Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Paedogeddon

By Holloway in MLP
Mon Jul 30, 2001 at 07:37:43 AM EST
Tags: Culture (all tags)
Culture

"I hope that anyone who thinks that Chris Morris is clever, or that paedophilia is a topic worth poking fun at, has one of their own children brutally assaulted, and a TV station decides to poke fun at them."
...kind words there in reaction to a mockery of paedophilia hysteria. The show that enraged soccer mums everywhere is now irresponsibly available on ThE InTeRnEt in two 43meg chunks of DivX encoded video. If you're tight for bandwidth there are newspaper responses or the TV station's own forums.


From the show,
"But today the number of children having sex with adults is beyond belief. If we define a child as anyone under thirty THE FIGURE IS OVER 86%"

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Paedophilia:
o good 28%
o bad 71%

Votes: 35
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o a mockery of paedophilia hysteria
o DivX
o newspaper responses
o the TV station's own forums
o Also by Holloway


Display: Sort:
Paedogeddon | 40 comments (28 topical, 12 editorial, 0 hidden)
More on The Other Site(tm) (2.70 / 10) (#1)
by treetops on Sat Jul 28, 2001 at 09:49:11 AM EST

Adequacy had some coverage of this as well.

Confused USians who have no idea what this show is (ie, most of us) should probably read the newspaper articles. Let's just say that is Mr. Morris was posting to K5, he'd be considered a Troll.
--tt

that's not a troll (3.20 / 5) (#2)
by boxed on Sat Jul 28, 2001 at 09:56:06 AM EST

that's sarcasm, there is no resemblance whatsoever between the two phenomenon

[ Parent ]
The ratings on that comment are funny (3.00 / 2) (#35)
by CaptainZornchugger on Tue Jul 31, 2001 at 08:40:22 AM EST

You have one confused troll, who totally missed the point so he rated you low, and one confused trollspotter, who totally missed the point so he rated you high.

I enjoyed that.


Look at that chord structure. There's sadness in that chord structure.
[ Parent ]
actually... (2.50 / 2) (#36)
by garlic on Tue Jul 31, 2001 at 06:42:40 PM EST

trolls and satire/sarcasm are very similar. The main difference I can see between the two is that trolls tend to be more insulting than satirists, but that may be a matter of degree.

Either way, satirists on this site tend to get treated like trolls.

HUSI challenge: post 4 troll diaries on husi without being outed as a Kuron, or having the diaries deleted or moved by admins.
[ Parent ]

Yes, (none / 0) (#39)
by CaptainZornchugger on Wed Aug 01, 2001 at 08:21:57 AM EST

He was being sarcastic. Notice the unnecessary strength of his modifier -- "No relationship between the phenomenon at all"

Get it now? He was using sarcasm in a post about sarcasm. Seems to me that would be perfectly obvious, but...

Oh, well. I found it entertaining


Look at that chord structure. There's sadness in that chord structure.
[ Parent ]
I proved my own point (1.00 / 1) (#40)
by garlic on Wed Aug 01, 2001 at 09:48:19 AM EST

the one thing I forgot, they both get stupid responses from those who don't catch on (like me above)

HUSI challenge: post 4 troll diaries on husi without being outed as a Kuron, or having the diaries deleted or moved by admins.
[ Parent ]

Teehee... (4.50 / 4) (#4)
by Holloway on Sat Jul 28, 2001 at 10:06:15 AM EST

Let's just say that is Mr. Morris was posting to K5, he'd be considered a Troll.
Which reveals more about K5, than it does Mr. Morris.


== Human's wear pants, if they don't wear pants they stand out in a crowd. But if a monkey didn't wear pants it would be anonymous

[ Parent ]
Or... (4.00 / 2) (#23)
by garethwi on Mon Jul 30, 2001 at 02:16:58 AM EST

...if Chris Morris was to post here, he would be much more likely to submit an article expressing his disgust at his own programmes (under a pseudonym, of course).

[ Parent ]
the cultural devide (3.62 / 8) (#5)
by Enditallnow on Sat Jul 28, 2001 at 11:50:12 AM EST

"The show that enraged soccer mums everywhere"

i find this rather offensive, over in the uk they prefer to call themselves "football" mums ;)

-- Enditallnow

Interesting (4.88 / 9) (#6)
by Delirium on Sat Jul 28, 2001 at 01:23:29 PM EST

I find it strangely ironic that someone who is offended by this man making light of paedophilia would go so far as to hope more children are "brutally assaulted." Now that is offensive.

Watched the thing... (3.60 / 5) (#9)
by Betcour on Sat Jul 28, 2001 at 04:11:08 PM EST

Well went ahead and downloaded the DivX thing (broadband is so nice :) and frankly, I fail to see what is shocking. There are parodies and humourous shows made about war, sexual harrasment, death, disease, etc... and nobody gets so outraged about it. Society has become hypocrit about the whole thing. A murderer is better treated and respected than a convicted pedophile, but isn't killing someone worse than sexually molesting someone ? Isn't the victim of a murderer in a worse condition than a victim of a pedophile ? It is very hard to recover from murder ! I think logic has been missing for a while and the whole medias and population have gone crazy. The 17th century had its population burn "witches", the 21st has its own version of this. And everything that goes against it is assimilated to being "pro-pedophile" or whatever and attacked with the same violence and blindness.

Pedophiles ARE worse than murderers (1.28 / 7) (#16)
by Verminator on Sat Jul 28, 2001 at 09:10:58 PM EST

The majority of murderers, pedophiles and criminals in general (in the US at least) were victims of abuse or molestation as children. A pedophile's victim is much more likely to themselves abuse and molest children. It creates a cycle that repeats with each succesive generation of abuse. At least a murderer's victim doesn't then go out and murder someone who will then go on to murder others. (OK, that last sentence sounds fairly ridiculous, but if you replace "murder" with "molest" it describes what happens to abused children) Of course it's all a minor difference of degree, murderers and pedophiles are both scum and deserve no better than death.
If the whole country is gonna play 'Behind The Iron Curtain,' there better be some fine fucking state subsidized alcohol! And our powerlifting team better kick ass!
[ Parent ]
You were going well until that last sentence (4.75 / 4) (#19)
by Anatta on Sun Jul 29, 2001 at 12:32:31 PM EST

The majority of murderers, pedophiles and criminals in general (in the US at least) were victims of abuse or molestation as children. A pedophile's victim is much more likely to themselves abuse and molest children.

If you're going to accept this logic (which I don't necessarily accept -- seems to me to be more of a self control thing), wouldn't it be fair to say that molestors molest others through little fault of their own? If that is the case, shouldn't we be treating these people as best we can instead of saying they...

deserve no better than death.

You're saying we should kill them because they had the unfortunate circumstances to go through a horriffic experience as a child, which scarred their emotional development and turned them into that which scarred them? It seems like maybe we should think about it a little more before we off them...

One thing I think you're missing is that there are many people who do get molested as children who do not go on to molest others, and there are those who molest others but were not molested themselves. Perhaps we should try to figure out what's going on in the minds of those who do molest, and see what we can do to stop it. This also brings to light the queasy and distasteful issue of how we deal with a break between Western law and human nature... do we treat those who are attracted to biological adults, but not legal adults the same way we treat those who are attracted to biological and legal children?

It just seems to me that this is too complex of an issue to simply say "let's just kill them all, because they deserve to die!"...
My Music
[ Parent ]

Good. (3.50 / 2) (#33)
by ShrimpX on Mon Jul 30, 2001 at 08:20:14 AM EST

Good response. I spent all day to day trying to break down this issue (the fact that we jump to ends before even trying to find a means) to a person--whose understanding of this issue is crucial to the mental well-being of people I love--and I think I failed. There's just too much stubborness out there today... "Let's just kill them" is easier than "let's try to understand what goes on within their reality."

[ Parent ]
Paranoia is NO ONE'S friend (4.00 / 4) (#10)
by afeldspar on Sat Jul 28, 2001 at 05:01:39 PM EST

It's unfortunate that my computer is not set up to view DivX, so I can't tell whether the show is a satire of pedophilia, or of pedophilia hysteria.

If it's of the former, I see it as in poor taste.

But if it's of the latter, I see it as well-needed! Dear God, this is the same nation where mobs burned a house down because they didn't know that a pediatrician (a doctor to children) is not the same thing as a pedophile!

The situation in the US is not that much better, for all that the infamous "Satanic panic" seems to have subsided. (For those who missed it, an unfortunate combination of paranoid fundamentalism and sloppy psychology resulted in a widespread belief in a Satanic conspiracy world-wide whose members ritually abused and killed children as part of devil worship. Every investigating body found absolutely no evidence to support this wild scheme, which only caused supporters to conclude that these investigators, too, were part of the conspiracy.)


-- For those concerned about the "virality" of the GPL, a suggestion: Write Your Own Damn Code.

Subject: (3.00 / 1) (#11)
by _cbj on Sat Jul 28, 2001 at 05:43:20 PM EST

It's mostly a satire on BBC and Channel 4 news. It's really very good.

[ Parent ]
ooops. (3.50 / 2) (#17)
by Holloway on Sat Jul 28, 2001 at 10:15:04 PM EST

Sorry about the ambiguity. It's "a mockery of paedophilia hysteria" through a spoof TV show that plays up both the public hysteria of paedophiles and the 'moral crusade/witch hunt' of the media.

Many celebrities (er, Phil Collins) were outraged at having been tricked to say ludicrous things about paedophiles.

Really, download the videos. Your life will be enriched.


== Human's wear pants, if they don't wear pants they stand out in a crowd. But if a monkey didn't wear pants it would be anonymous

[ Parent ]

Let's censor the Producers while we're at it. (3.66 / 6) (#14)
by anansi on Sat Jul 28, 2001 at 07:09:16 PM EST

I mean, come on! "Springtime for Hitler and Germany" Surely Mel Brooks is an apologist for Nazi war crimes, right?

That so many people complained is an excellent reason for such programming. I only wish the USian system was set up the same way.

Don't call it Fascism. Use Musollini's term: "Corporatism"

mirror please? (2.00 / 1) (#20)
by mikpos on Sun Jul 29, 2001 at 05:58:30 PM EST

The files are coming at about 340 bytes/s :(. If someone can mirror these, maybe on Freenet, then yay.

Media Revisited (4.66 / 3) (#21)
by dzeroo on Sun Jul 29, 2001 at 06:20:53 PM EST

Never heard of them before. Never saw any of its programming. Went to site, downloaded the DiVX, loved it.

Although it's a somewhat touchy subject (oh no, who's going to protect the CHILDREN?), it perfectly portraits the nonsense that is out there. If you watch it carefully you'll see that these people have succeeded in making an exact copy of any news broadcast out there. The whole genre is poluted by sensationalism anyway. Now that there's an anti-message (if you will), people get excited. What the hell? Are we not allowed to laugh at our own stupidities any more? The things the reporters put in left and right are straight from any normal show, only now that it's about kids supposedly getting molested people react. Pavlov would laugh his ass off.

Quote from the show: "This pedophile had to leave school after passing his exams." In other words, once you mention the 'bad word' the rest of the sentence goes down unnoticed. There is absolutely nothing offensive about this show. The suggestion might bring a lot of people up in arms, but none of this is found in the show.

An admirable sample of how fucked our media industry really is. I'm sticking to Chuck D: "Don't believe the h ..."


== chicks are for fags ==


Condemned without having seen it! (4.00 / 3) (#25)
by LQ on Mon Jul 30, 2001 at 05:26:21 AM EST

The UK's Minister for Child Protection was on the 8.10 am slot on BBC Radio 4's Today programme. (Basically the political prime time slot). She condemned the program unreservedly but admitted she hadn't actually seen it. I don't see how anyone can judge a satire only on reports of its content.

The paedophile hysteria in the UK has to be seen to be believed. You'd get the impression that no child was safe.

This is (3.50 / 2) (#27)
by nobbystyles on Mon Jul 30, 2001 at 05:53:25 AM EST

Exactly what Chris Morris was satirizing. He must be laughing so much about it as it proves his point about the media whipping up contreversy based on scanty facts.

I hope Channel 4 sticks to their guns over this nakedly 'populist' intervention by a stupid politician....

[ Parent ]
You forgot to mention (4.00 / 2) (#30)
by pallex on Mon Jul 30, 2001 at 06:10:24 AM EST

our blind home secretary, David Blunket. He hasnt seen the program, and never will, but feels entitled to speak out about it. This just shows that our ministers are as ill informed about satire as they are about drugs, copyright, human rights etc.


[ Parent ]
Touchy, touchy (4.33 / 3) (#28)
by loaf on Mon Jul 30, 2001 at 06:03:47 AM EST

I'm wholly behind Channel 4 and Chris Morris on this one, but it's a very sensitive subject.

Yes, he's highlighted once again the rampant hysteria associated with a psrticular subject, in particular the thoughtless willingness of celebrities to put their face to any old campaign (there's no such thing as bad publicity).

Yes, he's put paedophilia on the front page. But will it stay there? The programme has underlined the question over whether paedophilia be rationally debated - and that's a good thing.

It goes without saying, I would have thought, that child abuse and paedophilia is monstrous. But the programme wasn't highlighting the hypocrisy of the tabloids and their titilation over 16/17 year old bimbos.

The programme was highlighting sex with 8, 9 or 10 year olds. This is a very touchy subject. I couldn't even get into a rational discussion with my girlfriend about it (she's a criminal barrister and has dealt with sex-criminals and their victims, so there's some history there).

He was poking fun at the media, but wasn't actually hitting the target. It's an important issue and a reasonable target - but he missed (but that's not what the furore has been about). His scenarios weren't funny or thought-provoking (as he has been in previous editions, in particular the stunning "expose" of the new superdrug "cake" ... "we have to protect our children from the dangers of cake ....").





I think it did hit the target (3.50 / 2) (#31)
by nobbystyles on Mon Jul 30, 2001 at 06:25:36 AM EST

And hit it very well judging by the current media furore which is basically confined to the tabloids...

[ Parent ]
An explanation of 'Brass Eye' for the non-British (4.50 / 4) (#34)
by Obvious Pseudonym on Mon Jul 30, 2001 at 09:21:24 AM EST

Brass Eye is one of the funniest comedies currently on British television. I am openly an apologist for (and fan of) the programme.

The show (which ran for a single series a few years ago and is currently being repeated) is a spoof 'Hard Hitting' (i.e. Tabloid) documentary in the style of 'Sixty Minutes' and such.

The main theme of the programme was to choose a topic (war, drugs, crime etc.) and to make up some obviously false and completely outrageous story about it. The programme then does a completely over-the-top expose on the issue in classic tabloid style, with the usual psychologists and social commentators wheeled out.

The really funny bit was the fact that the programme would include interviews with real-life celebrities and politicians asking them their opinion on the story or asking them to give some sort of comment. Of course - while the stories are completely outrageous and obviously fake to the viewer who has seen the rest of the programme - to the celebrity who only gets the isolated interview it is a chance to spout off in opposition to somthing and look good on television. Naturally, given that they obviously don't have a clue what they are talking about it exposes them for the shallow publicity-seeking animals that they are.

Examples of this sort of thing include such things as:

1) Interviewing and winding up the leaders of two ficticious countries until they get them to declare war on each other on-air, then turning their set around revealing their 'War Special' set. Naturally, they got lots of famous people to come out and speak out against the horrors of this non-existant war.

2) Denouncing a ficticious 'new drug' called 'cake' with completely spurious effects and side-effects, then getting famous people to give 'Say No To Cake' messages.

The paedophilia show was not part of the repeated series, but was a one-off special as an addition to it. It included such classics as getting a minor TV celebrity to announce that "Paedophiles have genetically more in common with a crab than with other humans! It has not been scientifically proven, but it is a fact!" and things like that.

The show (despite what many knee-jerk reactionists say) was not making a joke out of paedophilia itself, but was making a joke out of the uninformed hysterical rabble-rousing bandwagon-jumping and the poor quality tabloid journalism that surrounds such an issue. Rather than (as one of our MPs said) making it more difficult to rationally discuss the issue it has (hopefully) exposed the hysterical tabloidism for what it is (and continues to do so as they react in a predictably hysterical manner to the programme) and provokes discussion and debate in a way that the tabloids don't.

Obvious Pseudonym

I am obviously right, and as you disagree with me, then logically you must be wrong.

Do the celebs never know? (4.00 / 1) (#37)
by Pseudonym on Tue Jul 31, 2001 at 10:02:09 PM EST

Of course - while the stories are completely outrageous and obviously fake to the viewer who has seen the rest of the programme - to the celebrity who only gets the isolated interview it is a chance to spout off in opposition to somthing and look good on television.
Is this always the case?

I ask this because I saw a clip of the show which featured Richard Briers speaking out against "hard electricity" --- apparently a form of industrial pollution which causes electrons to fall from the wires, crushing anyone unlucky enough to be standing underneath. It looked for all the world like Briers was in on the joke. I may have been wrong on this, but Briers is a damn good actor, and can do this sort of deadpan delivery with ease.

P.S. Nice nick, BTW. :-)

Not-so-obvious Pseudonym



sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
[ Parent ]
They aren't told (4.00 / 1) (#38)
by simon farnz on Wed Aug 01, 2001 at 05:41:36 AM EST

It depends on the celeb; Brass Eye approaches them, pretending to be serious. A bright celeb can spot the joke, and be in on it, but they will never be clued in by the producers.

Of course, one thing the programme proved is that most celebs will say anything to be on TV!
--
If guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns
[ Parent ]

Paedogeddon | 40 comments (28 topical, 12 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!