You mean it was real?!

[draco664]

I can't decide whether or not this should go in Social Woes or Politics.

Last night, I watched a youtube video that had me bemused. As I trundled off to bed, I thought that the people it parodied were going to be up in arms.

It involved various scenes where authority figures discussed ways of reducing their carbon footprint with their subordinates. Those who indicated that they would not be doing anything to reduce their carbon footprint were blown up in Tarantino-esque fashion.

A teacher blew up two students. A boss blew up three workers. Some football players blew up their coach.

Ho hum. I figured that it was just some militant anti-GW group playing silly-buggers.

This morning I discovered to my astonishment that the video wasn't a satirical look at the Global Warming activists. It was actually made and released by a government funded climate group.

Reaction was so bad that they pulled the video less than a day after releasing it. But we all know about the Striesand effect...

Link - really NSFW!!

[Rageaholic]

Could they have picked a worse way to convey their message? I mean, I found it kind of funny myself (in a sick sort of way), but let's face it, they are saying "if you don't reduce carbon, DIE!!". That's the only message to get from it. It's no better than those over the top fear mongering PSA's.

EPIC FAIL!!!

[joe hx]

The video probably wouldn't be so bad if it weren't so realistic. Maybe the people blowing up should look like exploding flour bags, not like exploding... people.

[Sage Blackthorn]

Reaction was so bad that they pulled the video less than a day after releasing it. But we all know about the Striesand effect...

Link - really NSFW!!

I'm not familiar with "The Streisand Effect"....is that anything like The Liberty Valance Effect? "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

[crashhelmet]

From Wikipedia

The Streisand effect is a primarily online phenomenon in which an attempt to censor or remove a piece of information has the unintended consequence of causing the information to be publicized widely and to a greater extent than would have occurred if no censorship had been attempted. It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, following a 2003 incident in which her attempts to suppress photographs of her residence inadvertently generated further publicity.

I found that PSA to be disturbing. And that says a lot

At least South Park took a humorous run with Puffy/Puff Daddy/P-Diddy/Piggly Wiggly/Howdie Doodie/whatever the hell his name is this week's "Vote or Die" campaign. They could've added som esort of humor or satire to it instead of going for shock value. They would've had an easier time getting their point across.

CH

[Sage Blackthorn]

From Wikipedia


I found that PSA to be disturbing. And that says a lot

At least South Park took a humorous run with Puffy/Puff Daddy/P-Diddy/Piggly Wiggly/Howdie Doodie/whatever the hell his name is this week's "Vote or Die" campaign. They could've added som esort of humor or satire to it instead of going for shock value. They would've had an easier time getting their point across.

CH

Thanks Crash', that's makes more sense now.

[Jack]

I imagine the message was not so much "If you don't reduce carbon emissions, DIE!" as it was an (overly graphic) illustration of the damage we cause ourselves and our environment by neglecting such concerns.

[Sage Blackthorn]

I imagine the message was not so much "If you don't reduce carbon emissions, DIE!" as it was an (overly graphic) illustration of the damage we cause ourselves and our environment by neglecting such concerns.

I think they missed the mark.....and realizing they missed the mark is probably why they decided to pull the video.

[crashhelmet]

I imagine the message was not so much "If you don't reduce carbon emissions, DIE!" as it was an (overly graphic) illustration of the damage we cause ourselves and our environment by neglecting such concerns.

if they had spontaneously combusted without the push of a button, I'd agree with that assessment. instead, this was "I'm gonna blow you up because you don't care."

That's how I saw it anyway.

CH

[draggar]

The video probably wouldn't be so bad if it weren't so realistic. Maybe the people blowing up should look like exploding flour bags, not like exploding... people.

It didn't look too realistic to me, heck, you see more convincing graphics in today's movies.

I can see how some people would be offended by this but I found it a little funny (like how the movie "Evil Dead" can be considered funny), but probabaly because I'm not easily offended and I can see what they were trying to say.

[draco664]

It didn't look too realistic to me, heck, you see more convincing graphics in today's movies.

I can see how some people would be offended by this but I found it a little funny (like how the movie "Evil Dead" can be considered funny), but probabaly because I'm not easily offended and I can see what they were trying to say.

It wasn't the realism that made it offensive. Monty Python were blowing up people in grotesquely humourous ways decades ago.

What made it offensive (and really cracked me up) was the group's website, where they claimed they wanted it to be shown on TV and to schoolkids. I have to wonder why, at any point in the proceedings, did any one of the hundreds of people involved not stop to think that maybe, just maybe, depicting authority figures blowing up people who disagreed with them was not a particularly good idea.

That, in and of itself, tells me that the people who made the video have surrounded themselves with only those who think as they do. The fact they were surprised at the response just confirmed it.

Even their 'apology' on their site said that they were only sorry that people found it offensive, not that they fucked up.

Sane environmental groups are going to be tarnished by this POS for a long time.