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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The video is crass, stupid and irresponsible.
But there is a specific point in which it crosses over the line. All the dancing around by its apologists above ignore the red button.
Rerun the video but remove the button.
The button is pressed by an authority figure; the teacher, the boss, the manager of the football club. Authority presses the button. Authority tells the assembled masses what to do and when they don’t do it they are executed. It is an act, not a side-effect.
That’s the difference.
It’s not: ‘do the right thing or you will die’ (which is bad)
It is: ‘do the right thing or we will kill you’.
I would like to hear what David Gould thinks is the main message of this ad. And whether he agrees with it.
Could it still be a (even then tasteless) hoax? – accepted on board by 10:10 a bit like Social Text accepted Sokal?
@David Gould
It seems like you are in a minority David. The rating system on Youtube has the video at 1:4 ratio in favour of dislike.
You mentioned earlier that Mel Brookes and Blackadder had portrayed torture scenes that were comical, I agree, they have indeed. However, they were comical depictions of events that had already occurred (or similar to such events) and therefore most people would be able to recognise the comedy element very quickly. This video, on the other hand, is depicting events that have not yet taken place and therefore there is no reference point to judge it’s comedy value. (although there are plenty of examples throughout history of groups being given ‘special’ treatment due to their beliefs)
Do you honestly believe that not one single person (particularly children) that watches the video will ever be motivated by it to pressurise others to conform to their way of thinking through physical or psychological bullying or even violence?
If you think that there is even a chance that this video could do so then you should be ashamed of yourself for defending it.
Elise says:
October 1, 2010 at 4:07 am
“…pressurise others to conform to their way of thinking through physical or psychological bullying”
This is already psychological bullying.
Obviously some people think that’s hilarious.
@David Gould says:
September 30, 2010 at 6:56 pm
John Whitman,
‘Lighten up. We’re not out to get you. :)’
Do you think any of us rational people here believe a word you say?
tryfan says: (October 1, 2010 at 3:04 am) Seems I’m the only one who agrees with David Gould – I thought this was a hilarious little movie.
Almost, tryfan… I almost agree with you both, but would put my reaction in the “boring” rather than “hilarious” category — which has much the same endpoint.
Remember that little ap, gopher shooting? No real gophers died; but it was fun splatting the virtual critters.
To take the featured vid in any way seriously one must be looking for a fight; or just plain bored. Or maybe too Politically Correct for your own good — and PC always ends up hurting rather than healing.
” RichieP says:
October 1, 2010 at 4:16 am
@David Gould says:
September 30, 2010 at 6:56 pm
John Whitman,
‘Lighten up. We’re not out to get you. :)’
Do you think any of us rational people here believe a word you say?”
I think this is missing the real point here. There’s no reason not to believe David, although he is only really able to speak for himself. This isn’t about ‘getting’ skeptics. that’s not what this is about. This is coercive propaganda in making people feel unsecure about holding opinions which may differ from the consensus or authoritative ‘right’ opinion.
Tell you what David, you (or anyone else defending this ad) find me an open skeptic amongst any of those kids involved in the making of that ad- and I will feel less concerned about this whole thing.
@David Gould
“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.”
Particularly fascinating here is the fact that Curtis has three houses and four children. That’s precisely two more houses and two more children than he is permitted under the “green” orthodoxy. Perhaps someone could make a video showing them being blown up – in a “spoof” fashion of course; as anyone believing that there was some kind of implicit threat in such a video would obviously be mentally deficient. Obviously.
Thanks for posting on this. The AGW freaks are so out of touch it’s “hilarious”.
I have found “cartoonish” violence employed as parody wildly funny. This ain’t it. It’s a deliberate effort straight from the echo chamber that uses evry trick in Alinsky’s book to try to portray level-headed people as worthless obstacles to a government-engineered nirvana. (The only thing they got wrong was the “horrified” reaction of those who “went along” with the campaign; they’d really be the first ones cheering.) Well, they can sod off.
It was clear that the “skeptics” in the film (I hesitate to say victims of the violence, as that would justify and validate the intent of the film.) were intended to be shown as losers (can’t even properly raise their hands as they are ashamed of their (lack of) convictions) and self-centered egotists.
The real propaganda element is then disguised behind the blood and guts so that the message sinks in that only the losers aren’t joining in and look at what happens to them! Just be glad that you are on the “right” side.
Let’s try to analyse the comedic logic of this video. Let’s start with a less contentious comedy, the “Ministry of Funny Walks” sketch. If that had been made by (as it was) an outsider, a non-government author, the absurdity of it would be (as it was) a satire upon the absurdity sometimes displayed by government departments. But if it had been made by a government department, it would have to convey a message along the lines of “Yes, we are sometimes absurd, but we are admitting it here and inviting you to have a laugh about it with us.”
So how does that translate into the example before us now? If skeptics had produced it, it would carry the message that sometimes AGW authorities are too heavy-handed and stifle dissent, etc. But if (AS IT WAS), it is produced by the AGW insiders themselves, it has to convey, as the funny walks example shows us, a message like “Yes, we are sometimes violent to critics and we do shut them up and put them out of the way, and we invite you to have a laugh about it along with us.”
If you don’t agree, then what message does it convey? Be specific. Comedy has to have an inner logic: if you produce something that looks hateful and you try to excuse it with “only a joke”, that isn’t good enough if it isn’t possible to explain exactly what the comedic logic of the piece was meant to be. If I have that logic wrong in the above, please explain what you see as the correct comedic logic, in detail. I’ll be surprised if it can be done in any way that does not show up the AGW makers of this video for the violent totalitarians they are.
Looking at the comments to http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/30/10-10-no-pressure-film , most — not all but most — of the pro-AGW folks, like David Gould here, enjoyed the clip as just good , attention-getting fun promoting the AGW cause.
It reminded me of Stephen Colbert’s in-character “testimony” before Congress a week ago. Liberals mostly loved it; conservatives mostly disliked it.
Well, between disputed tastes and gored oxen, I suppose there’s no settling the ultimate aesthetic value of either stunt.
However, the liberal intent in both cases was not to tickle their own funny bones but to persuade others to join their causes, and I haven’t seen any arguments that liberals succeeded with these edgy skits. In fact in both cases a number of liberals have argued that the skits hurt their causes. I believe those liberals are correct.
Consequently I’m pleased with these skits because they reveal to the center swing voters the smug, myopic, arrogance of global warming types and Stephen Colbert supporters.
“Many a true word were spoken in jest”
Who’s quote is that?
My copy 😉
Leo Norekens @ur momisugly October 1, 2010 at 1:48 am hits the nail on the head:
And while the viewer is actually supposed to sympathize with the sinister leaders, it works out the other way around …of course
David Gould keeps bringing up Blackadder Goes Forth, which was both funny and moving. But Gould fails to realize that in No Pressure Richard Curtis has written a version of BGF in which General Melchett is the good guy and it’s absolutely hilarious the way Capt. Blackadder, Pvt. Baldric et al. keep getting bombed, brutalized, and finally cut down in a hail of gunfire.
Good luck with that.
The original video has been pulled off youtube due to environmentalists complaining that it sets back their efforts big time.
there is another copy here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSTLDel-G9k
Many thanks to Stu for posting the link to that Greenpeace video. That was truly chilling. Such propaganda pieces are not made to promote peaceful discussion but rather to intimidate and indoctrinate. It reminded me of the kid singing The Future Belongs to Me in Cabaret.
As to Mr. Gould, perhaps he should imagine any other group but “denialists” being blown up so realistically in order to see the lack of humor in the 10 10 video.
Many a true word is spoken in jest
Meaning
A literal meaning; that the truth is often found in comic utterances.
Origin
The first author to express this thought in English was probably Geoffrey Chaucer. He included it in The Cook’s Tale, 1390:
But yet I pray thee be not wroth for game; [don’t be angry with my jesting]
A man may say full sooth [the truth] in game and play.
Shakespeare later came closer to our contemporary version of the expression, in King Lear, 1605:
Jesters do oft prove prophets.
—————–
David Gould,
I appreciate your willingness to continue the dialog. Although, I admit it is a little surreal to be discussing this 10:10 video without discussing the fundamental beliefs of the ideological environmentalists pushing it. That is where I think the intellectual meat of the discussion is. But, instead let’s continue to discuss comedy as related to the 10:10 video and comparison to similar fiction.
First, to answer your following question to me, I would like to ask you a question. Do you think that me finding this video funny mean that, as one person here has suggested, I advocate the murder of children as social policy? If you do not, then you surely agree that some of the reaction here has been over the top.” David, I do not think you are a troll who is jerking us around. I think you mean what you are saying. Based on what you have said, I have no idea about what moral system you adhere to. I do not know what you are advocating other than a very broad perspective on comedy that is something like anything can be funny in certain contexts. I think there is a logical connection between a person’s fundamental values/thoughts and what they find funny (and by the way what art they admire).
REQUEST: When you get back, I would like to hear what context (you implied there might be one in a previous comment to me) you think would make comedic my following proposed fiction story from my previous comment to you:
John
David Gould,
You have told us you have no intention of killing skeptics, which is reassuring. But, David, you are irrelevant. James Lee did not have such restraint, and yet he was inspired by the relatively mild AIT. How many James Lee’s out there will take this as a call to jihad?
As for the ‘if it’s fictional it must be funny,’ argument, that is fatuous. Fictional violence is only funny, when it is either random and arbitrary (cartoons) or when it parodies. Month Python employed violence but was used to parody by exageration. Such was the case in the spin-off series such as Ripping Yarns. One episode depicted English Victorian private boarding schools which were characterised by brutality. Python parodied this by exagerating the violence to absurd levels, such as children being woken up at 4 am by the ‘school alsations’ and being nailed to the wall as punishments. The viewer understands that this is parody.
This 10:10 video does not seem to be parodying eco-fascism. If it was, it may be funny. It seems to be promoting murder, but trying to make it acceptable by dressing it in comedic elements. By blowing people up, they hope to get a few laughs, while the viewer takes on board the subliminal message. Had they simply had the victims quietly short in the back of their heads, Soviet style, and the bodies dumped in a shallow grave, nobody would be laughing. Not even you Mr Gould. But what is the difference?
Like most posters here, I don’t get it.
For those worried about the effect of propaganda such as this on children, I quite understand that view.
However, take a crumb of comfort in this: I was brought up a Roman Catholic and educated at Roman Catholic schools, my secondary one run by priests where there was the whole nine yards – hellfire and damnation, “prayers for a happy death”, Angelus every day at 12 noon, yearly in-school retreats, you name it.
But actually, it didn’t work beyond my teens, for me or the majority of my schoolmates, because we all rebelled and rejected it. That’s what happens once puberty begins: many kids start their reflex rebellion against indoctrination by authority.
I think it would’ve been way funnier and more satirical if those who weren’t participating in 10:10 got up before the red button could be pressed and beheaded everyone participating with a samurai sword in a blur of activity. Then that person could say that he’d upped each participating individual’s reduction efforts to 100% and reduced the groups footprint by 90%! Then the narrator could say, “you can reduce your footprint by 10% on October 10, but why stop there? Help others participate to 100%!”
How’s that for dark comedy?
Hi Michael L
Yeah, I agree. Kids will always rebel. Although I would definitely feel concern for some kids watching this (others will probably just laugh it off), my problem is really about the intention here, which I find deplorable. In the same way that I have no respect for the preachers of hellfire and damnation in order to align people to a religion. This is no different. Using fear and threat to align someone to your own views is sadly part of the human social toolkit. It’s an old tool in service of a new religion.
Coercion is never funny, just horrible and sad.
Lucy Skywalker says:
“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.”
Lucy-I really never quite bought AGW, due to my skeptical nature.Partly influenced by my years making a living in Aviation, or on a NE Oregon cattle and wheat ranch.
Knowing people. from Nuke scientists to Southern Oregon coast crabbers and fishermen. Doing a bit of Sailing and Fishing myself, I also associated myself with
the kids that were “blown up”in the clip. I was the kid who had teachers send a note home: “Doesn’t play well with others.” “Runs with scissors”. etc. I was the “Science
Geek” in High School and University. But, I admire those who stand up and say.
“I call Bravo Sierra! on this.” I have. got in trouble for it. Would do it again.
I’ve posted here that Galileo, went against not the church, but the Ptolemaic “consensus” of the scientists of the time.
I appreciate you and others who agree that this Video was vile, wrong, and may I use the unsophisticated, concept, evil.
One of my favorite writers is J.R.R. Tolkien.
One of his quotes that I have on my office wall:
“What was once history became legend,what was legend became myth.”
“Things that were forgotten that should not have been forgotten were lost.”
This, is what I see in this video…