Friday
Jan142011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Mea culpa
In the comments to Judith Curry's blog, I note that someone has mentioned the George Monbiot quote I cited here the other day:
...every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned.
The suggestion is that this was a joke, and having taken a look, I think I would agree. I had verified the quote, but not taken in the context. So mea culpa. And sorry, George.
Reader Comments (42)
Fair enough.
But I think George ought at least consider how easily a serious and malignant tone is inferred from the sentence, specifically because it was George that said it. It is not a statement that, when attributed to George, comes as any surprise nor naturally comes with a tongue firmly inserted in cheek.
There is a lesson in there for George.
That's the sort of thing that passes as a joke among the eco-fascists, is it?
Judging by the 10:10 video "No pressure" the answer is "yes".
There is a really sick undertone to that sort of "humor"
A joke has 'a man and a horse walk into a bar '! not drowning someone ! if a sorry is in order it should from moonbat about his awful sense of humour, not others reading of his stupid comedy !!
"That's the sort of thing that passes as a joke among the eco-fascists, is it?"
Jan 14, 2011 at 7:46 PM | Turning Tide
'Eco-Fascists' is the sort of term that passes as acceptable among the Hilly Billies, is it?
I'm assuming so, as nobody else has jumped in to comdemn it. What's Godwin's Law again....
Well done Bish, stand by your principles
The expression is "Hill Billies" ZDB.
ZedsDeadBed
"'Eco-Fascists' is the sort of term that passes as acceptable among the Hilly Billies, is it?"
Hilly Billies that's the sort of term that passes as acceptable among Eco-Facists, is it?
ZDB
Fascism is an authoritarian doctrine in which the state has control over many important aspects of people's lives.
Given that Monbiot is in favour of state intervention to compel people (economically) to take in lodgers if their house is deemed to be too large for them, and that he thinks flying across the Atlantic should be viewed as on a par with abusing children, I don't think the "fascist" label is too strong for him. (I assume you don't have any issues with the "eco-" part.)
Thanks for posting this. I'd recommend also going back to the earlier "Damian on lunatics" article and adding some kind of reference to this. I dunno what your preferred style is, but something like bold-text "(UPDATE: Mea culpa, this was taken out of context, see hyperlinktothispage.)" would work.
Didnt some chap get prosecuted, found guilty and fined for cracking a joke on twitter about blowing up Gatwick Airport? I think the judge said that it is impossible to smile ironically in writing and so people should not be allowed to make threats on line that could be taken seriously. Sounds like a similar case to me.
Everything Monbiot says is a joke.
And 10:10? A sick sense of humor seems to be the warmists trademark.
Don't give up your day job George.
Hmm? On the other hand...
ZDB
'What's Godwin's Law again....'
A two edged sword.
'However, Godwin's law itself can be abused, as a distraction, diversion or even censorship, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons.' (Wiki)
But Bish just remember, the 'tone' of the debate. Such language can only lead to bad things carried out by Tea Party members.
I'm not sure I would characterize Monbiot's comment as a joke, but more of a flippant remark.
The context shows that he is making a specious moral equivalence between the emission of Co2 by flying, and murdering people.
Whilst this is not a call for people to go out and drown airline executives, it is, imho, a silly and dangerous statement to make. Once you start down this road of saying that airline executives are as guilty of murder as someone who drowns others, you provide all sorts of unwelcome justifications for those who believe they have a moral right to "take a life to save more lives".
I was not aware of Monbiot's airline executive remark, and applaud the Bish for apologising if it was intended as a joke, albeit not a very funny one. But didn't Monbiot once suggest that people who flew should be viewed with the same contempt as child abusers? If so that is truly offensive. Was it Monbiot or another Guardian writer who announced (post climategate) that it was unacceptable to use the denier word, but then renege on this only a few months later? He's a hypocrite and idiot - remember his tosh that there was no longer a winter season? Despite three days of temperatures here having been above zero (and a fair bit of rain today), we still have snow lying from November. And despite eking it out as long as they could, my local council depot ran out of road salt this week, and local A and B roads went untreated and unploughed such that school buses could not run. Meanwhile its forecast to be -61C at the Greenland summit station tonight, and a new cold record for the northern hemisphere is possible. Global bollocks indeed.
Was Henry II serious when he said "will no one rid me of this turbulent priest" or as Simon Sharma has it "What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric?"? It was taken as an instruction and confrontation turned to murder.
It doesn't matter that it was said in jest, what remains in the memory is the message.
But it's so hard to tell with George, isn't it? In any case, his extensive personal accumulation of air miles does rather disqualify him from discussing the subject, with tongue in or out of cheek.
ZDB
"What's Godwin's Law again...."
Hey! He said 'eco-fascist', not 'eco-nazi'!
lapogus
"But didn't Monbiot once suggest that people who flew should be viewed with the same contempt as child abusers?"
Indeed, he did. When he was reminded of that again recently, he said the remark was "ill-advised", as though there is someone advising Monbiot on inflammatory rhetoric.
Many a true word is spoken in jest.
lapogus
"But didn't Monbiot once suggest that people who flew should be viewed with the same contempt as child abusers?"
yes and even better shortly after makign this statement he went on North American book selling tour !
But Monboit has a habit of insulting and attacking people both above and below the line on CIF, its management turn a blind eye to it until it goes very wrong as it did with North. He works ‘best’ as school bully where he knows he can attack and ensure the other person does not get a fair defence.
That Moonbat is an ignorant t**t, is a given.
He is also a 'alien' ignorant 'full of it' arrogant t**t, that also is a given.
I do not give him the benefit of any doubt, the meaning of that quote is unambiguous, I have no doubt of it's clear sincerity - that is George's forte, he is a vindictive mean SOB (most especially to people who do not adhere to his dogmatism and ideological lunacies)....... may the good Lord damn him, to the eternal flame.
Never apologise to that s*** eating weasel.
HtL, your point is well made. Of the many issues raised in Arizona, prominent among them is the use of easy and throw-away but inappropriately inflammatory language by prominent figures, that then forms the call to action for the unhinged to violent effect. It doesn't actually matter if Monbiot was being flippant, he is in the business of communication and should know, better than most, the impact of the language used.
An irrational person does not weigh the intended meaning of an assertion in the same way a rational person does. A responsible and conscientious communicator will give consideration for this. Monbiot does not.
Bish's apology may be amenable and conciliatory but may equally be viewed as unnecessary and premature
I'm no fan of George Monbiot but I am sure he was joking. The next sentence or two after the quotation (sorry, I cannot remember them) put it in context and it was not malicious.
Having read the context of Monbiot's remarks I think you are being overly gracious.
Good correction Bish - and well done for annotating the prior discussion to point to this one. I feel ashamed that I didn't check the context of the quote myself. It's not just the host who is responsible to do this kind of thing.
Unlike others, I don't think that it's a particularly smart thing to use this thread to heap further insults on George Monbiot. (The exception is "Everything that Monbiot says is a joke" because it's genuinely witty and it takes the essential point as given.)
In case people don't realise we need the highest of standards to play this game. Otherwise we only ever convince those in our own bubble, who don't need convincing. That is the opposite of the courage that is going to be required to make the changes in the real world that, surely, we all want. The difference between the courage of the firing range and being part of a landing on D-Day. Don't let's kid ourselves.
It's a terrible thing to accuse another human being of wanting to stir up violence and murder. Think about it. Think how easily you believed it, wrongly, of George Monbiot (as I did). The cycle of violence and hatred - and its corresponding lack of concern for the truth, on both sides - is stopped dead in its tracks by the honesty and decency shown by Andrew Montford today. It's the only reason to follow the guy.
Everyone is in danger of getting a bit too excited here.
All of these comments are legitimate rhetoric. Imagine yourself asking Monbiot, or many others : "Do you mean that literally?" The answer will of course be..... "No, of course not."
The "No Pressure" film was the same thing, essentially. No one was really suggesting that 10:10 thought people should really be killed. It was just extraordinary bad taste and an indication of the bizarre echo-chamber of the deep greens.
There are many politicians I have threatened to strangle with my bare hands, but I would not REALLY do it if they turned up on my doorstep.
Oh, wait a minute.....
Well, I remember that it was this piece by Monbiot which cured me of being a Grauniad reader. It did not seem like a joke at the time.
Monbiot had been leading up to this outburst for a while, and Polly had been increasingly ignorant and irritating. It was a relief to fling the paper into the bin and cancel the order with the newsagent.
Jeff, in that case, these precise words clearly achieved a great good. Case closed :)
Come off it, Monbiot was deadly serious when he said that.
It was me that posted the quote at Judy Curry's blog. Challenged by the poster Louise, I checked the context. It was obviously a joke. I acknowledged and apologised immediately, feeling rather sheepish. I should have checked the original article.
To me, this was the right thing to do. As sceptics, we risk coming across merely as humourless ranters if we continue to cling to obviously wrong interpretations. That helps no-one's credibility. So I agree with the sentiments of the Bishop, Epigines, Jack Savage and Richard Drake on this one. Monbiot has said many stupid things IMO, but it's plain silly to deny the obvious, and in this case it was merely a jokey turn of phrase.
Aye, Richard, quite right. Not that I am impressed, much, by the rest of the papers. As a long time newspaper junkie who, a couple of lifetimes ago, considered a cub reporter post, it was painful to give up my newsprint. Thank the Lord for broadband.
I accept that words that are themselves suggestive of harsh action are not necessarily causal if such actions "happen." But I can't easily give up my belief that they do create a cultural atmosphere that might make such actions less uncomfortable. From personal experience, it takes a great deal of effort to outgrow prejudices one's grown up with. And yes, prejudices accompanied by discussion of actions not likely to be taken by those making loaded remarks, but loaded nonetheless.
It may be that Monbiot's "joke" was as harmless as exploding creatures in the cartoons, but when he gets to naming names, it seems unacceptable to me.
I suppose growing up includes getting used to people hating the politicians you favor, but somehow it keeps making me very sad.
Monbiot wouldn't recognise a joke if it tried to strangle him.
Monbiot’s comment was simply a reformulation of JM Barrie’s: “Every time a child says he doesn’t believe in fairies, a fairy dies.”
That’s the way they talk in NeverNeverLand.
George Monbiot has a sense of humour? Who knew?
I read the original piece. Didn't think it was funny at all, just more of George's unhinged ravings.
Goodness, Sir, I see that you have not met an American Professor of Feminist Studies. There are no jokes, sir.
AnyColourYouLike, I am sure that Monbiot was not being serious. This is about learning a lesson from Arizona. The obvious lesson is to take great care in choosing language and to always be mindful that inflammatory language can have unintended consequences.
To rake Monbiot over the coals for his assertions in the wake of the Arizona tragedy rather smacks of retrospective justice the angry mob way. That's obviously not appropriate. But I think it's reasonable to point out to Monbiot that, joking or not, this kind of language is unhelpful and potentially harmful. Maybe it was a joke. It wasn't funny. Don't try to be funny like this in the future. Hopefully, this way, such language will become as socially unacceptable in print as it is in the street.
Nah, sorry, there is nothing in the context of the article which makes the statement a joke. George is well known for saying things that he later regrets.