ArthurWilborn
New Member
... disturbing.
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Protect the environment, or I'll f#%@ing kill you!
- Thread starter ArthurWilborn
- Start date
... disturbing.
Prolescum
New Member
That's not disturbing, it's hilarious. Incendiary images to promote an important cause is a very old technique; ever seen an Oxfam advert with malnourished, sick children asking for ,£3 a month? Same thing.
My city, and its residents, have been a part of the 10:10 initiative for some time.
My city, and its residents, have been a part of the 10:10 initiative for some time.
WarK
Active Member
I'm still confused.
Was that a case of the British humour?
This kind of stuff doesn't necessarily translate well to other cultures.
I guess similar thing can happen with language barrier, when a company names a car without referring to urbandictionary to make sure it doesn't mean something they'd never named a car
Was that a case of the British humour?
This kind of stuff doesn't necessarily translate well to other cultures.
I guess similar thing can happen with language barrier, when a company names a car without referring to urbandictionary to make sure it doesn't mean something they'd never named a car
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Yeah... but as a fan of Monty Python I think it is fucking funny as hell. Of course, I can see right-wingers having a problem with this because they:WarK said:
a) hate the environment
b) hate environmentalists so much that they hate the environment even if they don't hate the environment
c) have no sense of humor beyond saying something hateful and/or bigoted and then announcing that they were "just joking"
d) are glad to whine about fake dead people to distract from all the real dead people that result from their policies
e) smell like a tank of turtles.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Oh, and Gillian Anderson is looking pretty good!
Welshidiot
New Member
The add was removed from the 10:10 website not long after it was first posted. I believe that's known as "self regulation".
Btw, it was directed by Richard Curtis, who many of you will have heard of as the writer of "Four Weddings and a Funeral", or "Notting Hill",.....but what you should probably really bear in mind is that he is one of the co-creators of "Blackadder".
Btw, it was directed by Richard Curtis, who many of you will have heard of as the writer of "Four Weddings and a Funeral", or "Notting Hill",.....but what you should probably really bear in mind is that he is one of the co-creators of "Blackadder".
ArthurWilborn
New Member
Prolescum said:
Eh... I never found graphic violence to be funny, no matter how over-the-top it is. Also, I don't see any way that "Agree with the group or be murdered" can be portrayed as funny.
WarK
Active Member
To me it seemed like Edward Current kind of thing. I thought the ad was made by climate change deniers to ridicule environmentalists(what a silly word).
p.s. Edward Current makes vids pretending to be crazy fundamentalist christain to ridicule fundamentalism.
p.s. Edward Current makes vids pretending to be crazy fundamentalist christain to ridicule fundamentalism.
Prolescum
New Member
ArthurWilborn said:
Sorry mate, but so what? Doesn't change what it is. The target audience were Brits. It's a lampoon of that form of advertising, simple as that. I can see why you might not think the gore is funny, but by the same token, it's clearly not meant to be taken seriously; you might not see the joke, but the tone and concept are so obviously taking the piss I'm a little surprised that otherwise clever folks didn't at least do a double-take, the tongue is so firmly rooted in the cheek it's probably hard to see past the leaves or something.
People seem to forget that visual media has a grammar all of its own...
I don't see why I should grant that criticism any validity. You've interpreted it as "you don't agree with the group, therefore you die" when the intent (and my evaluation on first viewing) was that doing nothing means certain death. Not quite true (the certain death bit), but they're attempting to shock people out of apathy. If your criticisms were that they've failed monumentally, it would have some force... but your argument seems to rest on:
A) your sense of humour, and
B) your (and probably others', wilful or no) misinterpretation of the material
A can't really be helped, and B is probably mostly Richard Curtis' fault, but still, giving air to the inner-reactionary is just daft in this case. It's nothing two minutes with Google couldn't have cleared up for you.
I do agree that they misjudged the audience, but that you find it tasteless doesn't make it the chilling true face of global warming advocates. Not that that's what your "disturbing" comment (and the thread title) necessarily inferred... My interpretation could be mistaken. I'd better check first... Are you a climate change denier, Arthur?
ImprobableJoe
New Member
I mean, really? It is so absurd that I don't see how anyone could get upset by it. People exploding like blood balloons when someone presses a red button? Might as well have dropped pianos on them, or a big anvil... I'm wondering if we can expect a horrified post about the horrible things that happen to Wile E. Coyote next.
australopithecus
Active Member
ArthurWilborn said:
Try watching the video again then, because it was hilarious.
Welshidiot
New Member
Oi! Arthur! Are you having trouble with your eyesight?ArthurWilborn said:
Welshidiot said:
ArthurWilborn
New Member
Prolescum said:
Ok, I'll accept that me not finding the humor might just be cultural. However, I could say the same for racist jokes. The fact that you accept extreme violence against those who disagree is an appropriate source of humor is in itself disturbing.
That's not how it's presented; death is the result of the deliberate decision of a leader. If they had, say, walked outside and instantly been roasted by the sun, or been mauled by a wild animal, I still wouldn't find that funny, but I wouldn't call it disturbing. The coyote in the Road Runner cartoons suffers as the result of his bad choices; how funny would it be if he were held down and beaten?
My official position is still "I don't understand the physics well enough to come to an informed decision." Given that what I see from the Green movement is a lot of human bashing and fraud, I'm not inclined to take it on their word. Anyway, even if I did agree with it I would still find "conform or be killed" to be a bad way to advance my position.
Anyway, you're demonstrating the Al Gore Effect - just because I'm criticizing this doesn't mean I'm deriding an entire cause.
Prolescum
New Member
ArthurWilborn said:
And you'd rightly be accused of making spurious comparisons for the sake of your argument were you to do so.
Making out that because I understand the joke I "accept extreme violence against those who disagree"? That's pretty desperate, dude. This is patently absurd and you know it.
As do we. This is the point being made (albeit not very well), and the one you're attempting to gloss over because it suits you.
Colour me unimpressed with your efforts.
If I may, precisely how much effort have you put into understanding it? Also, how many fields of science do you understand well enough to make informed decisions on? Are you against magnetic resonance imaging? Stem cell research?
I would like examples of "human bashing" (whatever that is) and fraud please. Preferably the same sources you base your reticence on.
It is your flawed interpretation of the video that states "conform or be killed" is the position they hold, it wasn't the intent (nor was it my evaluation on watching - it seems others also correctly identified the joke and the purpose). I've already told you this, and you can check it out for yourself.
What's your malfunction?
I didn't say you were deriding "the cause", I was making a point about misinterpretations. Anyway, your criticisms are both innaccurate and tainted.
ArthurWilborn
New Member
As a source of humor. I don't believe you would advocate actual violence; however, joking about someone blowing up children is still pretty off.
My point is that is that their point is poorly made.
It's a question of mechanism; MRIs could run on pixie dust for all I know, that wouldn't change how safe or effective they were. However, AGW has as its mechanism human activity, and posits the need for control on human activity.
Human bashing is really more a matter of tone, but fraud is plentiful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm
http://www.newschief.com/article/20111012/NEWS/110125018/1013/opinion?p=1&tc=pg
Tainted? My disagreements are tainted ... why, because I disagree?
ImprobableJoe
New Member
You're not actually expecting a right-winger to be rational or honest, are you? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Oh that's rich........the guy who has accused me and others of tossing around the word "racist" unjustifiably.....just did exactly that. :lol:
It's that whole right wing mentality that "Meanie lefties don't get to use meanie words 'cus that hurts my feelings. It's only good when I use those words." Pfffffffft. Bill O' the Clown would be proud.
Anyway, I do think the ad was a bit much and it was rightfully removed. If it were a right wing ad about blowing up liberals, the News Corp propagandists would double down on having the right to free speech which they think means "Immunity from other people's free speech to criticize it."
It's that whole right wing mentality that "Meanie lefties don't get to use meanie words 'cus that hurts my feelings. It's only good when I use those words." Pfffffffft. Bill O' the Clown would be proud.
Anyway, I do think the ad was a bit much and it was rightfully removed. If it were a right wing ad about blowing up liberals, the News Corp propagandists would double down on having the right to free speech which they think means "Immunity from other people's free speech to criticize it."