‘climate activist’ can bring themselves to simply condemn this garbage; instead they create obtuse arguments of moral equivalence….. it is clear they really all believe this is somehow morally justified.
.
They have lost the argument. Watch what happens in the November elections in the USA.
Boris,
“The makers of the ad don’t want to murder people either.”
I’m honestly not so sure. It is crazy to try to defend this Boris. Parallels to Swift are so weak as to bring only laughter. Let it go.
Zer0th (Comment#53252)
Heh. A very apt parody.
Dogma, arrogance and the belief of having absolute knowledge…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Umbn6ZBuE&feature=player_embedded
I didn’t know Quentin Tarantino helped put the clip together.
McKibben and his likes have promoted hatred for years, and now they’re indignant!! Give me a break.
Boris
The other difficulty is that to make the Swift analogy work, the author of the video would need to be skeptic or denier.
If, at the time of Swift, someone who opposed providing food to the Irish has written the exact same treatise, it wouldn’t have been at all clear the piece was intended as irony. People would have pretty much believed the author intended the proposal to be considered seriously!
P Gosselin (Comment#53258),
I cried the first time I watched as well…
P Gosselin (Comment#53258)
And that was 35+ years ago.
May he, whom Nature’s laws obey,
Who lifts the poor, and sinks the proud,
“Quiet the raging of the sea,
And still the madness of the crowd!”
While some build castles in the air,
Others build them in the seas;
Subscribers plainly see them there,
For fools will see as wise men please
“Now buried in the depth below,
Now mounted up to Heaven again,
They reel and stagger to and fro,
At their wits’ end, like drunken men
Ye wise philosophers, explain
What magic makes snow and ice arise,
When dropt into the Southern main;
Or do these jugglers cheat our eyes?
(With apologies to Jonathon Swift)
Just imagine the reaction if a skeptic group made a video blowing up those that advocate drastic changes in order to combat warming. It would be the headline for every major paper and the lead story on major TV news. Investigative TV shows would do specials on the producers, actors, and funding entities. Politicians would be jumping out in front of cameras calling for prosecutions.
It was in bad taste and they apologized. On the other hand, I have yet to receive any apologies from ‘skeptics’ who are intent on risking the world my children will have to live in. This has been ongoing for many years now, and not a single apology or rectraction have I seen.
The murder fantasies of enviro-whackos come as no surprise when you consider the following quotes from some of the environmentalist movement’s leaders and high-profile supporters:
“In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”
– Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, first president of the World Wildlife Fund – as reported by Deutsche Presse-Agentur (DPA), August, 1988
“We have no problem in principle with the humans reducing their numbers by killing one another. It’s an excellent way of making the humans extinct.â€
– Geophilus, “spokesorganism” of the Gaia Liberation Front, as quoted by Les U. Knight of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (These Exit Times, 1992)
“I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds.”
– Paul Watson, a founder of ‘Greenpeace,’ as quoted in Access to Energy, 1982 (1989?)
“One-fourth of humanity must be eliminated from the social body. We are in charge of God’s selection process for planet Earth. He selects, we destroy. We are the riders of the pale horse, Death.”
– Psychologist Barbara Marx Hubbard – member and futurist/strategist of Task Force Delta; a United States Army think tank
“The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing….This is not to say that the rise of human civilization is insignificant, but there is no way of showing that it will be much help to the world in the long run.”
– Economist editorial, December 28, 1988
“In order to stabilize world population, it is necessary to eliminate 350,000 people a day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
– Oceanographer Jacques Cousteau, as quoted in UNESCO Courier, November 1991
“Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”
– Julian Huxley, first director general of UNESCO (1946-1948)
“Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planet. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth….Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”
– David Graber, ecologist, National Park Service, in a 1989 LA Times book review
“I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.â€
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
“If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS.”
– Earth First! Newsletter
“Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.”
– David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!
“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.â€
– David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!
“We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight.”
– David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!
[Cannibalism is a] “radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation.â€
– Lyall Watson, The Financial Times, 15 July 1995
“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.â€
– Ted Turner, media mogul, as quoted in Audubon, November-December 1991
“You think Hiroshima was bad, let me tell you, mister, Hiroshima wasn’t bad enough!”
– Faye Dunaway as the voice of “Mother Earth/Gaia” in the 1991 WTBS series “Voice of the Planet”
Sources:
http://secure.freestateproject.org/node/21771
http://www.solopassion.com/node/1312
http://pushback.com/issues/environment/ecofreak-quotes/
http://ronbosoldier.blogspot.com/2007/12/human-hatred.html
http://nikiraapana.blogspot.com/2007/11/population-reduction-quotes.html
http://american_almanac.tripod.com/tinny.htm
http://www.off-road.com/trails-events/voice/genocide-threats-from-green-terrorists-16221.html
http://pc.blogspot.com/2006/07/quote-extinction-of-human-species-may.html
No problem bugs, your kids will be the first generation to grow tomatoes in both their summer and winter houses… assuming they are not going hungry because it was more profitable to use their land to grow crops for biofuels
I’m not sure if I understand all of the hype over this… it’s obviously phony enough to not be believable… and gory enough to be ignored by most… about the only niche that will watch this is teens who are bored with reruns of Saw, Freddie and Jason.
It was in bad taste and they apologized. On the other hand, I have yet to receive any apologies from ‘skeptics’ who are intent on risking the world my children will have to live in. This has been ongoing for many years now, and not a single apology or rectraction have I seen.
.
Don’t worry. By the time it becomes obvious they will blame your children. 😀
I wonder. Do you non-Americans that post here go to blogs all around the world and demand apologies for ruining the planet for your children? Cowards and blowhards you are if you don’t. It’s not “brave” or “noble” because you know it’s safe to do so. Because most Americans are good and kind; except the very few- just like this lot who made this video. And guess what? They are on your side.
In America if we are not free to disagree; we are not free at all.
This video is disgusting.
Typo: It should say : except the very few -who are just like- this lot who made this video”
Ack, that video was so awful I can’t even type.
Try this again:
“Do you non-Americans that post here go to blogs all around the world and demand apologies for ruining the planet for your children? Cowards and blowhards you are if you don’t. You are not “brave†or “noble†-because you know it’s safe to do so *here*. Because most Americans are good and kind; except the very few- just like this lot who made this video. And guess what? They are on your side.”
The folks who made this video say: “Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark,” the mea culpa continued. “Oh well, we live and learn.”
Yeah you are lucky tons of people risked their lives in real life or gave them up so you could be free to be so clueless and stupid.
Bugs,
“On the other hand, I have yet to receive any apologies from ‘skeptics’ who are intent on risking the world my children will have to live in.”
A perfect explanation of the rational/justification used in the making of the video.
People do not apologize for doing what they believe to be correct. Believe it or not Bugs, I am worried about the destructive agenda of the loony left and the loony Greens for the sake of your childen’s futures, as well as my own children’s. You seem unable to understand that people of good will can and do honestly differ in their evaluation of the technical merit of climate science and in the risks posed by AGW. You apparently share this inability with the folks at 10:10; too bad, for it means you will be frustrated for a very long time.
I think you are having trouble reading what I’ve written if you think I am defending this video. And yes, comparisons to Swift do bring only laughter: that was my point.
I agree that a lot of anti-environmentalists will agree that these folks really want people to die. That’s one of the other problems of this video–aside form being completely anti-human it “confirms” what some people feel about environmentalists: that they are murderous. In so much as this video encourages such a nonsense viewpoint, it is that much more of a failure.
I enjoyed the video, although it was a little raw. It’s very British — from the people who brought you a forty-year-old man breastfeeding in public (Little Britain), a mock PSA with copyright infringers being shot in the head by the FBI (the IT Crowd) and organ donors being violently restrained and having their organs ripped out while they were still alive (Monty Python).
Obviously as activism it did more harm than good, but there’s nothing objectively bad about it. It didn’t demonize or dehumanize the other side, it didn’t call them names or treat them as stupid, it didn’t advocate violence (the lookers-on are obviously horrified by what the “authorities” are doing.) In short, it avoided a lot of the bad behaviors you can see from both sides all up and down the internet, including in comment threads here.
It’s nothing to be ashamed of — just an ad that misfired.
Compare the IT crowd’s anti-piracy PSA:
http://videosift.com/video/Anti-Piracy-Ad-from-The-IT-Crowd
Ironically videosift does not have permission to stream this video . . . watch your backs, guys.
(Comment#53290)
Robert you are an ass; your opinions are lame; demonize is all you do and I can’t believe you are allowed work the medical field (as you’ve claimed) and have a blog called “idiot tracker” without a big picture of yourself on the front page.
In contrast to this video, in Catholic circles, we are celebrating Respect Life Sunday today. This reminds us that each person’s life is a gift from God, even if that particular person does not share our beliefs, or is helpless or diminished, or is unrecognized as a person, and we should strive to ensure that gift should always be protected.
Andrew
Thoughts for Respect Life Sunday:
— Pope John Paul II:
From Peace with God the Creator, Peace with All Creation, 1989; also titled The Ecological Crisis, a Common Responsibility
Boris–
Yep. That’s it’s problem.
Back a bit to the Swifth thing: It’s true it shares gruesomeness with Swift. This shows it’s not gruesomeness by itself that automatically makes something not work as PR. We can see the difference between Swift and this:
Swift: Writes a fake “proposal” that suggests something gruesome, and makes those who suggest borderline similar things (party A) are gruesome. Maybe the criticism by exaggeration was not fair. Swift was actually trying to make party A seem gruesome and to make people say “We should not do anything remotely similar to what the proposal suggests.” And in discussions of the unfairness, the side Swift was criticizing was put in the position of responding, “Well,of course we don’t want to spit roast Irish babies. We just think it’s ok to let them all starve while food grain and lamb are being exported by absentee land lords but the potato crop failed.” This PR works for Swift’s “side”.
10:10. Make a video. Suggest people join 10:10 to do something 10:10 thinks worthy. Then, do something gruesome that makes people think those who are in 10:10 might be gruesome and unworthy. Likely outcome: People think those in 10:10 are abhorent. What can 10:10’s response be? We really didn’t mean to suggest that if you don’t do what we like we’ll blow you up. Or do anything remotely bad. Or anything. We’re just the sort of people who think suggesting we would blow you up is funny. See? Don’t you get it? Please ignore that and join us in the 10:10 movement.
The fact that groups like 10:10 are already seen as somewhat intolerant and advocating some sort of negative consequences for those who disagree with them only makes this video even more of a PR disaster for them.
Obviously, 10:10 was a PR disaster.
Robert
I think that IT anti-piracy video is in bad taste too. I googled and discovered there is a comedy show called “The IT Crowd”. The anti-piracy clip is intended as a parody of anti-piracy videos. See boing boig.
So, it is supposed to be an example of a very, very, very badly put together PR effort that could never, ever ever, achieve it’s goals.
It is oddly similar to the 10:10 video except the 10:10 video manages to be even gorier,and was intended as an honest to goodness PR effort, not as a parody of other PR by alarmist groups.
Is your point that 10:10 accidently managed to write the perfect self-parody and make themselves look foolish? Or did you intend some other point?
Robert (Oct 3 09:06),
You may not realize that “The IT Crowd” is a sitcom TV show. (Wikipedia).
The 10:10 video was made by committed Greens. It showed gut-bustingly funny violence against environmental laggards, as part of a Green fantasy about a world where almost everbody thinks Green, and society’s authorities can mete out swift justice to the few unbelieving holdouts.
The Anti-Piracy ad was a spoof made by edgy comedians. It showed gut-bustingly funny violence about digital bootlegging, in order to mock the real ads’ severe portrayal of a crime that isn’t much worse than jaywalking.
* 10:10 — Greens fantasize about achieving a Green world, by all means necessary.
* IT Crowd — Comedians mock anti-piracy admakers by taking their premises to absurd extremes.
The one doesn’t really map to the other.
What worries me is that I found the muslim version, where the killing was done according to the Koran, almost believable. But maybe that comes from finding that Osama is a green, too.
b3ta have have applied their mad skilz to present the unexpurgated, über Pekinpah++ version.
http://www.b3ta.com/links/how_to_solve_the_problem_of_climate_change
Lucia, I agree.
Lucia, I’m also confused by what the 10:10 are trying to tell us. It looks like they are parodying themselves. “Although we would be happy to be able blasting nonbelievers, our case is good, join us? Or else?”
Maybe the only purpose was to make people talk about 10:10. Bad publicity is also a publicity. Paris and Britney know…
Of course I do. I have every episode. Why on earth would you think otherwise?
It was written by the guy who did Blackadder, one of the classics of British humor. What part of that is confusing to you?
I’d make fun of your ludicrous lack of reading comprehension, but I don’t think you’re sincere. It’s just part of the propaganda game you’re playing, exaggerating the offense, feigning outrage, demanding apologies and denunciations from “greens.” Snore.
You can try and make mileage out of pretending not to know the difference between humor in poor taste and violence and evil, but I’m not interested in your game-playing.
For a helpful comparison between the video and “skeptics'” rhetoric, a few choice quotes from the hate mail campaign against climate scientists:
“Did you want to offer your children to be brutally gang-raped and then horribly tortured before being reminded of their parents socialist beliefs and actions?
*
“Burn in hell. Or in the main street, when the Australian public finally lynchs you.â€
*
“If we see you continue, we will get extremely organised and precise against you.â€
*
“F**k off mate, stop the personal attacks. Just do your science or you will end up collateral damage in the war, GET IT.â€
*
“Your mother was a goat f**ker!!!!!! Your father was a turd!!!!!!! You will be one of the first taken out in the revolution!!!!!!!! Your head will be on a stake!! C**t!â€
Do you think your little witch hunt against the video is going to make anyone forget the nauseating stuff that “skeptics” vomit up into the world on a daily basis?
I agree, the messaging is confused (which is not the video’s only problem, but is one of its problems.)
It’d be interesting to do a close reading of the video, where the rhetoric is aimed and how it ends up missing the mark, but I doubt anything is going to be allowed interrupt the “skeptics” Two Minutes’ Hate proceeding here, so it’s probably not worth the trouble.
Robert–
I thought I discussed the video and how it goes wrong above comparing it to Swift and to the video you posted.
The way it goes wrong is very similar to the way the spoof video shows many videos go wrong.
Oddly, though you say a discussion of this sort would be interesting, it seems you don’t want to have it. We all know the mark it hit was to make the authors look ridiculous. One assumes that was not the intended mark. Where do you think the rhetoric was aimed?
Robert
Uhmm… how does who wrote the script contradict the notion that it was made by committed Greens? A) Making a video involves more than writing the script. B) Who says the guy who wrote Blackadder can’t be a committed Green?
Well…. actually, the reason finding humor in blowing up your political opponents is seen as possibly advocating violence and evil is…. well… it sort of is advocating it. Then, one may mask it as only a joke. It’s called “plausible deniability”.
I don’t think the people making the video intended advocate killing anyone. But then… what did they intend to advocate? Treating people poorly? Ostracizing?
As for you other examples: If you are saying some skeptics wrote vile things on the web and you can find them: Yes. Some have. I think that’s bad too.
But there is a difference between a large group of people who are evidently sophisticated (including talented writers like the one who wrote Blackadder) working collective, over a period of time, to create such an amazing PR blunder. You don’t like the fact that those whose jaws drop in amazement talk about the blunder? OK. But come on. When a group of otherwise intelligent people work together to do something amazingly stupid, I’m going to remark.
Anyway, discussing it here is more fun than watching football… So, yes, it’s going to be discussed.
Re: Robert (Oct 3 12:55),
Sic.
Robert, you may not realize it, but I did not write any of the hateful or threatening emails that climate scientists have received. Nor would I say or do something in order to promote such abhorrent behavior. Or that would have such an effect.
Except that you seem to view my criticism of your Comment #53291 as such an action. Perhaps your reasoning is extraordinarily subtle. Or you may be having an off day.
SteveF (Comment#53287) October 3rd, 2010 at 7:30 am
No, I said it was wrong and they apologized and withdrew the ad.
Bugs,
They did not apologise,they issued weasel words and they withdrew when the storm hit them.
Bugs,
You completely miss the most important part of what I said: you continue to draw moral equivalencies, and you believe that those who doubt the size or importance of AGW owe you an apology for some imagined wrong. You are not alone of course; it is a belief commonly held by climate activists. But I completely reject this notion. People of good will and good intention can (and often do) profoundly disagree on important issues.
Lucia,
“Well…. actually, the reason finding humor in blowing up your political opponents is seen as possibly advocating violence and evil is…. well… it sort of is advocating it.”
And that is the real issue. The film was a straight-away suggestion that those who do not want to do what 10:10 advocates are deserving of some kind of punishment; in the film, it was a rather severe punishment. But the suggestion of a need for punishment was obvious. I suspect that lots of people who are in basic agreement with that position found the film quite funny.
Robert,
Thank you for posting some JPII. I look forward to you posting quotes from him more often in the future. We should respect life in every way we can, and that includes being protectors of God’s creation.
Here’s another quote from Peace With God The Creator I’m sure you agree with:
“The first educator, however, is the family, where the child learns to respect his neighbor and to love nature.”
Andrew
Yes. The fact that I labeled the video as coming from “The IT Crowd” was a clue as to its source, but independent verification is the name of the game, I always say.
As I wrote, I’d like to have such a discussion but I seriously doubt, given the discussion so far, that anyone here is up for a serious analysis of the video, or really much of anything other than playing the I’m-outraged-typical-(the other side)-when-will (more mainstream figures whom I despise and with to associate with this embarrassment even though they had nothing to do with it whatsoever)-denounce-this.
It’s a game anyone who has ever watched a US presidential election has seen ad nauseum, and it typically doesn’t leave much oxygen for any other kind of discussion.
AMac:
If “greens” are expected to answer for every misfire of British humor, then I in the same spirit am please to hold you personally responsible for the “skeptic” who wrote “Did you want to offer your children to be brutally gang-raped and then horribly tortured before being reminded of their parents socialist beliefs and actions?”
After all, did you denounce this statement when it because public? No, you did not. Why are rape and murder in the name of stopping action on climate change acceptable to you? (Isn’t collective responsibility fun!)
lucia again:
Please, that’s a grossly dishonest frame and you know it. Nowhere did I say people shouldn’t be talking about the video. It’s a particular type of dishonest propaganda game that is being played that I find silly and a waste of time. Second, no one is “amaze[d],” except at their luck in scoring a few points desperately trying to spread the mud from one small group that put up what you accurately describe as a “PR disaster” to all “greens.”
I’m glad you think it’s “bad too” to make threats to rape and murder scientists and their families. But given that you evidently equate threats to gang-rape children with tasteless British comedy, I think your moral sense still leaves something to be desired.
Fair point, fair point. We can’t hold committed “skeptics” to the same standards we do intelligent people.
Robert–
Huh? I hold skeptics to the same standard.
And the end with Gillian Anderson is confusing as well.
She says she’s doing the voiceover for the movie as her contribution to the 10:10 campaign, but the guy isn’t contented with it and blasts her anyway. What should be the message of this? That even donating her services isn’t enough until she dresses in the horsehair shirt and starts to use biocandles instead of electricity? What’s expected of her?
EW–
I think that might have been the message.
So…. what would they do to Al Gore? Blow him up too? If that’s what they mean, they should have just said it straight out.
Robert:
To be honest, I don’t see you holding your own side to the same standard as you hold your opposition.
The world is full of wacko hostile nuts, and they come in all flavors.
The idea that one group—that just happens to hold one premise in common and is in all other respects as diverse as one could imagine—is some how morally superior to everybody who doesn’t, is on the face of it risible.
Weell – there’s that house of Al Gore, the one with the lot of rooms and a great electricity bill – maybe they could persuade him to blast it or be blasted?
The question is “how far are the Greens going to go in imposing their philosophy on everyone”.
I guess we don’t really know since there are a lots of examples of Greens going to the extreme and there are also examples of Greens taking a mild approach to their noble cause.
We should be wary of the many examples in human history about how far people are willing to go to promote a noble cause. History tells us it can easily get out of hand – it is basic human nature.
bugs,
Apologize to you for your psychological fixation on CO2?
Why not ask for an apology from your doctor mis-medicating you?
That would be more appropriate.
I think that would have been the ideal starting point for this discussion.
Everybody is going to be prone to see the “us” as a little nicer, and the “them” as a little nastier, and I’m not immune to that, obviously. But in this case, the point or points I’m making aren’t really about defending the video, which had at least three things wrong with it:
1. It was unclear in its messaging.
2. It was overlong and repetitive.
3. Kids were blown up in a way that was not funny. Not to say that that can never be funny (anything can be funny), but I would propose it as a law of comedy that the more tasteless and shocking you are going to be, the more essential it is that you be funny, and they really missed the mark here.
What I do not like, as I said, is this lazy propaganda exercise of mock and/or misguided outrage, attempts to identify the whole group with the gaffe (“committed Greens”), attempts to rope in more mainstream figures by demanding they denounce the gaffe, etc. This dynamic is not particular to climate change debates and can be seen all up and down American politics. See also Kerry v Bush, McCain v Obama, or Clinton v Obama. I don’t find chattering about the video in any way wrong or offensive, but large swathes of this thread are straight out of Exploiting Political Missteps 101. I sincerely hope I would have the honesty to mock this coming from my side as well.
Exactly. Of course, they may be morally superior in the sense that they are on the right side of that particular issue (not to quibble; I agree with what you’re saying.)
What you have here is people who tried to make a shocking, funny video about the need for action, and ended up making a video that was slick but disjointed, not very funny, and easily construed as threatening. They recognized their mistake almost instantly. The people on “their” side immediately condemned them. They themselves were no one who had previously mattered in the debate — the video affected no one’s credibility because none of these people had “credibility” in the sense of being recognized authorities in science or in politics or in activism.
So as far as pillorying “committed greens,” there’s not much there there, I would say. If on the other hand, somebody wants to say making the video was a dumb mistake and they should have known better, I wouldn’t argue with that.
I think the message they were going for is that everybody needs to work together, and that there are no exceptions for the rich and famous, even smug Hollywood types who think themselves charitable because they take the time to tell us how we should live.
Also, rather obviously, it was an example of the you-think-the-dream-is-over-but-it-isn’t trope.
Robert–
“Almost instantly”? They recognized their mistake after people started squawking.
Huh? It affected the credibility of the 10:10 group at least. That group has been trying to become a voice for action for at least of year. That’s when they released “The Age of Stupid” (which I think was another expensive dud, though not quite as catastropic.) I suspect a number of celebrities and corporate sponsors will break connections to avoid embarrassment.
I thought that’s pretty much what people were saying before you arrived. Yet your first comment at “Robert (Comment#53290)” , reads like you like the video and don’t think there is much to criticize. The second linking to the IT video is totally ambiguous.
You know… if your goal was to not argue with people who said it was a dumb mistake, you might want to improve your communication skills. ‘Cuz it sure looks like that’s what you were doing.
Glad to read this clarification that you agree the video was a stupid dumb mistake.
Robert
I thought that was the message too. I think that’s what EW was also suggesting.
So… if this is the message, what of Al Gore? Is 10:10 agreeing with many of Gore’s critics? But are they too gutless to just say so? Did they need plausible deniability for this message too? That is: Make it sufficiently ambiguous for people like Gore or Hollywood start to choose to not get the message and continue on as they have always done?
People started squawking almost instantly. Whereas some people hold onto their mistakes and rationalize and justify their decisions for years in the face of overwhelming evidence [cough, vendetta against Michael Mann, cough]
The message, as I said, is confused. And you are hunting for an evil master plan when the simple explanation which you are choosing to ignore is that this is an attempt at humor, and it doesn’t make a huge amount of sense as an argument.
But since your analytical faculty is obviously under-exercised, how do you read the message from committed skeptics that the children of climate scientists should be gang-raped?
Sorry. Not even close. Read your own blog.
Perhaps it’s your reading skills that are the problem:
I enjoyed the video, although it was a little raw. It’s very British — from the people who brought you a forty-year-old man breastfeeding in public (Little Britain), a mock PSA with copyright infringers being shot in the head by the FBI (the IT Crowd) and organ donors being violently restrained and having their organs ripped out while they were still alive (Monty Python).
None of that is in any way different than what I’m saying now. It failed as polemic, it arguably failed as art, it wasn’t immoral or evil or hateful in the way of the committed skeptics quoted above.
Robert–
Why do you think I’m hunting for an evil master plan? I’m not. I’ve said it was a stupid expensive blunder.
You then want to discuss what the message was supposed to be, and we specifically discussed the one where Gillian is blown up. We seem to agree what that message likely was. I ask, if that was the message: Why not say it directly? In a way that everyone could understand?
This isn’t hunting for a “evil master plan”.
Uhmm… I have no idea who said it, or when. But whoever might have said it, I disapprove of it. But I already said these things were bad. In comment (Comment#53307). And the subject of those emails have come up before– and I said I said I disapprove of that sort of email.
Out of curiosity, do you know who wrote the emails? I have no idea. I assume they are stray random nasty nutties. I hope whoever got them reported them to the police. I would. Seems the proper course to me.
Have you found anyone who approves of those emails? If you do, feel free to tell them I disapprove.
In other news, RSS reports September 2010 to be the warmest on record, despite the burgeoning La Nina.
Status of the “skeptics” efforts to alter the laws of physics through partisan point-scoring: prospects still doubtful.
Robert–
I did. Everything is pretty civil until you posted.
Uhmmm… I thought when you wrote “I enjoyed the video” you meant “I, Robert, enjoyed the video”. Being a little raw is not necessarily a bad thing. You then lump it in with a number of very good productions– Monty Python.
If you meant that quote as expressing the notion the film was flawed, you need to learn to communicate more clearly.
Uhh… well, you are adding bold now. Why don’t I do it differently.
My reading comprehension skills interpreted “there’s nothing objectively bad about it” to mean “there is nothing objectively bad about it” and I read “It’s nothing to be ashamed of” as “It’s nothing to be ashamed of”.
Moreover, parts of what you write are just flat out not true. specifically this bit:
They showed the people leading the 10:10 projection blowing people up. The onlookers don’t look disapproving. They look frozen and stunned and frightened– but do absolutely nothing and don’t raise a single objections to what they just saw.
I have no idea which bad behaviors you think you see in comments preceding your comment, nor which you are seeing up and down the internet. But then….. you didn’t say. So, that would hardly be a result of any lack of reading comprehension on my part. It’s… well.. you expecting people to use their psychic powers to recognize that what you write means something different from what it appears to actually say.
Not all environmentalists are eco-terrorists, but all eco-terrorists are environmentalists 🙂
I, for one, had never even heard of the 10:10 group and its noble endeavour before this mini-movie appeared on the scene.
If McLuhan was right in his “equation” that “the medium is the message” (and I’m inclined to think that he was), I fail to see how anyone could argue (as Robert appears to) that this movie “didn’t demonize or dehumanize the other side”.
What on earth could be more dehumanizing than the image of those who don’t agree with you being blown to smithereerns? Hmmm … well, finding “humour” in such an image might exceed such a level, I suppose.
But equally disturbing, IMHO, is the question of how many eco-jihadists like child-actor, Jamie Glover, might now be waiting in the wings for their moment of “happ[iness] to get blown up to save the world”?
http://hro001.wordpress.com/2010/10/03/the-medium-and-the-merry-massacres-message/
Does this mean they’re changing the neame from Green Peace to Red Pieces?
Robert, have to say that I also have problems with the wailing and knashing of teeth (since we’re being biblical today). I think it is pretty phony too.
But 10:10 did not really apologize, they did one of those celebrity apologies when they get caught. The telling line for me, is the one where they say that they are not going to go after others if they keep posting the video. You know, knudge-knudge, wink-wink, keep going out there comrades, it is getting under the DeNihilists’ skin….
Bugs I apologize for not telling you to reduce your carbon emissions. I also apologize for not trying to trick you and make you think that someday somebody was going to build a statue of you for driving a Prius. Tell you what, you send me $15 dollars in the mail and I’ll send you a blue ribbon that says “1st Place”. I will take the $15 dollars and buy candy and dedicate the ritual eating to you.
A question being have been asking about British humor for ages. Good humor in general can communicate surprisingly sophisticated insights in a fun and memorable way. But humor is by its very nature indirect. If everyone can understand it, it’s not going to be funny.
Context, lucia, context. The video is bad in the sense of being a mistake, poorly thought out, poorly executed (as I said). But people need not feel ashamed about a mistake; that is or should be reserved for something immoral or destructive. The video is neither. It is not objectively bad in the moral sense of bad.
Well, if someone had just pushed a button and made the person standing next to you explode, would you at that moment start raising objectives, singular or plural?
As you say, they look stunned and frightened. It seems to me that they are the stand-ins for us, the viewers. Certainly we are not being asked to identify with the overbearing teacher or the smug boss.
I do not see how you can regard this as advocating violence. First, it’s a fantasy. The method of execution is not a gun or a noose; it’s a magic button that makes people explode. It’s not “skeptics” who are being executed, just people who are a little lazy and uninvolved. Finally, they “execute” one of the people working on the video. Are they advocating violence against themselves?
OK, since you insist, let’s take a look:
(That, if you were wondering, is what actually advocating violence looks like.)
An image was offered juxtaposing Al Gore and a bomber with the text: “Bomb the d!niers, global warming means war.”
Now explain to me how “Everything is [sic] pretty civil until you posted.”
DeNihilist:
Well, they didn’t do the full on “We apologize if anyone was offended” but they came pretty close, so I’ll give you that one. They could have been more forthright in saying “sorry” with no qualifiers.
I’m British, it has little to do with “British humour”, it’s just pretty vile, what one expects from the eco-loons who populate the press and lefty papers like the Guardian.
Generally blowing up children is a very bad thing, for whatever reason.
Tu quoque often offers interesting and relevant context, but rarely provides a satisfactory account of an instance of misbehavior.
> they didn’t do the the full on “We apologize if anyone was offendedâ€
“We apologize if anyone was offended†is a non-apology apology. The apologizer is putting the focus on the person acting offended, suggesting that the problem lies with their excessive sensitivity. It offers only grudging, forced acknowledgement that the apologizer actually did something that rose to the level of requiring introspection, then amends (when possible).
The incident doesn’t show that 10:10 are bad people. It shows that they have exercised poor judgement, twice. In producing the video, and in handling the aftermath of its release.
Robert
You set the context of your post by opening with telling us you liked the video, then comparing to good successful productions. What you wrote does not read as criticism of the production. Later, you said you think it was bad– I agree. But you did not open that way. If you think your prose read as criticism, you are wrong. If you read the thread, you will see the comments that follow react to your first comment as a defense of the video. And it wasn’t just me.
As for this:
Uhmm… yeah.. Later. But “context robert, context”.
If you recall, the context of my comments was discussing your first comment, what you said, and what was said prior to the first comment I even linked the comment number. It’s still there you know. Let me remind you, this was your first comment:
Could you point out where in that comment did you say anything remotely like “mistake, poorly thought out, poorly executed (as I said).” ?
The fact is, that comment, starting with “I enjoyed the video,” and the ending sentences starting with “It’s nothing to be ashamed of ” can hardly be read as criticism. This was not just an “ad that misfired”. It was a very offensive ad that insinuated people who won’t participate should be treated badly. The direct message was they will be blown up. What was the indirect message? Who the heck knows?
If people interpreting what you wrote as praise when you intended criticism bothers you, you should take a course on how to improve your writing to better convey what you mean. And oh. The tips will have little to do with grammar or spelling.
…..
On to what I would do if someone exploded kids in front of me, you ask…
Uhmm… First: Context, Robert, Context. I was pointing out the utter inaccuracy of your characterization of their reaction as “…obviously horrified by what the “authorities†are doing.” This doesn’t seem to be their reaction at all. They appear frightened and terrified– as if they are worried they could be the next victims.
But if you want to ask what I think would really happen if a school teacher blew up two children in front of about 30 classmates it’s this:
1) Many would scream, cry and run in horror.
2) At least a one would rush up to the teacher, screaming “what did you do!! How could you do this to little ‘johnny’ and pummel the teacher with his tiny little fists.
So, yes, I would expect that if this really happened, at least one person would blurt out an objection of some sort. I don’t think they could even help themselves.
Now as for your objections to the comments that preceded, lets start with the first one:
This comment is hardly objectionable. It says the video was violent– that’s true. The video was gorey and violent. People were blown up and body parts spatters all over others. Tom wrote a pretty balanced article criticizing the video and its likely intended message.
He puts the “joke violence” against those who elect not to join the 10:10 movement in context of people who have carried out honest to goodness violence in the real corporeal world.
He tells us Romm and McKibben also criticize the video (though Tom seems to think they might not be entirely sincere. Well, my take is McKibben probably is. But Romm, like the 10:10 guys wrote stuff that amounts to a “not-condemnation”. I was going to not say that– but you are pushing this conversation. So, there you have it. That’s my impression. I could be wrong. )
I don’t see anything wrong with Tom’s article. It is civil. Does not advocate violence. Doesn’t suggest blowing anyone up.
In fact, I’m puzzled you object to his article. You previously told us you want to discuss that message of the 10:10 video. You are free to do so but somehow find reasons not to do so. It’s interesting that you object to Tom actually doing what you will not do: Discuss the intended message.
On to the next example you cite as somehow uncivil.
So, what precisely is uncivil about this comment?
a) It is a propaganda video. So, it’s not uncivil to point that out.
b) The video does promote violence against non-believers of AGW — by blowing them up. So, it’s hardly uncivil to point that out.
c) The writer says he considers Whale Watchers a terrorist organization. You think that part of the comment here ? Really? Huh.
Wikipedia describes Whale Watchers’s actions thusly:
Uhh…. This may come as a surprise to you, but tamming ships and damaging them would be seen as violent terrorism by passengers. I see it as violent terrorism.
How is suggesting some people on board a ship sustaining a violent assault might defend themselves against violent terrorism advocating violence?
To put this in context of the 10:10 video: If the 10:10 video had shown a teacher in the next class room reacting to the sound of exploding kids, grabbing a gun, grabbing the teacher who just murdered kids and holder her at gun point while calling for someone to escort the crying kids out of the room that second teacher would be exhibiting the correct heroic reaction to a violent loon who had just blown up her students.
The commenter here was advocating self -defense not violence.
Uhmmm… your point is what? The poster is worse than the 10:10 video where the 10:10 thinks it’s funny to blow up kids who won’t sign up with them? I would think the point was that 10:10 just made a video with exactly the message communicated by the poster.
It seems a fair enough point. How is making that observation uncivil?
On to tetris’s comment: He doesn’t advocate blowing up Romm or McKibben or the people making the video. He doesn’t advocate jailing them. Yes. People think those making the video are loonies.
The activists doing “Whale Wars” are clearly loonies— ramming ships? Endangering lives? You think none of the people involved in making that video are loonies? Some must have been to make that video. Do you really think it’s uncivil to call them loonies?
Looks like it was pretty civil.
No one was advocating violence. No one was suggesting blowing anyone up. No one was suggesting taking up arms.
People were criticizing others with whom they disagree. Period.
People put the “joke violence” in the 10:10 video in context of honest to goodness violence that has occurred, and which is even accepted, pointing out that this violence by some eco groups is found sufficiently acceptable that animal planet publicizes the violence perpetrated by the Whale Wars guys. You seem to think advocating self defense against their violence is the same as advocating violence against people who merely disagree with your politics. Or that saying you would defend yourself if you were attacked is uncivil? Well, you’re wrong. It is neither “advocating violence” nor “uncivil” to tell people you will defend yourself if you are violently attacked.
So yes, until you put up a post telling us you like the video, comparing it to good successful shows and ending with suggesting it was nothing more than a poor ad that misfired, things were pretty civil. In fact, they are still pretty civil- not withstanding your apparent tendency see as uncivil anyone who posts something with which you disagree.
Robert has just jumped the shark.
S Basinger (Comment#53357)
October 4th, 2010 at 7:28 am
Robert has just jumped the shark.
Hehe. He told Potise he’d do it. 😉
On a side note, I met Anson “Potsie” Williams when I was a lad.
He said HI to me.
Andrew
OMG, I spelled Potsie wrong!
Andrew
lucia,
Robert is psychic. He has knowledge of the secret thoughts of all blog posters. He can interpret the motivations that are hidden behind otherwise reasonable posts. For instance, I could claim that I actually like British humor (especially of the Monty Python and BlackAdder variety), even gory humor (one of my absolute favorite movies is Snatch), but that I found the 10:10 flick to be abhorrent and humorless. But, Robert would know that this was just a politically motivated attack, and that I would not feel the same about a similar skeptic message.
Unfortunately, he seems to expect you to be psychic as well, so that you would be able to discern the hidden meanings in his posts. 🙂
andy is right, this is nothing to do with ‘British humour’.
It’s hard to think of anything to say. What were they thinking?
I had thought that “age of stupid” was ironically very appropriate for these people, and now they seem to have confirmed it.
The skeptic crowd will never forget this, and will keep bringing it up whenever the 10:10 campaign is mentioned.
My opinion on the purpose of the video:
To galvanize the opposition of skeptics vs. believers and vice-versa and escalate antipathy of the groups toward each other.
Sorry, Robert. I suspect most of the readers of The Blackboard aren’t interested.
Andrew
Oh boy, can’t wait for the November election. Robert’s team is going to get voted out in droves. I have decided that any candidate, even if they have an “R” next to their name, will not receive my vote. Candidates who have guts and come out and admit that global warming is a hoax will receive my vote.
Lucia, no comment on my question to you about Christian extremism? Just wondering because I think if this video were blowing up people for not reading the Bible you would be much more critical.
Rethinking the reaction of the kids and employees – maybe they were so eagerly compliant in raising their hands before and stunned but not rebelling afterwards, because they just knew the procedure and didn’t want to be the next target?
Maybe the blasted kids and employees were “new in town”?
Shoosh– The only comment I see mentioning Christians is (Comment#53241). I don’t see a question. Anyway, the only thing I know about Christian violence is historical: Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, Massacre at Bezier, violence during the reformation and what not. Sometimes people turn to violence for a variety of reasons.
What’s your question?
Robert, you must be the last man standing desperately trying to defend 10:10’s terrible faux-pas. Even AGW’s very own Doberman, Joe Romm, has distanced himself from the “movie”. As they say, when in a hole, stop diggin’, my friend. At the other hand, you might create your own sitcom satire here. Pretty funny stuff your messages here LOL.
.
Lucia, you spend way to much brain cells on this person (imho), better keep it for more serious issues.
Hoi Polloi–
I think Robert is an example of one of those people who wants paint those he disagrees with as unreasonable without providing any proof. For that reason, I asked him to support his claim people were behaving badly in comments here, and I especially wanted to see what he thought were examples of bad behavior. It appear that Robert considers anyone point out facts he finds inconvenient or expressing views with which he disagrees to amount to bad behavior, may think self defense against violence is bad behavior (or is merely utterly blind to violence in support of views he promote… or… something.)
So, for example: Pointing out the video is violent– which it was– is evidently bad behavior. Saying some (not all) the people involved in making it must be loons is bad behavior. (Never mind that free dictionary reports this use of “loon”:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/loon “loon – a person with confused ideas; incapable of serious thought
addle-head, addlehead, birdbrain” Uhmm… the makers of that film did have “confused ideas”. One of those confused ideas what that a video blowing up people who won’t join a cause you are actively trying to get people to join is “funny”.) And telling people that you believe in self defense against people who violently ram a ship and board is some sort of bad behavior.
Uhmmm… None of that is bad behavior.
It may seem like too much time to spend on Robert. But I think it is worthwhile to make Robert describe precisely what it is he considers bad behavior on the part of those with whom he disagrees. Because, as far as I can see, bad behavior amounts to their expressing their views (as guaranteed by the 1st amendment) in a perfectly civil manner.
That his first diagnosis of the 10:10 video tells us both: “It’s nothing to be ashamed of” and “there’s nothing objectively bad about it” in interesting. It’s equally interesting that he seems to continue to think that comment amounted to criticism of the video, and that psychic readers should know this (possibly because he later admits the video was bad.)
But of course, given the list of things he considers to amount to bad behavior, maybe it’s not surprising he liked the video. It was a video in which people were blown up for following their own political views rather than his. Sure. Maybe the intended message wasn’t “we’ll blow you up”. But just, “you had darn well better do as you are told — whether you like it or not–, or people in positions of authority will … something… bad to you and authorize others to do bad things to you” Or who knows?
Other possible messages:
1) We don’t have to explain how or why these actions will really save anyone.
2) The people blowing you up will have assistants.
3) Kids in class will fearfully scan the room while other raise their hands, and then raise their hands. While they will shriek in surprise at the loud noise, they will otherwise, react as if kids blowing up is daily going on at the school. The chirpy teacher certainly will act as if this is normal.
The fact is, I have tried pretty hard to imagine any reasonable message 10:10 could have been trying to get across by blowing people up in the way they did. I can’t.
Robert (or any of the people whose first reaction was to defend the movie) could suggest a more reasonable message the group might have even been trying to make. That is, he could do this if he was able to dream one up and wished to share it. It appears he either doesn’t wish to share it or can’t think of a reasonable message.
I strongly suspect the reason I have yet to see any reasonable message the group might have been trying to get across is there is no reason that would sound anything other than vile.
lucia (Comment#53365) October 4th, 2010 at 8:37 am
Shoosh– The only comment I see mentioning Christians is (Comment#53241). I don’t see a question. Anyway, the only thing I know about Christian violence is historical:
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Abortion clinic murders, branch Davidian (David Koresh), Serbian atrocities in Bosnia Herzegovina, Ulster Unionist terror groups, Philangist militias in Lebanon including Christian suicide bombers, the Christian Identity militia in the US…..
“I think Robert is an example of one of those people who wants paint those he disagrees with as unreasonable without providing any proof.”
——————————————————————————-
I think Robert is an example of one of those people who isn’t nearly quite as bright as he thinks he is. It was, however, an entertaining exchange, in a Monty Python/Black Knight sort of way.
“If you never give up, you can’t possibly lose”
Heh 🙂
A mistake is still a mistake even if a number of people made it. My original post criticized the video as ineffective and poorly done. You essentially seem to be saying that what I wrote doesn’t matter; you simple skimmed to see if I liked it or disliked it and decided I liked it.
Again, read your own blog.
I already pointed that out in Comment#53334. I even highlighted the revelent sections in which I said it “misfired” (misfire, verb: To go wrong, be unsuccessful, or fail to attain a goal: miscarry, miss. Idioms: fall short, miss fire, miss the mark) and “did more harm than good.”
There’s no point in arguing if you’re just going to ignore my response and making stuff up. Let’s skip to the end:
So calling people “dangerous loonies” and attributing to them “fascistoid methods” is civil? Lucia, I have never seen a post this long from you, and I can only attribute it to trying to substitute quanitity for what you must realize it lacks in quality.
The discussion prior to my post was rude and abusive, as I’ve shown. My post was absolutely civil, unless you think any disagreement from your viewpoint uncivil. You acknowledge that the discussion afterwards lack civility – which you apparently think is justified by the fact that I polite expressed a different take on the video. How very odd.
Honestly, all rhetoric aside, you’re really not making sense here, you are ignoring the actual posts that are right there for anybody to read, you are defending rude and abusive behavior and attributing an endorsement of the video to me simply because I don’t think it was immoral or advocated violence, and didn’t fail entirely as humor, at least for me. I think you are off the rails with this one – sometimes I go off the rails and I know what it looks like – and I am asking you to take and breath and consider reexamining your argument.
Wow, you just keep doubling down:
Uncivil behavior specifically, and I gave you a number of slam-dunk examples, most of which you completely ignored. You decided to defend the guy who fantasized about shooting protesters, and ignore all the other examples. You also ignore the fact that whether or not you think shooting protesters might in some contexts be OK morally, introducing an OT show in order to advocating shooting people is still uncivil. Right or wrong, it’s inflammatory and rude.
I know you are better than this. Please be better than this.
Robert, you’re the last person on this blog to be complaining about incivility. Surely you’re aware of that.
If you have been following the thread, you’ll note I never complained about incivility. I responded to the (foolish) assertion that “Everything is [sic] pretty civil until you posted.†Lucia brought up, “civility,” not me.
As to lucia, so to all: please read what I write before jumping into point-counterpoint.
Don’t mind Carrick, Robert. You’re invincible! It’s just a flesh wound. Bite the yellow bastard’s leg off!!1!eleven!
(Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)
Robert–
Of course a mistake is a mistake even if everyone makes it. However, if almost everyone who reads what you wrote thought you were defending the video when you intended to criticize it, your communication skills are poor.
To the contrary, I am saying what you actually wrote mattered. What you wrote reads as an endorsement of the video. Again: Read your own words, which start with “I enjoyed the video”, liken it to very successul comedies, tells us that “there’s nothing objectively bad about it” and “It’s nothing to be ashamed of”. You do concede as an ad it misfired. But overall, what you actually wrote communicates praise for the video while admitting that, as a pr effort, it failed. Reads like you would give it 4 stars out of 5.
Sorry, but “misfired” does not mean “mistake, poorly thought out, poorly executed (as I said).†It means “To fail to ignite when expected. Used of an internal-combustion engine.
2. To fail to discharge. Used of a firearm.
3. To fail to achieve an anticipated result: a scheme that misfired.”
Yes. You admit it did not achieve it’s goal or anticipated result. But that’s not the same as criticizing it for being actually bad. Lots of ambitious things can be good but not achieve their goal.
First: no one in conversation was called a dangerous loonie. Second: There is nothing uncivil about calling someone who is a dangerous loonies a dangerous loonies. Some people on both sides are dangerous loonies. But I admit that language is a bit over the top.
Fascistoid is over the top language. I would have preferred “authoritarian proclivities” which would be more accurate.
So there was one uncivil post out of more than 40 before you arrived. No other poster picked up on that language. I don’t call that an uncivil blog thread.
Hardly.
No. You are trying to tell people that suggesting someone read Tom Fullers post discussing the video is somehow rude, abusive, or uncivil.
No. I am saying your first post here read like an endorsement. I am perfectly willing to believe that you intended it as criticism but are incapable of writing clearly and have said so. In fact, I have repeatedly told you that if that is not what you intended, you should improve your writing to make it more clear. You have insisted– and continue to insist that your post was intended to be critical. You go so far as to suggest that it’s only poor reading comprehension that might make people think you are praising a video when you start a post with “I enjoyed the video”, follow by comparing it to popular comedies, tells us that “there’s nothing objectively bad about it” and “It’s nothing to be ashamed of”
“Well… my response to that: Improve your writing skills so people can tell that your criticism is actually criticism and not praise.
Has it occurred to you to re-examine yours?
dorlomin:
“Serbian atrocities in Bosnia Herzegovina, Ulster Unionist terror groups,”
cross out this – this is an ethnic conflict masked as religious. And there weren’t only Serbian atrocities. Practically every ethny there tried to clean their area by any means available, except maybe for Slovenes, who managed to get rid of the Yugoslav army without being dragged in the conflict.
You are still trying to force me into a simplistic frame of either being “against” the video, or “for” the video, and really seem to be resistant to acknowledging that I had some criticism for the video, but didn’t think it was the terrible abomination some evidently felt it was.
My communication skills are fine, thank you.
I agree the language is over the top.
If someone praises a post and puts up a link, and that post is rude, abusive, and uncivil, doesn’t that introduce incivility into the discussion? It’s certainly inflammatory.
I just don’t think you can put that back on me. “Misfire” — that’s a good anglo-Saxon word, everyone knows what that means. “Did more harm than good” — I literally made the point in words of one syllable. Call it “poor communication” until you’re blue in the face, all you are saying is that anything that is not purely and black-and-white description confuses you.
Really.
You probably missed it, but I thought 10:10’s apology was pretty forthright, but when I got pushback on that, I looked at it again, and I agreed that it wasn’t a very complete apology. My exact words, I believe, were “I’m going to give you that one.” Was wrong, promptly admitted it. I’m not just a spokesperson; I’m also a client.
They now have a better, not perfect apology out: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/climate-group-regrets-shock-film-tactic/?hp
I agree with Robert, in that anyone who is curious about when this thread’s incivility ratcheted up beyond occasional exaggerated turns-of-phrase can simply reread the comments from the top.
Unlike Robert, perhaps: I see a distinction between saying “those people whose actions got them in the news are loonies” and saying “you–the person I’m conversing with in this thread–are a loony.” If the first point must be made, I think it’s a good idea to tie opinions to specifics. The strategy of insulting one’s correspondents usually closes off constructive dialog.
My dear Robert,
as someone who still remembers the regime, where it was VERY advisable to raise one’s hand when the authorities requested it (anyway I spent 40 years in it) I can’t find anything positive in this cutesy gory video.
Yes. A bit further up, you had characterized the previous conversation this way,
and the conversation about what people had been saying ensued. I think your characterization is disconnected from reality, the conversation was pretty civil– until after you arrived.
While I find little to agree about with Robert, I can agree with him about enjoying something that is utterly tasteless and horribly wrong. I am not sure this applies to the video though.
At least my original impression was, “I am not enjoying this”, however, I have found myself laughing at South Park (and being really troubled by it). 🙂
Great thread, Lucia.
Robert–
Ehrm… no.
Tom’s post is not rude, abusive or uncivil.
I linked it. It is a classic “not-pology”.
Revkin has another 10:10 apology issued just today. It is somewhat better than the non-apology-apology issued Friday. Unfortunately, they are only apologizing to their supporters and not the public.
Also, one from Sony. At least for now they are going to disassociate themselves from the group.
The blogger, David Burge (IowaHawk) wrote a stunning review of the 10:10 video. See MadMen. Burge, no stranger to Hollywood, painstakingly takes us through the process of conceiving, vetting, funding and producing a video of this caliber and concludes:
I have updated my article to include more videos:
http://tinyurl.com/Eco-or-Die-Updates
I like Revkins characterization of the first not-pology:
Amazingly, they posted second not-pology!
“We are very sorry if … “
If? Not “that”? Classic not-pology.
The letter from Sony appears to have been leaked. I wonder how many sponsors wrote 10:10 and how quickly?
Strong condemnation from sponsors who subsequently withdraw money can affect the decision of groups who rely on sponsorship to pay for making videos. Of course, the not-pologies might be the best 10:10 can do. A real apology might imperil future efforts to make videos on the cheap by using crowd sourcing.
More fall out:
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/10/04/corporate-partners-out-as-1010
350.org seems to have formally severed from 10:10.
Re: GregS (Oct 4 18:36),
Here’s a working link to IowaHawk’s Mad Men.
Relevant to the successes and failures of this thread, Jeff Id reflected on scienceblogging, writing:
Jeff has kind words for Bart Verhaggen’s blog, which underscores his point about the importance of process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink:
I am assuming that this is what Curtis was aiming for
how not to be seen
And missed so wonderfully badly.
dorlomin–
That may have been hat Curtis was aiming for.
Some reasons why that and many other Python examples are mostly thought funny and “No Pressure” is not are obvious and include:
1) Ten:Ten is a PR propaganda film aimed toward advancing a currently debated political goal, and their PR film shows them blowing up those who will not join their cause. This sort of thing is almost never seen as funny.
2) A fair number of viewers– including those who 10:10 wishes to convert to their cause are likely to identify with those who get blow up.
3) Some viewers already think the makers of 10:10 have authoritarian tendencies.
4) As a whole, a large groups of people campaigning for reducing GHG’s are campaigning for government action. So, even if 10:10 is a purely voluntary non-government program, it sits inside a larger movement that actually does want to require actions.
5) The “No Pressure” video splatters more blood and a much more realistic way than most Monte-Python violence. It also didn’t include enough “ridiculous” elements. (For example: The “How not to be seen” shows no blood or guts at all. The “Only a flesh wound” episode has a little blood, but the black knight just keeps fighting and fighting. The guy with the clapping coconuts also helps set he tone. In contrast, the 10:10 film not only has lots of blood and guts, but lingers on the guts spattered kids for a time.)
These factors change the context in which viewers might interpret the act of blowing people up. With Python, some might find it tasteless, but no one could possibly suspect Python does not connect the violence to a call to any sort of political action. It’s merely ridiculous and so non-threatening. In contrast, whether or not 10:10 intended their video as a threat, it comes off that way. Worse: Kids are threatened– and by a bright eyed chirpy school teacher of all things!
Took a few days but I have found some ways to laugh about the 10:10 video