What does Yea Forums make of HyperNormalisation, and Adam Curtis's work more broadly...

BBC did nothing wrong ever, the documental

power of nightmares is good and very correctly points out how easily the narrative of terrorism was shifted into requiring foriegn intervention, but due to left wing bias he ignores the complimentary effect this had on distracting away from how home grown the terrorist problem was

Curtis doesn't seem to express an opinion on the BBC aside from its implicit complicity in the information-controlling power structures he identifies- But I do find it odd / a shame that his recent stuff is only distributed by the BBC. Would love to have proper (preferably independently-released) DVD releases of All Watched Over... etc.

>McKay: The Green New Deal is exciting.

Which was the Curtis film where he talks about how the leftists hated that one climate summit, because it proposed stagnating the current class system and basically just consolidating more authority into unelected governmental/NGO bodies?

I'm fairly indifferent to the NGD thing, but I don't know how you could support both a radical restructuring of the world economy to minimize harm, and a redistribution of wealth/authority to the Workers of the World at the same time.

Helvetica has been shown to be one of the easiest typefaces for the human eye to discern. That's why it's used on road signage.

This is fair enough, but working on your car when it is dying is a lot more stressful than adding a turbocharger for fun (to make an idiosyncratic metaphor). The large global warming debate attracts the commentary of people with little real insight, even curtis in this case; and it throws shade onto the very real problems of deforestation, mass extinction, ocean acidification, etc. “global warming” is too broad to be seen in the terms Curtis is suggesting. I’m old and I can say that the environmentalist cause was much more rigorous before Al Gore’s film than it has been ever since

you cant debate global warming seriously because the only workable solution is to set hard limits on the populations of the highest per capita polluters while shifting hard into nuclear power
but that isn't a permissible argument for anyone to make publicly, so its better to just not talk about it

Curtis looks at everything through an abstract narrative lens, rather than actually looking at bleached coral and plummeting insect populations. As you say, the problem is so large that each individual looking at it can only see a sliver of the whole that fits their existing reference frame.

I think the worst take on it I've seen has been from Zizek. Normally I appreciate his opinions when they differ from mine, but his whole 'the Anthropocene is a good thing, get used to garbage' mindset seems like a joke people would use to mock material-Marxism taken to a ridiculous conclusion. It was the first time I felt repelled by his Eurocentric indifference.

The other solution is basically to shrink the economy which is explosive to the entire neoliberal/conservative motive of perpetual growth. I for one think the state of the ocean is much more distinct long term threat to life on earth than global warming. Global warming just has the potential to distrupt economic activity In a shorter time frame.

as an actual environmental scientist I prefer the term "climate change" for this reason, also shuts up the "hurr we had snow for one week in our tiny section of the world, where's your global warming NOW???" crowd you get every time Washington/New York or London are hit by blizzards as if the rest of the planet just doesn't exist

note where the largest positive anomalies are on the map attached

Attached: map_1month_anomaly_Global_ei_2T_201806.png (1200x527, 570K)

There are other options.

Attached: BASED Quattro.jpg (1280x720, 67K)

Yeah it’s pretty despicable considering the way pollution effects the poorest people on earth. Zizek is more Hegelian-Freudian than Marxist, French intellectuals seem to choose gommunism as their default political faction despite the fact that “celebrity intellectual” is pretty much as petit bourgeois as it gets

oh and also, when we talk about a 2 degree temperature rise by the end of the century, that's an AVERAGE; anomalous events such as last years heatwave will not only be higher on top of that raised average temperature, but more common

we're already seeing thousands of tropical seabirds dropping dead because the fractional increase in average temperature that has already happened is happening faster than their metabolisms can evolve to cope with

in other words, to anyone who denies the danger of climate change on a purely physical health level regardless of adaptations by the economy, have fun dying suddenly of heatstroke in your 40s

ahahahahahahhahaha lol

thanks for posting this user
and i like Adam Curtis a lot

Bitter Lake is absolute kino. So is HyperNormalisation. They're both actually good films, and function as entertainment, and as art, beyond their value as documentaries. Which is true of all the best documentaries, and I often watch ones where I find the subject and the content fascinating, but as a film they are pedestrian and worthless. But Bitter Lake is just fucking kino.

I doubt anyone watches Adam Curtis films uncritically or takes them as gospel. They are interesting, but they are not definitive and I don't think they're even intended to be taken without a grain of salt. They're just one perspective. An interesting one. Even if you thought they were truth, the films don't seem to posit that embracing that truth would be personally healthy.

As long as the West is stable, western people won’t really care. There will be no popular mandate for change. Essentially, we are approaching the point where the dichotomy of populism and governance are going to clash. Who will win?
I’m listening, don’t have shit else to do today

>all the propagandists, marketers and psychologists that created this culture were Jewish
>huh, must be a coincidence

oh related to what hints at re: insects, since 1970, populations of vertebrates have declined by 60% on average (i.e. some species have lost more than 60%, some less)

60 fucking per cent in 50 years, man, that is the true blackpill

To be frank, I care more about the long term survival of all life on earth, more than people. I wonder if it is worth staving off our extinction. Are human interests compatible with life itself? We are so far, absolutely parasitical for our host planet.

repetitive surface level garbage

see

it will all be fine over a long enough span, the earth still has billions of years left on the clock, in a million years biodiversity will be as rich as it ever was

It doesn’t have to be this way, or does it?

You’re probably right. Life emerged here in very tough conditions.

Is this clever self-deprecating deadpan satire of Adam Curtis, from a fan, or butthurt 'gotcha!' whinging from someone who hates him?

I'm genuinely unsure.

Attached: frodo_orig.jpg (640x641, 48K)

It's just a shitpost, the intent is inconsequential.

I think it's funny either way but i'd like to know whether someone was absolutely seething when they made it or having a good time bantering

It was boring, no shootouts or explosions, wtf

/ourguy/ Char Aznable started throwing asteroids at Earth to create a nuclear winter scenario and force all the Humans to migrate to space. But really he was just doing it to bully his boyfriend.

I hope they include it in the new Gundam movie.

Attached: just guys being dudes.gif (500x272, 2.22M)

>"....but those in power.."

Bitter Lake is such a good film. The use of the extended Tarkovsky metaphors are so goddamn kino.

while watching it i just felt like;
>fffuuuuuucccccccccckkkkkkkkkkkk dude