Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LONDON, Oct. 2 (UPI) -- British environmentalists have withdrawn a video in which a teacher blows up children who refuse to reduce their carbon footprint.
The group 10:10 said the film, starring Gillian Anderson, was intended to "bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people laugh," the BBC reported.
OK, I can realize why many people would find this video disturbing. And I'm not, in any way, invalidating anyone who feels this is offensive, or advocating using violent measures against someone who doesn't agree with your position. But, being someone with a rather twisted sense of humor with a full appreciation for campy satire, I think I may have gotten the message as they were intending it and wasn't horrified or apt to think that greenies are psycho.
HUMOR is such a subjective thing... there are tons of things that other people find funny or witty that I think is downright disturbing and offensive, but I don't get my panties in a twist about it. Getting all indignant over something is pretty much even more effective for spreading the message than ignoring it.
OK, I can realize why many people would find this video disturbing. And I'm not, in any way, invalidating anyone who feels this is offensive, or advocating using violent measures against someone who doesn't agree with your position. But, being someone with a rather twisted sense of humor with a full appreciation for campy satire, I think I may have gotten the message as they were intending it and wasn't horrified or apt to think that greenies are psycho.
HUMOR is such a subjective thing... there are tons of things that other people find funny or witty that I think is downright disturbing and offensive, but I don't get my panties in a twist about it. Getting all indignant over something is pretty much even more effective for spreading the message than ignoring it.
I have no problems with humor, yet it requires a setting for such. If this were done in a comedy skit on SNL, I doubt there would have been such an uproar, sure... in poor taste, yet as you mentioned various comedy routines cross this line all the time.
The problem is that this organization is not SNL, it is not some movie put out by some comedian disconnected from any official organization of such.
It was used as a political support piece as its main advertisement for a political organization movement. In such a setting, it is no longer simply a campy skit with poor taste, it becomes a strong indicator of the main organizations position on the issue.
It tells people that not only is disagreeing with them unacceptable (making them a fascist organization), but the penalty of such should be death and death of all, even innocents is acceptable when it conflicts with their ideology.
Think of it in terms of this. We see rather racists skits all the time in various comedic circles and many do not get upset. SNL used to do one (been a while and I can't remember the actors) that used to go on about killing whitey. It was a shock skit, one of extreme position, but many found it funny, even I did. Yet this was because the basic setting and intent was that of a comedy show, not of a political setting or an organization of political agenda. Take that same skit and place it in a political organization as an advertisement and the message is not comedy, it is one of hate.
This is what this video showed people. It showed the world that those who do not share the position of the green movement, who may disagree, are the enemy and should be killed for their disagreement. It may not have been their intent to provoke such a response, but it was a message that is very clear, especially considering the tension of what preceded this (the constant calling of denier, the personal attacks, suggestions of violence against skeptics, the condemnation of those who may question, etc...)
People should take offense, as the message here is not simply a funny little skit, it is an attack on the very concept of free thought, of the freedom to disagree and to contest those you disagree with. It is a death threat of demand for conformity to a view. It was not simply tasteless, it was despicable.
I agree that someone in their PR department seriously underestimated how much people would read into this ad and made a very poor judgement of the cultural climate when they decided to air this ad. When there are extreme tensions, specifically political tensions, quirky humor does not usually dissipate or lighten those tensions as much as inflame them... which this ad most definitely did. This is why humor, especially satire and dry wit, is usually considered too chancy for advertising of any sort... most definitely not for something serious and so near flashpoint, which environmentalism seems to be these days. It's just too easy for people to take it the wrong way, read too much into it and for the whole thing to backfire.
BTW I remember those SNL skits... Dan Ackroyd and Eddie Murphy. Also "C-I-L-L my landlord".
I agree that someone in their PR department seriously underestimated how much people would read into this ad and made a very poor judgement of the cultural climate when they decided to air this ad. When there are extreme tensions, specifically political tensions, quirky humor does not usually dissipate or lighten those tensions as much as inflame them... which this ad most definitely did. This is why humor, especially satire and dry wit, is usually considered too chancy for advertising of any sort... most definitely not for something serious and so near flashpoint, which environmentalism seems to be these days. It's just too easy for people to take it the wrong way, read too much into it and for the whole thing to backfire.
BTW I remember those SNL skits... Dan Ackroyd and Eddie Murphy. Also "C-I-L-L my landlord".
I have to question their motive though. This isn't simply a slip, or a misunderstanding, it is a very precise and directive display. Do they think of skeptics and those who disagree this way? It isn't too hard to believe, especially considering the comments made by senior officials in Green Peace (a high up advised violent interaction with those of the skeptical nature) and there was also the statement from the Green Peace president that they exaggerated the evidence of AGW, but believed "lying" about the facts was best in the end.
Also, what of the constant rhetoric that comes from these groups concerning any dissonant views? I watched them attack and ridicule Hansen, one of their initial founders of the position simply because he made a comment that did not toe the line of the ideology and Hansen is as activist as they come, being arrested at demonstrations against mining companies. Now they love him though, but why? Because he chimes off what they want to hear?
I have seen them cozy up to a researcher because his conclusions were the dire direction they wished for, and when he strayed from such catastrophic opinion, they throw him under the bus and are vicious in their attacks.
I have seen researches put forth honest work that isn't meant to object to any political position, but is merely an evaluation of a specific be attacked in such hateful rhetoric that it is disgusting to read any commentary from these groups on it.
Then there is the simple issue of questioning the topic to which receives heavy condemnation simply for asking why there is a discrepancy in a particular study.
My very first posts on this board concerning the topic of AGW were one of inquiry, one to which was interested in the questions being asked concerning the AGW position. In simple questions at that time, not a declarative to a point or position, I was attacked, condemned and ridiculed for not blindly accepting that which was dispensed to us by the "authorities". The hate that filled some responses was eye opening and these blatant attacks exist to this day on this board. My tone might be more "combative" these days, yet only because I know what is coming. The tactics of condemnation have not changed or adjusted, they are the same as they ever were.
So after all of that, after reading extensively on the topic, into the research and comments on all sides, I can't help but think that this position (while not shared by all who support the position of AGW) of killing those who disagree is a strong one and one common to the minds of this movement.
While those who are less associated to the issue may take offense and eventually wave it off, I actually think that if these people were to gain too much power, the "fantasy" of their "comedic skit" would become reality. These people scare me and I honestly think people should be weary of them.
I actually think that if these people were to gain too much power, the "fantasy" of their "comedic skit" would become reality. These people scare me and I honestly think people should be weary of them.
People should be wary of any extremism, regardless of the particular flag that it flies to achieve It's end. it uses the means of whatever that extremist group is promoting, for the end of control, because an extremist "KNOWS" what the right way to live is, and anyone who is not living in that way is wrong and needs to be corrected. This applies to everything from eco-Nazi's to the Tea-Party. Sadly in the polarized political climate we live in, there is much extremism, and very little rationality. Oh well time for another beer...
People should be wary of any extremism, regardless of the particular flag that it flies to achieve It's end. it uses the means of whatever that extremist group is promoting, for the end of control, because an extremist "KNOWS" what the right way to live is, and anyone who is not living in that way is wrong and needs to be corrected. This applies to everything from eco-Nazi's to the Tea-Party. Sadly in the polarized political climate we live in, there is much extremism, and very little rationality. Oh well time for another beer...
Agreed, though I find that those who hold to a specific such as "individual freedom" will have a difficult time obtaining a position of control. It is why I think the US founders were so solid in their position. How do you corrupt individual freedom without in the process violating it? Look at any movement today, if they push for a concession of individual rights to promote their belief, regardless of how "noble" or appealing it may sound, we should certainly be "checking our pockets" and looking for the "Sunday Punch" as they have already dismissed the concept of individual freedom.
So on one side you have a "fascist environmental organization" using violent propaganda and "advocating total annihilation of all those who oppose"...
and on the other hand, for the sake of argument and another perspective, you have a lot of environmentally unfriendly people whose continued disregard for sustainable practices could endanger us all... essentially pointing a loaded gun at our heads by their steadfast refusal to make changes in their consumeristic disposable and wasteful lifestyles.
And those people go around telling anyone who doesn't toe the line to that kind of world is deluded, misguided, crazy, and/or an extremist who are a threat to the very their very life and the way of life that we all hold so dear and should be shunned and stoned at every opportunity?
See what I'm saying here? The blade of "do as I say or perish" is used by the extremes on both sides of every argument. Each side feels they are entirely justified in their beliefs and actions because they are "right". Extremism and zealotry in any form for any reason and any cause is just plain BAD for everyone, each side will do whatever they deem necessary to enforce their ideal onto everyone else.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
