Yeah, it's pretty fucked up rofl. I find the whole "no pressure" then boom blowing people up shit pretty funny, but the message as a whole is pretty fail.
Yeah, it's pretty fucked up rofl. I find the whole "no pressure" then boom blowing people up shit pretty funny, but the message as a whole is pretty fail.
WelshBloke
Lifer
- Jan 12, 2005
- 33,126
- 11,300
- 136
Sometimes. Hostel was the exception; I hated the characters enough that I enjoyed watching them die.
Rofl Hostel. Someone told me the movie was crazy and when I put it on I was like "I thought this was supposed to be like some psycho killer movie" then it was and I was all "lololol wtf?"
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
Sure - hopefully the next commercial shows those refusing to participate being gang raped. Wouldn't that be a hoot and serve 'em right for being a global warming denier.
The exploding kids didn't say they denied global warming. They just didn't agree to drop their emissions by 10%, possibly because they already cut their emissions as low as they can go.
Amerikkka!!! err I mean Britainkkk!!
WelshBloke
Lifer
- Jan 12, 2005
- 33,126
- 11,300
- 136
Come on, that is like saying the religious right are all a bunch of abortion clinic bombing crazies. Every "movement" or group has a few nutjobs in it and the nutjobs usually get the most attention because, well because they are fucking nutjobs. Nutjobs fascinate us, we will keep watching just to see what kind of crazy shit they will do next but that doesn't mean they represent the entire "group".
Just in case you aren't aware of my posting history, I tend to disagree with the tree huggers so please do not assume I am defending them. I might think the tree huggers, in general, are a bit crazy but nowhere close to the batshit crazy nutjobs that are involved in that video. Kinda like your run of the mill Catholic and those crazy fuckers protesting soldiers funerals.
WelshBloke
Lifer
- Jan 12, 2005
- 33,126
- 11,300
- 136
WelshBloke
Lifer
- Jan 12, 2005
- 33,126
- 11,300
- 136
WelshBloke
Lifer
- Jan 12, 2005
- 33,126
- 11,300
- 136
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
Seems to me that there is a natural tension between people falling into violence to further their views that they think are a matter of life and death, versus the 'civilized theory' where everyone plays nice' and people make their argument back and forth politely and that's it.
Take for example the Vietnam war. The message was, 'you are entitled to your opinion, and to say it how you can, probably to people you know. Just go about your business.
Yet people would say every day, our nation is over in another nation, with our people getting killed and our nation killing other people, with no end in sight.
And we're supposed to just go to the movies, and be happy we had our nice polite protest today carrying a sign that doesn't stop the bombs and bullets killing.
Of course people might be tempted to do more than carry a sign.
However, look how this can get out of control - imagine the tea partiers bringing their guns to rallies - and starting to use them. Other groups doing the same.
It makes sense for people to want to scream over such wrongs that their fellow citizens often 'might not give a crap about' allowing lives to be lost.
They are serious issues. Take Daniel Ellsberg's decision to expose the government lying to the public on Vietnam, a principled action - he faced life in prison.
That's not 'carry a sign and go home'. He was risking his life for his views - no wonder people are tempted to use violence.
Similarly, the green movement can show thousands of lives lost, for reasons such as a bit more profit for energy companies, but they're invisible because they're rarely discussion, especially on the corporate-owned media. So it makes sense for them to be enraged people who decide not to get informed, and complacently let deadly things go on, and I view these ads as venting that rage.
They're saying, all this polite 'agree to disagree' crap, watching as the polluters use the people's own money paid to them to propagandize the public into allowing the public to get killed at times, is murder, and they're making the point in a visually striking manner - without actually hurting people.
It makes some sense to me as 'art' or as political speech, but I'm not endorsing or condemning it for persuading the public.
It's somewhat analogous to those ads that turn the sexy models of cigarette commercials into the wheelchair shrivelled people who talk with voice boxes.
It's meant to say 'hey, idiot who smokes and doesn't appreciate the harm, this gets you to notice'.
It's like the anti-drunk driving videos that say 'hey, idiot who puts your convenience to drive drunk ahead of innocent peoples' lives, look at the accident photos'.
I think there's a place for doing this, as politely informing many people of the rational reasons not to drive drunk doesn't work on a lot of them.
Just as politely informing people of the costs of the environmental issues - let's add global warning with millions of lives at risk - leaves many complacent.
It might not make that quite clear, but I view it as the environmentalists angry. It's not a threat. They're not working on making red buttons.
It is somewhat dangerous, though. It implicitly endorses that 'use violence' message that's a can of worms once opened, hard to put back.
It's a step towards violence, by first portraying it approvingly, and it's a small step from there to someone doing real violence.
The idea of the ad makes some sense; the danger seems to outweigh the benefit. But art its often like that. And this shouldn't be censored.
I guess this is where we could point out how many of the same people who would only discuss Koran burning not on the reasons it's wrong, but only in terms of 'it's their right', are doing the opposite here, saying they don't like the ad, but not a word about 'it's their right'.
Take for example the Vietnam war. The message was, 'you are entitled to your opinion, and to say it how you can, probably to people you know. Just go about your business.
Yet people would say every day, our nation is over in another nation, with our people getting killed and our nation killing other people, with no end in sight.
And we're supposed to just go to the movies, and be happy we had our nice polite protest today carrying a sign that doesn't stop the bombs and bullets killing.
Of course people might be tempted to do more than carry a sign.
However, look how this can get out of control - imagine the tea partiers bringing their guns to rallies - and starting to use them. Other groups doing the same.
It makes sense for people to want to scream over such wrongs that their fellow citizens often 'might not give a crap about' allowing lives to be lost.
They are serious issues. Take Daniel Ellsberg's decision to expose the government lying to the public on Vietnam, a principled action - he faced life in prison.
That's not 'carry a sign and go home'. He was risking his life for his views - no wonder people are tempted to use violence.
Similarly, the green movement can show thousands of lives lost, for reasons such as a bit more profit for energy companies, but they're invisible because they're rarely discussion, especially on the corporate-owned media. So it makes sense for them to be enraged people who decide not to get informed, and complacently let deadly things go on, and I view these ads as venting that rage.
They're saying, all this polite 'agree to disagree' crap, watching as the polluters use the people's own money paid to them to propagandize the public into allowing the public to get killed at times, is murder, and they're making the point in a visually striking manner - without actually hurting people.
It makes some sense to me as 'art' or as political speech, but I'm not endorsing or condemning it for persuading the public.
It's somewhat analogous to those ads that turn the sexy models of cigarette commercials into the wheelchair shrivelled people who talk with voice boxes.
It's meant to say 'hey, idiot who smokes and doesn't appreciate the harm, this gets you to notice'.
It's like the anti-drunk driving videos that say 'hey, idiot who puts your convenience to drive drunk ahead of innocent peoples' lives, look at the accident photos'.
I think there's a place for doing this, as politely informing many people of the rational reasons not to drive drunk doesn't work on a lot of them.
Just as politely informing people of the costs of the environmental issues - let's add global warning with millions of lives at risk - leaves many complacent.
It might not make that quite clear, but I view it as the environmentalists angry. It's not a threat. They're not working on making red buttons.
It is somewhat dangerous, though. It implicitly endorses that 'use violence' message that's a can of worms once opened, hard to put back.
It's a step towards violence, by first portraying it approvingly, and it's a small step from there to someone doing real violence.
The idea of the ad makes some sense; the danger seems to outweigh the benefit. But art its often like that. And this shouldn't be censored.
I guess this is where we could point out how many of the same people who would only discuss Koran burning not on the reasons it's wrong, but only in terms of 'it's their right', are doing the opposite here, saying they don't like the ad, but not a word about 'it's their right'.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
So when Republicans talk about killing abortion doctors, you laugh that off as a joke too, right?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
Come on, don't you think there's a big difference between doctors who do killings that are a perfectly legal service and worthless polluters who brain dead ways are killing the earth? Surely you can see that the doctors should know better and deserve what they get.
dardarla
Senior member
- May 27, 2010
- 392
- 0
- 0
from http://www.1010global.org/uk/2010/10/sorry
At least they kinda apologized? Looks like everyone volunteered to do this. Maybe they shouldn`t have done this free and paid someone to write a script that wasn`t crap?
At least they kinda apologized? Looks like everyone volunteered to do this. Maybe they shouldn`t have done this free and paid someone to write a script that wasn`t crap?
GodlessAstronomer
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2007
- 17,009
- 5
- 0
I was kind of disturbed about how it moved from awesome titty film to sheer gruesome terror. This was kind of how I was watching that film.
GodlessAstronomer
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2007
- 17,009
- 5
- 0
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter