This Is Not a Parody of How Environmentalists Think, It’s From an Environmentalist Group
WARNING: GRAPHIC VIOLENCE
They figured out that they had gone too far, and apologized.
One extremely good comment from the page of the environmentalist group:
They figured out that they had gone too far, and apologized.
One extremely good comment from the page of the environmentalist group:
It isn’t that you “missed the mark” or that it wasn’t a funny idea. The video was actually perfect, because it reveals exactly how you people think about the world and how to solve it’s problems. If people don’t believe you, or like what you have to say, or are just plain thick, then obviously someone needs to step up and beat some sense into them with a big enough stick that it will deter other people. Just like you are doing with subsidization of “ecological” foods, wind mills, electric cars, and what not, and penalty taxes for carbon, gasoline and other “dirty” and sinful products. If people don’t follow you, force them, and don’t forget to smile while you hold a gun to their head. It’s hilarious how you eco-leftists, who think so highly of your own enlightened, humanist, scientific ideals, are actually just the 21st century version of the extreme pietists who not too long ago struggled to stamp out sin by banning tobacco, alcohol and other drugs (compare: carbon, gasoline, etc), preaching that you mustn’t enjoy life (compare: stopping “consumerism”), especially not on Sundays (compare: buy nothing day), otherwise the second coming of Jesus will not arrive (compare: polar bears dying, nature wrecking havoc, taking revenge). And just as pietism is essentially an anti-life ideology, so is yours.
Labels: Environmental Fascism, Environmentalism, Environmentalists
posted by John McAdams at 7:33 PM
18 Comments:
PLEASE put a warning on this post that the video is extremely graphic. I understand you are trying to prove a point, but I wish I hadn't seen that.
I don't want to sound harsh but i guess this is what we need today to keep everybody cooperating. We don't want them to just blown up but for those who will not cooperate can you just please fade away.
We don't want them to just blown up but for those who will not cooperate can you just please fade away.
That's almost as fascist a sentiment as those shown in the video.
People will look at this and be shocked at what they see, but then in the same breath be supportive of the so called "Prochoice" movement of a woman's "right" to do the same thing to her child in her womb. What a schizophrenic world we live in today. Wake up people! How is this any different?
The graphic nature of the piece was so over-the-top I don't remember if the red button was to eliminate those who agreed, or those who disagreed. The graphics totally destroyed the message.
Anyone who actually believes that the people behind the "No Pressure" short want to kill or inflict physical violence on climate change "skeptics" have obviously been watching too much Glenn Beck, and are probably also convinced that Obama is secretly planning to send conservatives to FEMA concentration camps.
The goal of the video was to shock and surprise viewers with over-the-top, Python-esque black humor, and thus go viral. In that respect, it was wildly successful, but in doing so harmed the very campaign it was meant to promote. Even many environmentalists were offended by the humor:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/01/bill-mckibben-days-that-suck/
I personally wasn't offended, but I didn't think it was particularly funny or clever, either. By the time Gillian Anderson meets her gruesome fate, the joke has grown rather tiresome, having been hammered into the ground.
From a PR standpoint, it was a mistake for 10:10 to release this video, but the (over)reaction from those on the right is embarrassingly silly.
To his credit, Andrew Lawton, a Canadian conservative pundit who blogs at StrictlyRight.com and who is certainly no friend of the green left, said essentially the same thing when he appeared on The Michael Coren Show earlier this week:
http://www.ctstv.com/michaelcoren/?vidID=20439
(Start at around 18:45.)
Lighten up, guys!
Anyone who actually believes that the people behind the "No Pressure" short want to kill or inflict physical violence on climate change "skeptics" have obviously been watching too much Glenn Beck. . .
Suppose some conservative "jokingly" produced a video about raping feminist women?
I don't think you would be saying "he didn't really mean that."
Maybe he didn't really advocate that, but it would say something about his thought process.
Same here.
It was pretty much a Freudian slip. Combined with a lot of other stuff environmentalists have done and produced, it does say something about their attitude toward people who disagree.
Would they actually advocate blowing up people who disagree? No, but they would certainly fantasize about it.
Are you aware that environmentalists have talked about putting climate "deniers" on trial?
Are you aware that some environmentalists have demanded that any weather forcaster who questions global warming should be fired?
And what do you think of the Green Police?
I find it odd that somebody claiming to be a libertarian would not question the fascist tendency of much of the global warming movement.
Suppose some conservative "jokingly" produced a video about raping feminist women?
Are you actually comparing an intentionally over-the-top comedic short that is obviously heavily influenced by Monty Python to one about raping women? Seriously? If that's the best you can come up with then I've already won this debate.
Sadly, it wouldn't take much searching on the web to find recent examples of women who were raped. Try and find examples of people who pressed buttons that caused other people to blow up. Of course, you won't find any. The scenes in the "No Pressure" short were clearly intended to be absurd and unreal.
Maybe he didn't really advocate that, but it would say something about his thought process. Same here.
By that standard, some of the greatest comedy troupes in history (Monty Python, The Kids in the Hall, etc.) should be incarcerated in padded cells. Just because you don't appreciate a certain brand of humor doesn't mean the people behind it are mentally suspect.
Are you aware that environmentalists have talked about putting climate "deniers" on trial?
Extremists on both sides say a lot of things. I'm sure you wouldn't condone death threats:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/05/hate-mail-climategate
I see that one of the pages you linked to was a media release from Marc Morano. How much do you know about him? Here's a taste:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/15/uk-guardian-slams-morano-for-cyber-bullying-and-for-urging-violence-against-climate-scientists/
Are you aware that some environmentalists have demanded that any weather forecaster who questions global warming should be fired?
I wouldn't support the de-certification of weather forecasters who reject AGW (obviously neither does the American Meteorological Society since they never acted on Cullen's suggestion), but anyone who would take the word of a meteorologist over a climatologist deserves the quality of information he receives:
QUOTE ON
Kent Laborde, a spokesman at the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, suggested the whole argument may be off the mark since Cullen and her critics are two different categories of weather experts — climatologists who look at long-term trends and meteorologists who look at short-term conditions.
Meteorologists are "really not going to have as much of a climate perspective," Laborde said.
QUOTE OFF
As has been pointed out to you, there is a difference between climate and weather, and, of course, the issue under discussion is climate change not weather change.
If I want to know whether it's going to rain tomorrow I'll listen to a meteorologist on The Weather Network. If I want to learn about climate change, I'll read something by a climatologist.
And what do you think of the Green Police?
Even you would agree that there needs to be environmental laws and people to enforce them. Of course, I would agree with some proposed laws and disagree with others. Some I would find extreme and silly and others more sensible.
Again, there are people on both the left and the right who are extremists on a variety of issues, including the environment. If you want to be intellectually honest, you can't pick and choose examples on the left and ignore what's happening on the right just because you happen to be a conservative.
Are you actually comparing an intentionally over-the-top comedic short that is obviously heavily influenced by Monty Python to one about raping women?
OK, a comic video, produced by an anti-feminist group, influenced by Monte Python, about raping feminists.
But Chris, your political correctness is showing. In your world, raping women cannot be joked about, but blowing up children is just good fun.
By that standard, some of the greatest comedy troupes in history (Monty Python, The Kids in the Hall, etc.) should be incarcerated in padded cells.
Monty Python is usually funny. And usually they aren't pounding on some political point. (Although the "what have the Romans done for us" skit was hilarious.)
I see that one of the pages you linked to was a media release from Marc Morano.
Are you saying it's untrue?
Otherwise, you are just engaged in an ad hominem attack.
but anyone who would take the word of a meteorologist over a climatologist deserves the quality of information he receives:
That's besides the point. The issue is the intolerance of AGW proponents.
But given what ClimateGate showed about "climate scientists," weather forcasters may be a better source of information.
You Chris, since your religion is "science," tend to be insufficiently critical of scientists, who like other people have their ideological biases, career interests, and narrow circles of colleagues who think the same way.
I would agree with some proposed laws and disagree with others.
If you were truly a libertarian, you would happily denounce attempts to control people's lifestyles in detail.
Instead, you seem mostly concerned with protecting environmentalists from attacks from the right.
OK, a comic video...
You conveniently avoided addressing my main point. I said that comparing the absurd idea of someone pressing a button that somehow results in people being blown to smithereens -- something that I've seen in one form or another in a number of comedy sketches, something that you don't see in the real world as evidenced by the fact that you were unable to cite even one instance of it -- isn't comparable to rape, which is a brutal reality that occurs multiple times every day in our society.
That's not to say that rape can't be used in a comedic context...
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=2025597588
...just that your rape scenario doesn't compare to the one in the "No Pressure" video for the reasons mentioned above.
Are you saying it's untrue?
I responded to your example by saying that "extremists on both sides say a lot of things." Just because someone who accepts AGW said or did something doesn't necessarily mean I condone or support it, just as I'm sure you don't support everything that people on your side say or do.
I referred to Morano because the media release you linked to was from him, and I wondered if you were aware of his thuggish tactics that have resulted in many climate scientists receiving hate mail and even death threats.
That's besides the point.
As I said, I'm not in favor of de-certification, and neither is the American Meteorological Society. Unfortunately, your side routinely conflates the views of meteorologists (and other assorted "experts") and climatologists in an attempt to prop-up your discredited ideas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ#t=4m40s
But given what ClimateGate showed about "climate scientists," weather forcasters may be a better source of information.
LOL! Oh, I see, so you think people who study weather know more about climate than people who actually study climate?! You're priceless, John. And the scare quotes around climate scientists was a nice touch. What's next, scare quotes around evolutionary biologists?
As for so-called ClimateGate, haven't you been corrected enough on this issue (e.g. the "hide the decline" nonsense, etc.)? There is absolutely no evidence that the data used to support AGW has been manipulated. Get over it.
You do realize that simply dismissing AGW because of the purported biases of climate scientists without producing any scientific evidence that contradicts AGW is a form of ad hominem, right?
The "science is my religion" meme is utterly ridiculous and reeks of desperation. You're like a buff who accuses a lone nutter of worshiping science when the LN debunks one of the buff's bogus claims by citing information from, say, JFK's autopsy report or experiments conducted by Lattimer or Fackler. It's something people on the right are forced to resort to when they have no evidence to defend their positions.
If you were truly a libertarian...
You'll have to be more specific. I think people should be forced to pay the true costs of the resources they consume (i.e. no subsidies). If a consumer were exposed to the true cost of, say, the electricity he's using, he would probably take certain steps to reduce his level of consumption (installing more efficient light bulbs, for instance) which would not only save him money, but also have a positive impact on the environment. This approach would also spur R&D into alternative energy sources.
Even Milton Friedman and other free market economists recognize that one doesn't have the right to impose costs on a third party without compensation (i.e. externalities).
As a libertarian, I don't care where an idea comes from, whether it be from the left or the right. If it's a good one I'll support it, if it's a bad one I'll reject it.
Can you cite even one example from your blog in which you defend a "liberal" idea from attacks by conservatives?
I said that comparing the absurd idea of someone pressing a button that somehow results in people being blown to smithereens -- something that I've seen in one form or another in a number of comedy sketches, something that you don't see in the real world as evidenced by the fact that you were unable to cite even one instance of it -- isn't comparable to rape, which is a brutal reality that occurs multiple times every day in our society.
You really are very politically correct, aren't you?
Making fun of rape and making fun of blowing up children (something terrorists do very regularly) are equally obnoxious.
...just that your rape scenario doesn't compare to the one in the "No Pressure" video for the reasons mentioned above.
It compares perfectly. It involves fantasizing about inflicting violence on people whose views one disagrees with.
I wondered if you were aware of his thuggish tactics that have resulted in many climate scientists receiving hate mail and even death threats.
Translation: what he said was true.
so you think people who study weather know more about climate than people who actually study climate?!
Given the deep biases of the "climate scientists," that may very well be true.
What ClimateGate showed was essentially a little cult with a massive attachment to AGW. It showed them conspiring to conceal data. It showed them conspiring to marginalize journals what published dissenting articles.
You somehow think "science" is a pristine enterprise. It isn't.
You're like a buff who accuses a lone nutter of worshiping science when the LN debunks one of the buff's bogus claims by citing information from, say, JFK's autopsy report or experiments conducted by Lattimer or Fackler.
But I understand that science, and I do critique Lattimer. The "jet effect," for example, is nonsense.
If a bullet from the right front can't throw JFK back and to the left, neither could the jet effect.
You believe the "climate scientists" because you accept their authority, not because you understand climate science.
But this priesthood has been shown to be people with very ordinary biases.
As a libertarian, I don't care where an idea comes from, whether it be from the left or the right. If it's a good one I'll support it, if it's a bad one I'll reject it.
The problem is that you ought to be most skeptical of any self-appointed priesthood that wants to tell people how to live their lives.
And to dictate lifestyle choices in detail. That's why I mentioned the Green Police.
To put it more simply, a real libertarian needs to be a bit of a populist, suspicious of elites and the plans they have to use govenment to dictate to people.
I said that comparing the absurd idea of someone pressing a button that somehow results in people being blown to smithereens -- something that I've seen in one form or another in a number of comedy sketches, something that you don't see in the real world as evidenced by the fact that you were unable to cite even one instance of it -- isn't comparable to rape, which is a brutal reality that occurs multiple times every day in our society.
You really are very politically correct, aren't you?
Making fun of rape and making fun of blowing up children (something terrorists do very regularly) are equally obnoxious.
...just that your rape scenario doesn't compare to the one in the "No Pressure" video for the reasons mentioned above.
It compares perfectly. It involves fantasizing about inflicting violence on people whose views one disagrees with.
I wondered if you were aware of his thuggish tactics that have resulted in many climate scientists receiving hate mail and even death threats.
Translation: what he said was true.
so you think people who study weather know more about climate than people who actually study climate?!
Given the deep biases of the "climate scientists," that may very well be true.
What ClimateGate showed was essentially a little cult with a massive attachment to AGW. It showed them conspiring to conceal data. It showed them conspiring to marginalize journals what published dissenting articles.
You somehow think "science" is a pristine enterprise. It isn't.
You're like a buff who accuses a lone nutter of worshiping science when the LN debunks one of the buff's bogus claims by citing information from, say, JFK's autopsy report or experiments conducted by Lattimer or Fackler.
But I understand that science, and I do critique Lattimer. The "jet effect," for example, is nonsense.
If a bullet from the right front can't throw JFK back and to the left, neither could the jet effect.
You believe the "climate scientists" because you accept their authority, not because you understand climate science.
But this priesthood has been shown to be people with very ordinary biases.
As a libertarian, I don't care where an idea comes from, whether it be from the left or the right. If it's a good one I'll support it, if it's a bad one I'll reject it.
The problem is that you ought to be most skeptical of any self-appointed priesthood that wants to tell people how to live their lives.
And to dictate lifestyle choices in detail. That's why I mentioned the Green Police.
To put it more simply, a real libertarian needs to be a bit of a populist, suspicious of elites and the plans they have to use govenment to dictate to people.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Can you cite even one example from your blog in which you defend a "liberal" idea from attacks by conservatives?
It's the liberals who have the power -- both in any university and in government.
When any conservative does something crazy (the guy who wanted to burn the Koran, for example) the Mainstream Media jump on that real quickly.
But they avoid stuff like "no pressure."
Do a Google News search on "No Pressure" and you'll see what I mean.
The simple fact is that mainstream liberalism is increasingly authoritarian, and mainstream conservatism increasingly libertarian.
You really are very politically correct, aren't you?
Of course, I'm very politically correct which is why I said that rape could be used in a comedic context and then posted a clip of George Carlin telling rape jokes. What could be more politically correct than that? Good grief, are you even reading my responses, John?
Making fun of rape and making fun of blowing up children (something terrorists do very regularly) are equally obnoxious.
If you want to condemn the "No Pressure" video for being in poor taste then that's fine, many people including many of the same environmentalists who you insist on demonizing would agree with you...
It compares perfectly. It involves fantasizing about inflicting violence on people whose views one disagrees with.
...but when you characterize a Python-esque comedy sketch that pushes the envelope in order to increase its chances of going viral as some sort of homicidal fantasy you only succeed in marginalizing yourself, and showing that you are utterly lacking in pop culture literacy. I'm guessing you also think that the Python sketch "Upper Class Twit of the Year" is a similar homicidal fantasy since it ends with the participants blowing their brains out.
Translation: what he said was true.
I characterized the example you offered as "extremist" yet you haven't done the same with respect to Morano's loathsome tactics. I'll let lurkers decide for themselves what to make of that.
Given the deep biases of the "climate scientists," that may very well be true.
You just can't stand the fact that the data supporting AGW stood up to critical scrutiny so your side was forced to resort to regurgitating quote mines you heard on Fox News. How sad.
You are "skeptical" of AGW in the same way a creationist is "skeptical" of evolution (i.e. a knee-jerk reaction based on politics and religion rather than scientific evidence). Not surprisingly, those who reject AGW also tend to embrace other wacky positions, whether it be creationism (including a belief in a young earth), HIV denialism, anti-vax, etc.
And to dictate lifestyle choices in detail. That's why I mentioned the Green Police.
That in order to accept AGW one must also accept everything Al Gore or Greenpeace says is a bogus argument. By your logic, Cato's Patrick Michaels and Reason's Ronald Bailey -- both of whom are libertarians and accept AGW -- want the government to "dictate lifestyle choices in detail." You're spouting pure nonsense, John.
It's the liberals who have the power -- both in any university and in government.
Translation: I will only mention "liberal" ideas on my blog when I'm going to attack them.
Thanks for proving my point.
The simple fact is that mainstream liberalism is increasingly authoritarian, and mainstream conservatism increasingly libertarian.
*choke*
You've got to be kidding.
There is very little that is libertarian about conservatism these days. As I've shown in our recent private e-mail exchanges, despite the small government rhetoric from the Tea Party, most of its members don't really believe in downsizing government since they're opposed to cutting entitlements like Medicare and Social Security. They don't even support free trade.
Then there is the interventionist foreign policy that conservatives embrace, not to mention civil liberties abuses, not that Obama has done any better.
As you did with "neutrality" you've constructed your own quirky definition of "libertarian."
You probably think that Jim DeMint's comment about wanting to ban openly gay and sexually active single women from teaching in the public schools is a socially libertarian position.
University investigating prominent climate science critic
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/10/wegman-plagiarism-investigation-/1
Post a Comment
<< Home