Guest Post by Thomas Fuller
Depending on when this gets posted, the post Anthony put up titled “O…M…G – Video explodes skeptical kids in bloodbath” may have sunk quite a bit down the pile of posts–Anthony and his squad are prolific posters.
But it can’t get any lower than the content shown in 10 10’s video. A relatively innocuous campaign to persuade people to lower their own emissions by 10 percent has pretty much exploded (literally) any hope that the debate can rise above the Wes Craven level. What’s next? The Last House on the Left… Isn’t Insulated?
The idea that blowing up skeptics is the proper response isn’t at all new–and skeptics have known this for ten years, if the drivel I get in my inbox is any indication at all. The very phrase ‘denier’ comes from a concerted campaign to show skeptics (and lukewarmers like myself, although we often get the double whammy title delayer and denier) as equivalent to those who denied the Holocaust occurred.
There has been a concerted campaign to paint everyone who does not agree with Al Gore and James Hansen as monstrous, ranging from allegories with the railroad trains filled with coal heading to some concentration camp to the late Stephen Schneider’s pathetic paper attempting to assert primacy and purity by miscounting academic publications.
But this is hate speech, pure and simple. It legitimizes almost any action against or characterization of those who do not agree with the most hysterical version of Catastrophic and Cataclysmic Climate Change–shoot ’em all and let God sort ’em out.
Using ten-year-old kids as both props and victims is a particularly nice touch.
When DDB created an ad for the WWF showing planes crashing into the World Trade Center as an advertisement asking for support for green activism, it was grotesque, tasteless and an insult to all who suffered losses on September 11th, 2001. It would have been impossible to imagine a cruder, less sensitive call to green action.
Until now.
For any of those on the activist side who wonder why skeptics (and lukewarmers) don’t trust the communications put forward by their team, they might wonder just how much any sign of reason might be contaminated by the stench from garbage like this.
Thomas Fuller href=”http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
randybutters,
I am not sure that this statement ‘They are basing this trash as fact with what you call a comedic vision of violence. I dont see how you can make one distinction and not the other’ means what I think it does, but if so then I disagree.
To explain, you can set a comedy in the real world alongside real things.
Thus – and I keep using this because of the writer – Blackadder Goes Forth was set in WW1, a real time with real horror. And yet this was a comedy.
Satire, which I believe this to be, is pretty much always set ‘in the real world’. In this instance, they are using the real event or project or whatever it is – the 10:10 thing – and setting that alongside the unreality of exploding people for not participating.
Anyone who defends this vile propaganda, or excuses it as “satire,” needs to recall the words of Oliver Cromwell: “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”
By using red herring arguments like ‘parody’ and ‘satire’ they are being apologists for sending the message that killing opponents is acceptable, so long as Gaia is served.
There have been too many of these videos made by eco-alarmists for them to now fall back on the ex post facto excuse of “satire.” This video is no more satire than Birth of a Nation, which also advocated lynching of innocent opponents. The mindset is exactly the same.
I don’t want this video flagged in any way to get it removed from youtube.
I want to keep it there as evidence. I’ve downloaded a copy and will repost it if it is removed. I will repost it on another site to keep it available.
I want people to see the vile hatred that these people are espousing. I do not want them to be able to shrug and say, “What video?”
===
Nor will I let them get away with, “Hey, lighten up. It’s just a joke.”
First, that’s the bullies’ excuse.
Second, if AGW skeptics had put it together as a skit, the warmists would be screaming in outrage.
Third, if skeptics had put it together but targeted warmists, there would be rioting in the streets.
No. Not funny.
I don’t understand the idea that blowing people up — yes, David, including in fiction — is in any way construed as comedy.
Yeah, I never got cartoon characters being blown up or shot or cut into a hundred pieces, either.
David Gould
Are you aware of the threat that GreenPeace posted on their website earlier this year, “We need to hit them where it hurts most, by any means necessary: through the power of our votes, our taxes, our wallets, and more.” … “We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few.”? The threat was rapidly retracted from here;
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/climate/2010/04/will_the_real_climategate_plea_1.html
primarily because of WUWT;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/03/climate-craziness-of-the-week-greenpeace-posts-threats/
but it can still be read in its entirety here:
http://gp-bc7f8.posterous.com/
Also, Anthony was confronted in his office by an off balance Warmist earlier this year:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/07/a-note-about-boundaries/
The bloodbath video isn’t an abstraction, it is incitement. The Warmists are indoctrinating, riling up and desensitizing their rabble and, if any crime results from it, those responsible will be held to account.
For those wishing to discuss this further with me, I am signing off for now. I should be able to respond more over the weekend.
Reminds me of the exploding pig on the ABC (Australian Government) website where children are encouraged to calculate when they would reach their carbon limit and thus need to die. I made a written complaint but was brushed off with the typical “the science is settled excuse.”
Tom,
A long time ago I wrote that the very logic of the denier metaphor would lead to the idea and endorsement of a final solution for skeptics.
When you characterize your opponent as beyond reason, force becomes the only method of behavioral control. And the ultimate sanction comes into play.
This pattern of thought is a part of our consciousness. It’s why words matter
Thanks to E.M.Smith for the eloquence in comments here.
Saw the first post on this sickness at Steve Goddard’s blog and could not believe the vile hatred in the video. Even more disturbing were some comments at the Guardian, where the ‘humor’ of the video was praised.
Depravity seems to keep sinking to ever lower depths.
Mr Gould
Have you really been conducting your one man defence of this indefensible video (on both WUWT threads) during your work hours as an employee of the Australian federal government?
Now that, my friends is comedy.
I saw the comments pointing to this come in last night and I watched the video then. I was too shocked to react with anything other than horror. The smug look on the faces was too much. We can only hope it might backfire. While it will appeal to many (unfortunately) I think a lot of reasonable people, who might otherwise take a pro-AGW stance, will be equally repelled.
The ‘blowing up’ and ‘blood everywhere’ part is cartoonish; in a different circumstance it would even be funny. The really repulsive bit is the sneering attitude and the message it sends that there should be recrimination of anyone who is a) an ‘unbeliever’ and/or b) is not prepared to ‘do their bit’. I personally find the portrayal of the ‘office manager’ figure to sum up all I have come to find unacceptable in politico-ecological attitudes in the UK today.
I just finished a book about Thomas Cromwell, one of Henry VIII “prime ministers” (Wolf House by H. Mantel). Burning at stake, drawing and quartering and other more common ways of execution of heretics and adversaries (usually charged with treason) feature prominently in the book. Cromwell himself, Thomas More and many others suffered that fate.
That was the way to achieve consensus back in those days. Kind of sad to see people presenting the same idea under the guise of humour.
So Mr Gould gets the humour that the rest of us have missed here and then gets a good belly laugh out of trolling our disgust. Mr Gould sees satire and irony in this video that most of the rest of the us don’t. Having watched the end segments of this video a few times, I don’t get the impression that it was intended as satire and irony by the producers. It sure seems to me like they intended to send a very clear and distinct message: “Get with the program or else.”
As Thomas pointed out, this video that Mr Gould finds so hilariously funny, is aimed at school children. I don’t think many of them will get the satire and irony that Mr Gould enjoys so much. Admittedly, I’m well past childhood and maybe children are far more sophisticated now, but I distinctly recall that when Wiley E Coyote got flattened by a big rock or slid over a cliff and fell a thousand feet to the ground, I found it very funny. I rooted for the Road Runner and found Wiley E Coyote’s misfortune funny because it was a cartoon and even as a child I knew very clearly it was not real. No one really got hurt. Wiley E Coyote would stand up flat as a pancake, stagger around and fade out to the sound of the Road Runner’s beep beep until next Saturday morning. Ditto Elmer Fudd, Mister Magoo, etc. and other cartoon misadventures.
This video, however, is no cartoon. It’s very realistic; the blood and body parts are very red; the bystanders are splattered quite convincingly. Perhaps Mr Gould would argue that’s the point. It’s all too real, so it must be funny, satiric and ironic. As an adult I might even accept that as a possibility, one that does not appeal to me, but I don’t think young children are going to understand the intentional, and what Mr Gould describes as funny, horrendous violence. What they will understand is that those who didn’t get with the program got blown into puddles of gore. And that is an intended pun aimed at Mr Gould’s peculiar sense of humour.
As a young teen, I watched Nikita Khrushchev bang a shoe on a UN podium and threaten to bury me, my family and my country. He meant every word of it. I find this video pretty much the same kind of threat from the same kind of people who won’t tolerate those who don’t get with the program. If Mr Gould thinks I lack his sophisticated sense of humour, quite frankly, Scarlet, I don’t give a damn.
Thing is, in the real world, you went to a school or workplace and told everyone to cut their CO2 by 10% the minority would be saying yes, most would be giving you the finger.
This is very good psychology by the propaganda puppeters (who much have watched the works of [snip]*). First make the majority think they are the minority (when the reveres is really true, most people don’t believe in this crap) then make them feel if they don’t conform, they may be executed….
*[blog policy here does not encourage comparisons in this vein. Understand where you’re coming from but just a mention too far. ~jove, mod]
DJMoore said …
“Second, if AGW skeptics had put it together as a skit, the warmists would be screaming in outrage. Third, if skeptics had put it together but targeted warmists, there would be rioting in the streets. ”
I couldnt agree more. In fact, it was so bad that I immediately assumed that skeptics must have put it together as a skit. No-one in their right minds would write this stuff as a pro-AGW ad would they? You mean it really is an ad from a warmist camp ?!
@David Gould:
Oh yes, there is something irresistibly funny about gratuitous violence. So why does this one give me a bad feeling?
Because comedy violence, the funny type (Dangerous Brothers (*), Blackadder…), is mostly one individual raging against another individual. Or as far as groups are concerned, it’s the weak against the strong.
But here we see a couple of sinister strong individuals -the ones controlling the button (how passé not even cordless)- imposing the one ‘correct’ thought and behavior on innocent individuals, the brave ones (who are not inclined to go with the crowd) being simply wiped away by a push on the button.
And while the viewer is actually supposed to sympathize with the sinister leaders, it works out the other way around …of course. It’s not surprising to read that many people see this as a call for violence against the mavericks who swim against the tide.
Something wrong with the viewers? Or something wrong with the comedy?
(*) The Dangerous Brothers “Exploding Politicians” (!!)
I cannot agree with Mr Gould on many fronts. However, I will defend the rastionale that violence can be funny. After all good old slapstick never fades IMHO, I still watch the occasional silent movie of Charlie Chaplin, Harold Loyd, Buster Keaton, & early talkies with Laurel & Hardy, etc, & they still make me laugh, violence & all. It is indeed true that Blackadder Goes Forth was an excellent comedy (partly written by Richard Curtis no less) set in WWI, with all the Anglo-Saxon grim humour to boot to illustrate the futility of such a war, when Germany first attempted to create a Single European Market! (As an aside such a Market cannot survive, Napolean failed France’s attempt in 1815, & Germany failed yet again in the 1940s!)
Interestinlgy though, it wasn’t the exploding children or adults who just had a different opinion to the voice of authority, of cutting ones carbon footprint by 10% that I found most disturbing, although disturbing it indeed was for me. No indeed, what I found really disturbing, was the expressions of shock & fear on those who were left standing, the children, & the adults. Did they really intend to convey such shock & fear to potential supporters? Was it their intention to convey a world of shocked & fearful people who have just witnessed an arbitrary punishement, an automatic summary execution, if they do not go along with the prevailing authority, & who will suffer these consequences? Is that not reminiscent of Communist Party & Nazi Party representatives in WWII shooting those they arbitrarily believed to be slacking in their vigor of attacking the enemy. Now that really is disturbing! Certainly wisks one into the sci-fi world of Dr Who, Star Wars, et al etc, etc! It won’t do the teaching profession any good will it, displaying violence towards pupils, or managers doing the same against their workers. Who is the Evil Empire now?
FAO David Gould. Thank you for your reasoned responses to some hostile fire. I accept that you have signed off now, having better things to do, but hope you will return and read this. I believe in free speech, and I think you do to. The makers of this video do not. As the AlGoreWarmers circle their wagons, the wheels are now falling off their wagons. That you can not see how this video constitutes such a massive and sick own goal for the AGW crowd, confirms how blinkered your view is.
I hope this video will be screened again and again, and will never be forgotten, and a warning to others how vile the self righteous EcoFascists can get.
Please can someone spoof this video, in the manner of “[/snip]” sadly now withdrawn? How the EcoFascists blew themselves up or something?????
[REPLY: Lets leave the Nazi references out of the conversation. Employing it diminishes the Holocaust and the evil of Hitler / the Nazi. .. bl57~mod]
Mr. Gould;
No, the reason this isn’t funny is because it is just disgusting. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand; it’s just poorly scripted and too graphic to be humerous.
That someone does find it funny is mildy disturbing, but finding that the someone who does is entrenched in the AGW camp isn’t at all surprising. Sheep despise mavericks and anyone who disagrees with the consensus is despised by sheep. Thus a video depicting the graphic violent murder of people who don’t ‘toe the line’ on AGW is smugly satisfying to those who do.
Not that graphic violence isn’t funny; Monty Python proved time and again the humor to be found there. In this case it’s the lack of humor and comedic effect in the video that isn’t funny. As to paranoia; I am quite certain that those of us who are ‘deniers’ are far more capable of and prepared to defend ourselves than those who believe in this rubbish, so there’s little to fear but fear itself . . . and manbearpig.
Seems I’m the only one who agrees with David Gould – I thought this was a hilarious little movie.
Frankly, I find the strong reactions by many commenters to be quite scary. FYI – they didn’t blow up any actual kids in the movie – it’s fiction! To compare this with what actually went on during the Holocaust is beyond crazy.
Maybe I have to fear some of my fellow skeptics more than even the most hysterical AGW:ers…
@David Gould
Let’s pursue your Blackadder point a bit further. There was a message in Blackadder Goes Forth; that war is bad. But, with the violence almost non-existent, the message had to be delivered through the humour alone, and was successfully done so. We only appreciated the message because we appreciated the humour.
This is the best way to deliver a message, as the great Norwegian writer Knut Hamsun observed: “The artist and the polemicist need to be separated if both are to thrive.”
That is not the case with the 10:10 film, which Curtis has got badly wrong.
First, Curtis has placed the polemic front and centre in this film. It is the message which dominates, and it is a very unpleasant message, as well. Many environmentalists have already expressed their extreme disgust for its tastelessness, bullying, moralizing and contemptuous tone.
Those who find this video funny are the sort of people who laugh at a disabled person in a wheelchair who is unable to reach the elevator button for their floor.
so? wheres the link?
what T Fuller posted keeps taking me to google search and a pile of rebubble and his older posts
Try watching this video back to back with this one-
and then tell me we’re all still having fun.
I can see where Mr Gould is coming from- he sees this video as a dig at both ‘skeptics’ and ‘warmists’, but the question needs to be asked- is this the true intention of this video? In Art, intention is said to be everything- so we need to be talking about the intentions of this video, not just about how each of us personally may feel about. Just what is it that the creators are trying to say? What’s the message? It’s a serious organisation, so there must be a serious underlying message that needs to be communicated. Trivialising and having/poking fun seems antithetical to the actual aims of this group. Even if we think it’s ‘funny’, is that what we’re meant to take away from this video? This isn’t mere ‘entertainment’, even if it’s meant to be funny- there is a message here.
Unfortunately imo, the message and intention displayed in this communication is indistinguishable from any other piece of coercive propaganda I’ve ever seen. Furthermore, it’s targeted at kids, the group most sensitive to peer pressures and the need to fit in. This is playing on kids fears of exclusion and social rejection in such an extreme form, by employing shock tactics so graphic that if this was a movie it would have a +15 rating. You know, I’m no prude. I have regularly defended violent videogames and I’m no fan of censorship, but I would draw the line at showing this kind of thing to young kids. Adults may/may not get a kick out of it. This is not for adults. Again, this is a very cynical playing up of children’s fears of exclusion. From that angle at least, this video is not funny in the slightest possible way. “No Pressure”? Pffft.
This video is a disgrace.
Douglas Dc says: September 30, 2010 at 7:41 pm
David Gould, your lack of appreciation of our distress at this video, already feels like you have dehumanized us… only a little bit but still real. Please.
It is the science that matters, the science that was not even remotely addressed by the video, the science where those who disagree have already been substantially dehumanized, by orthodoxy. Yet those who disagree do so on the strength of the science, not because they are in anybody’s pay, because they (we) care about truth. Sure, there are always shades of opinion and courtesy but what I’ve said is still the core truth.
CO2 is a GHG, yes, but in practice, in the atmosphere, it seems to have no effect and is offset by water vapour.
We emit CO2, yes, but in practice, our emission is tiny compared to the natural flux, and the “isotopes” arguments do not hold up.
Recent warming has happened, yes, but in practice, it has been warmer in the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period and the Holocene before that, so natural cycles can be that big.
Recent records of warming have been compounded by all sorts of weather station problems, for which there is ample record of seriously insufficient correction.
We care about green issues here, but precisely for that reason we don’t want huge sums of money squandered on a non-problem when there ARE real problems to address.
Most of us here used to believe in AGW, many of us have had to eat our words and say “sorry” but we feel better for having done that.
I don’t think there is anything else left to say. Except to invite you too to question the science in the light of the above, and consider that saying “sorry” can be good for your health too.
PS-
I would just like to say, that if you have no problem with propaganda, then you have a problem.