I, too, have been thinking about everybody's favorite children-blowing-up movie, and the minds of the people who released it. Of course, the only way to think about it that doesn't make my own head explode is that it was made as a satire of environmentalists, by their opponents. In that context, it makes sense to ask whether or not it is fair, whether or not it is funny, and whether or not it is in good taste. As a film made by environmentalists, it makes no sense whatsoever. Dan's attempt to get inside the minds of the producers is brave indeed. But I don't buy his view that environmentalists view opponents as minor social annoyances, much as we view people who take a cell phone call at dinner.
Environmentalists do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. Consider this post, which contains just some of the very nasty plans that prominent environmentalists have announced for those of us who are not yet assimilated. And there is no shortage of direct violence by environmentalists as well. And environmentalists -- including the relatively sane ones -- know about these instances. For an environmentalist to "joke" about blowing up opponents is a bit like anti-abortionists "joking" about blowing up people who support legalized abortion; or Muslims "joking" about blowing up opponents of the ground zero mosque: it's not something I can get my head around.
In fact, I have no explanation at all for the mind-set of the people who made that movie.
I do, however, wish to point out one thing about the movie that I have not seen other people remark on. One of the many ways in which this movement is fraudulent is that their good cops tell us, "all we're asking for is this little thing"; but when pressed, the bad cops explain that the little thing was just an appetizer, and that the main course will -- and must -- completely overturn the economy of the world. (This point was also made in my out-of-date (even then) post.) And we see this in the movie as well. The teacher says:
Environmentalists do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. Consider this post, which contains just some of the very nasty plans that prominent environmentalists have announced for those of us who are not yet assimilated. And there is no shortage of direct violence by environmentalists as well. And environmentalists -- including the relatively sane ones -- know about these instances. For an environmentalist to "joke" about blowing up opponents is a bit like anti-abortionists "joking" about blowing up people who support legalized abortion; or Muslims "joking" about blowing up opponents of the ground zero mosque: it's not something I can get my head around.
In fact, I have no explanation at all for the mind-set of the people who made that movie.
I do, however, wish to point out one thing about the movie that I have not seen other people remark on. One of the many ways in which this movement is fraudulent is that their good cops tell us, "all we're asking for is this little thing"; but when pressed, the bad cops explain that the little thing was just an appetizer, and that the main course will -- and must -- completely overturn the economy of the world. (This point was also made in my out-of-date (even then) post.) And we see this in the movie as well. The teacher says:
The idea is everyone STARTS cutting their carbon emissions by 10% thus, keeping the planet safe for everyone, EVENTUALLY.Clearly there will be further rounds of cutting, but don't worry about that right now. Just remember to think right, and to wear a raincoat to class.
2 comments:
I don't understand what you have against my explanation. You admit that you have no alternative theory to offer, and the only argument you can come up with for disbelieving mine is that the filmmakers simply must know that people have done and said terrible things in the name of environmentalism, and therefore couldn't possibly find it funny to imagine blowing up insufficiently enthusiastic environmentalists.
But this argument makes no sense. After all, filmmakers too ignorant to anticipate that such a hideous film might offend a lot of people, could easily also be too ignorant to recognize the connection between their violent depictions and, say, incidents of eco-terrorism. Moreover, there are plenty of well-publicized instances of people getting killed over petty annoyances (such as "road rage" incidents, where a minor case of inconsiderate driving leads to terrible violence)--yet many people nevertheless appear to find fictional karmic comeuppances of the "Scary Movie" sort hilarious.
Again, I'll point out: nobody in the film ever actually lifts a finger to "save the planet", as opposed to paying token lip service to doing so. And it's a good bet that the celebrities involved in the film live lives similarly unaffected by their cheery shibboleths about "climate change". Is there any reason--any reason at all--to believe that they take the whole thing more seriously than, say, having good table manners, or dressing fashionably, or being politically correct in general?
1) I don't think it would be funny to make a video of someone getting beaten to death for inconsiderate driving, precisely because it happens. But it would be funny to beat someone to death with the cell phone that he was using at dinner.
2) So it comes down to: just how much is Franny Armstrong aware of the viciousness involved in the environmental movement? You insist on giving her the benefit of the doubt, defending her as being ignorant and somewhat stupid. Have you seen her (long) movie or read her website? I think she is pretty much at the center of that Movement, so I still prefer my non-explanation to your explanation.
3) Speaking of non-explanations, I wish to offer one for the behavior of people such as James Cameron who says "It will be a dying world if we don’t make some fundamental changes about how we view ourselves and how we view wealth...We’re going to have to live with less." Click to see his estates, yachts, planes, trains, automobiles, etc. Whatever could he be thinking? You would say that he doesn't take the whole thing seriously. But Cameron is very involved in the Movement, and probably spends more on its propaganda than anyone else (although, oddly, his propaganda actually seems to make a profit). I offer no explanation, but I think that hypocrites like Cameron are less dangerous than more understandable people like the Unabomber.
Post a Comment