The “10:10 Movement” debuted their eco-fascist snuff film No Pressure last weekend. (Don’t want to reduce carbon emissions? That’s fine. No pressure. We’ll just kill you!) They still seem not to understand the uproar. Their first “apology” was the standard weaselly, non-apology apology:
Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn’t and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.
This kind of “I’m sorry you were offended” apology is popular because it doesn’t admit any fault. It pins the unpleasantness on the thin-skinned offendee. “If you weren’t such a prude, you’d have no problem with our hilarious threats to kill you.”
To underline their lack of serious contrition, they concluded:
At 10:10 we’re all about trying new and creative ways of getting people to take action on climate change. Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark. Oh well, we live and learn.
Onwards and upwards,
Eugenie, Franny, Daniel, Lizzie and the whole 10:10 team
“Live and learn.” (Unless you resist us; then you get blown up.) “Onwards and upwards.” In other words, no biggie.
10:10 eventually realized they had a problem, probably when corporate sponsors like Sony started bailing out. The director of 10:10 then released another statement that the NYT’s environmentalism columnist considers a real apology:
Last week, 10:10 made available a short film. Following the initial reaction to the film we removed it from our website and issued an apology on Friday 2 October.
Subsequently there has been negative comment about the film, particularly on blogs, and concern from others working hard to build support for action on climate change. We are very sorry if this has distracted from their efforts.
We are also sorry to our corporate sponsors, delivery partners and board members, who have been implicated in this situation despite having no involvement in the film’s production or release.
We will learn from this mistake. Today I have written to supporters and stakeholders explaining that we will review processes and procedures to make sure it cannot happen again. Responsibility for this process is being taken by the 10:10 board.
The media coverage of the film was not the kind of publicity we wanted for 10:10, nor for the wider movement to reduce carbon emissions.
If people have been in touch with us personally about the film, we will be replying to individual emails over the next few days. Meanwhile our thanks go out to all those who support 10:10 and who work to combat the threat of climate change.
You can decide for yourself if you see any sign of contrition here. I don’t. I see an admission that the film was pulled due to the negative reaction, not because they think it was bad. I see that they are sorry that their film has distracted from their efforts to reduce carbon emissions. I see that they are sorry that they have made their corporate sponsors look bad. And I see that they didn’t want this kind of publicity.
What I don’t see is anything like this: “We see now that our film was inappropriate. It is wrong to kill people who disagree with you, and we were wrong to suggest otherwise.”
So the question remains open: do they agree that it was wrong to suggest it was okay to kill those who oppose you? Or do they think this is just a matter of bad taste?