ironphoenix | Uh, WHAT?!

Well, that's a...thing. Eew.

On the other hand, I'm glad the movement has extremists. Movements don't really seem to go anywhere without them. It doesn't mean that you do what they want, but they set a flag far out in one direction and keep people from muddling up the middle.

I think the only bit I like is the ending, where they pop frames out to the recording session. Because the point is to motivate people to take action even after the YouTube clip has ended. Yes, you. That sort of thing.

And maybe by shocking people and getting more conversation going that might happen, though I suspect not so much.

Interesting perspective. Extremists undermine a position, I think. Certainly, that's how I feel as a non-fundamentalist Christian. Being able to distinguish them clearly from the mainstream might be handy, though.

It's the same mechanism whereby a store has that one beautiful display model in the window which is seventy bazillion dollars and they don't expect anyone to buy it. It makes the rest of the stuff look reasonably-priced by comparison.

Extremists can also alienate, but only if they're the sole visible voice. I notice that non-fundamentalist Christians are largely invisible: if they held a "Walk for Christian Sanity" or some such, perhaps then the extremists would function in the previously described way, but for now they're speaking for the entire religion. (Also, the Pope defending and shielding child molesters doesn't help matters much; when the acknowledged head of a group is advocating protecting criminals, it's hard to listen to the rank and file.)

I guess I am a terrible person for finding it hilarious in a very Monty Pythonesque way.

Indeed I did laugh.

It is rather Monty Python-esque... still, it's so over-the-top that I was rather disgusted. I think I have a lower threshold for that than you do!

I am weird, I can watch fake stuff all day long, but the second it is real, I get very squeamish, I cannot even watch someone get a needle. So like if Saw is on one channel and a crime show about real people getting hurt on the other, I will have trouble watching the show about real people.

So yes, that sketch is absolutely hilarious to me. The deadpan delivery really makes it.

I think the intent was humour but it makes me a bit squeamish to be honest.

I have nothing against ads that use some less sugar coated tactics to get the point across. A few years ago an SCPA ad in Scotland (which I can't find) had a kids Christmas play going on staring a guy in a horse costume. And when a man crept up behind the horse, the kids would shout "he's behind you" or some such. The man ended up beating the horse with a crowbar.

Gets the point across. It happens. People ignore it.

However, I'm not sure how exploding people who aren't willing to do 10:10 is really using the violence to prove a point. Seems...sensational.

And you know what? It worked. You posted it. We're talking about it. Mission accomplished.

Yeah, we're talking about it... but we're talking about the video, not about how to do 10:10.

iclysdale's analysis below is probably closest to the mark.

We're talking about it, that's for sure — it reminds me of Monty Python trying too hard. I sort of get the attempted joke after a few minutes of reflection, but that's not how jokes are supposed to work.

The rule for good propaganda (as opposed to PSAs) is to energize the base without regard to the feelings of the non-base. I suspect much of the base is more depressed than energized at this ad.

But the role of good advocacy - which is what 10:10 should be doing - is to reach your non-base potential supporters and make them think - hopefully without actually alienating your base or energizing the base of your political opponents.

In this case, I'd say they missed the mark on all three fronts. That being said, at least they realized that and got an apology and retraction out awfully quickly. In coalition organizations, that's actually a fairly impressive achievement of damage control.

True — but when something doesn't make sense as advocacy, one of the better bits of advice I got in university is to see if it makes sense as propaganda. Given that it's bad propaganda, too, I'm glad to see they retracted and apologized (although the heads-in-tar-sands types will take a very long time to let it go — in the comments on the article, someone mentioned that it looked like a parody of a parody of hard-line environmentalists, and I think that's about right).

Very good and pithy analysis!

It does point out a few aspects that people aren't quite aware of. Chiefly the fact that ignoring greenhouse gas emissions and doing nothing is (indirectly) killing people.

Beyond that, yeah... It has _an_ effect but I am uncertain if it is more positive or negative in the balance.

I think most people are a bit too busy processing the kaboom to get the subtleties, though.

One of the commentors noticed that one of the film makers said: "Because we have got about four years to stabilise global emissions and we are not anywhere near doing that. All our lives are at threat and if that's not worth jumping up and down about, I don't know what is. We 'killed' five people to make No Pressure – a mere blip compared to the 300,000 real people who now die each year from climate change," she adds.

As he said, "This should have been said in the clip. It wasn't. That is a major flaw."

I think it would have worked then. They have pulled the ad - why I don't know. They knew people would be upset. That was the POINT, wasn't it?

I automatically assume that no matter what you do someone would be upset, but I thought the "point" was humor.

It's offensive, strong humour - some will like it, some will hate it, and the people who hate it are who will get it talked about.

Honestly I find most social and environmental reform messages just preaching to the choir, this was not one of those.

I agree with the fact that it is offensive, strong humor. I do not agree that the point of offensive strong humor is to upset people, the point is to be humorous.

Well, the point was what you quoted in your first paragraph. Having failed to make it in the video, they lost the momentum, and editing the video to add that in now would just seem lame, so pulling it was the right thing to do. They coulda been contenders, but they botched it.

I laughed my ass off. Especially at the kids exploding - mainly because the looks of horror on the other kids' faces were by far the most genuine.

I also laughed my ass off because, whether they meant to or not, they've concisely demonstrated the danger of any line of thinking that claims the end of the world is coming (which I seem to hear more and more from climate change advocates, lately).

Also, it reminds me of this commercial, which I thought was much better done, and had much better context:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/117020/smoking_cars/

Yeah, that is a much better way to do it. Short and, well, hard-hitting. Thanks for the link!

You and

blinkus2000 would get along like a house on fire, I think!

I think there are a lot of disappointed millenialists who are looking for an apocalypse, yeah. Somehow, the idea of a big disaster that will make everything we're doing now irrelevant is reassuring to some people; I guess it offers freedom from consequences.

What, you didn't laugh? Perfectly fine. No pressure.

(Reaches for button. . . .)

*rewires button* Go ahead, see what happens...

Uh, WHAT?!

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject