Merged "Eco-Fascist Snuff Movie"

This was an ill-advised ad in many ways. Besides being offensive if taken seriously and not very funny if taken humorously, it fails on a basic level as propaganda. Even if this had been a perfectly executed sketch that was actually funny, it still made no point about its subject at all - the thing people are being exploded for would seem completely random and irrelevant (which tends to be part of this type of humour), which is sort of stupid if that's the issue you want to bring attention to.

I suppose it could have worked if the suggestion people were opposing to was the remake of Scanners.

That said, James Delingpole doesn't seem to know what "snuff movie" means, and generally appears to be unreasonable on this subject.

A.A.Alfie said:
If one is advocating violence, then I agree - it's a great ad.
Click to expand...
I've watched the ad twice now, and I really don't think it's advocating violence. The rhetoric is unnecessarily heavy-handed, but violence?
 
I'm surprised Richard Curtis directed this ad. Love Actually Richard Curtis? Notting Hill Richard Curtis?

I know the guy is something of a left-winger but he seemed beyond tame. It's pretty ballsy to have two children suddenly explode all of their classmates. I got bored by the time the soccer players came around. Stupid ad.

The Coen brothers did a spot on global warming, but it was totally forgettable.
 
Yes: It is that Richard Curtis

Actually if he was trying to show that Global Warmning advocates are the fascists and extremists some imagine, he's done a pretty good job.

Which is probably why they've now been pulled.
 
Yup, there are now a lot more people in the world today aware of 10/10 than there were yesterday, which is the goal of any marketing campaign.
 
bit_pattern said:
Yup, there are now a lot more people in the world today aware of 10/10 than there were yesterday, which is the goal of any marketing campaign.
Click to expand...
The line "there is no such thing as bad publicity" is certainly true if you are selling a book, a play, or a movie - people will buy it / see it because they almost want to be offended, bums on seats and all that.

But when you're selling a political policy, negative publicity is most certainly a bad thing - hence in western democracy, the incumbent government - who inevitably gets the most publicity - also tends to be the party that struggles to maintain votes and / or approval.

It is true that the 10:10 campaign will have taken the limelight away from other climate campaigns, but it will also be causing people to associate climate campaigns with intolerance and threatening behaviour (even if that was not the original intent of the film makers). Oops indeed.
 
Thunder said:
no, the ad suggests the lives of those who question AGW, or who simply don't want to adjust their lives due to it, are worthless. they should be killed.

that's the message of this video.
Click to expand...

No, that's an interepretation that would predicatably occur to those with a specific view on AGW, that - frankly - the makers of this film were utterly stupid not to anticipate
 
Global Warmers/Climate Changers Brits Think Their Looney Video Is Funny

'We wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back into the headlines while making people laugh. Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn't and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended. As a result we've taken if off our website."

Exploding children featured in 10:10 video

http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/computers/blogs/exploding-children-featured-in-1010-video
 
Setting aside the murdering of people who don't agree with you in this video ....

I don't get the whole "no pressure" aspect of this campaign. They repeatedly try to encourage people to reduce their CO2 footprint by 10% and keep saying that there is no pressure to do it, but then if you don't they blow you up?
 
Cicero said:
'We wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back into the headlines while making people laugh. Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn't and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended. As a result we've taken if off our website."

Exploding children featured in 10:10 video

http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/computers/blogs/exploding-children-featured-in-1010-video
Click to expand...

Actually your quote (which is not in the link you provided, btw) says some people found it funny while some did not find it funny and the group that sponsored the video removed it from their website so the title of your post is deceptive or at best incorrect.

I didn't watch the entire video so I have no option whether it's funny or not. Also a link to the video was posted on this forum two days ago something you might have checked before posting this latest faux "outrage."
 
Last edited:
Walter Ego said:
Actually your quote (which is not in the link you provided, btw) says some people found it funny while some did not find it funny and the group that sponsored the video removed it from their website so the title of your post is deceptive or at best incorrect.

I didn't watch the entire video so I have no option whether it's funny or not. Also a link to the video was posted on this forum two days ago something you might have checked before posting this latest faux "outrage."
Click to expand...

The link shows the video. You know. The one you didn't watch. We are informed by the spokesperson of the director of the video that many Brits think it is funny. At least you saved your outrage for bringing this subject up in this thread.

BTW: I'm sure the mods can combine this thread with

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187400

if they so desire.
 
Last edited:
Walter Ego said:
I didn't watch the entire video so I have no option whether it's funny or not. Also a link to the video was posted on this forum two days ago something you might have checked before posting this latest faux "outrage."
Click to expand...
I agree the OP should have checked given there is quite a clear thread elsewhere. I'm sure the mods will merge or maybe even delete this thread given current rules on the topic.

Out of curiousity, how do you judge whether outrage is "faux" or not? I ask because many people with pro-AGW views have expressed outrage about this video, not just sceptics. This is only anecdotal, but I've been on a few forums on which this topic does not usually come up, and people who do not hold strong views have expressed some unease at the video.

To my mind, the discomfort at this video seems fairly genuine, but I'm open to be persuaded otherwise. What is your basis for the distinction between outrage and "faux" outrage in this case?
 
CoolSceptic said:
I agree the OP should have checked given there is quite a clear thread elsewhere. I'm sure the mods will merge or maybe even delete this thread given current rules on the topic.

Out of curiousity, how do you judge whether outrage is "faux" or not? I ask because many people with pro-AGW views have expressed outrage about this video, not just sceptics. This is only anecdotal, but I've been on a few forums on which this topic does not usually come up, and people who do not hold strong views have expressed some unease at the video.

To my mind, the discomfort at this video seems fairly genuine, but I'm open to be persuaded otherwise. What is your basis for the distinction between outrage and "faux" outrage in this case?
Click to expand...

I was referring to Cicero's outrage. He gins himself up over something or other several times a week... usually some alleged liberal bias in the main stream media.

(Okay, I'm assuming he's exaggerating, otherwise he's insane.)

I have watched the video and it's more stupid than outrageous or offensive. Since there had to be a vetted script (the production values indicate it cost some money to produce), whoever in the 10.10 group who approved of going ahead with the video and paying for it is stupid too.
 
Walter Ego said:
I was referring to Cicero's outrage. He gins himself up over something or other several times a week... usually some alleged liberal bias in the main stream media.
Click to expand...

Now all you have to do is find the word or expression of "outrage" in the OP.

I have watched the video and it's more stupid than outrageous or offensive. Since there had to be a vetted script (the production values indicate it cost some money to produce), whoever in the 10.10 group who approved of going ahead with the video and paying for it is stupid too.
Click to expand...

At least you finally decided to view the video before offering any further official labeling of said video. For the record, you reject the adjective looney (i.e. extremely foolish, silly, crazy, insane) in the OP and prefer "stupid." Aren't you glad you got that off your chest?
 
I don't really get the title of this thread. Why call the people behind this campaign "Global Warmers/Climate Changers" if they are attempting to counteract global warming or climate change? It makes no sense.

A Christian Sceptic said:
I don't get the whole "no pressure" aspect of this campaign. They repeatedly try to encourage people to reduce their CO2 footprint by 10% and keep saying that there is no pressure to do it, but then if you don't they blow you up?
Click to expand...
Given that they used this video, I'd guess it's an attempt at irony. Implying that there is, in fact, tremendous pressure on everyone to reduce their CO2 footprint from the people around them and their own conscience. From the makers' viewpoint, this would be obvious, like saying "We encourage you to do this in order to avoid destroying the planet. But don't worry, no pressure."

Like the other attempts at humour in the video, that one probably failed to reach the audience as well.
 
We all are Global Warmers and Climate Changers, that is actually the real problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom