An interaction between me and Lee caused him to block me when I was criticising statements he made.
The 10:10 campaign video is a PR nightmare if I ever saw one. This commercial is actually from the organisation 10:10 to promote their goal of voluntarily reducing 10% of your CO2 emissions each year.
The script for this commercial was written by Richard Curtis (writer of for example Blackadder, Four Weddings and Notting Hill). A very well known comedic writer. So the idea behind this commercial was trying to make a funny video about what they are trying to achieve.
What they were trying to go for, by the looks of it, was some self mockery and trying to explain their program. Which they actually do during the entire video. With the suggestion that joining them is best for your own interests. Not in the way of preventing someone from blowing you up, but with saving yourself from the consequences of climate change. But missing the humour mark by miles, and so horrendously I’m at a lost for words.
Now I wouldn’t even have noticed this commercial if it wasn’t for Lee Doren and a few comments he made on this video. Which are:
This is the most disturbing insight into the minds of the Radical EcoFascists. Supposedly your tax dollars in the UK indirectly paid for this crap. Do what the Greens say or they’ll kill you, I guess. Note that this ad is not fake. It is a real campaign. Crazy!!
And his second annotation on the video:
Yes, she just killed kids for not supporting the EcoFascist Agenda.
Radical EcoFascists? These guys are not some nationalists that want to set up an authoritarian government. It’s a grass roots organisation with independent sub groups per country. They are not aiming for changing the system from above, but by creating a community of people and companies who agree with them and lead by example. And then stepping to the government saying “See, it can be done”.
And Lee Doren also says “your tax dollars in the UK indirectly paid for this crap”. Indirectly? This is a organisation that relies on volunteers, sponsors and donations. This very commercial was done by volunteers who donated their own time and equipment.
And the “do what they say or they’ll kill you remark”, that was the failed joke. But I went into that already. However it’s not the part that bugs me most. The tag ecoterrorism is the one that I find the most egregious of the two. You are now accusing the organisers and people supporting them like Peter Crouch, Gillian Anderson, Radiohead and Yann Arthus-Bertrand, who’s famous for his arial environmental photography, and other organisations and companies, of terrorism. Or at the very least suggesting they support terrorism. But it’s not like they strap bombs to themselves every time they see a SUV and run towards it screaming “The Trees Are Great” and blow you up.
But the worst thing about Lee’s comments is that when he posted it, 10:10 had already retracted the video. And was already apologizing via several channels that they offended people (although not the best apology I’ve ever seen). The link Lee used in his video description even mentions this. But no word of that from Lee on the video, and very few people were actually noticing this.
So I pointed this out to Lee in a comment where I said the following:
Lee they already retracted the video from their website. They admit they missed the mark on the humour area and are sorry for it (the person who wrote the script wrote for example Blackadder, Four Weddings and Notting Hill)
So the campaign video isn’t being used anymore. They are not ecofascists. Are you going to update your video or are you just going add another weak statement like in your “fake bomb” video? That was a false report, and you still say “appears to be false”
Now you probably wonder what I meant with the “fake bomb” remark. It was Lee accusing a windmill company in Spain of sending a fake bomb to a researcher critical of the wind energy industry. However, the fake bomb was a fuel filter, and wasn’t even sent by them. I pointed this out to Lee but 3 months later he still hasn’t really corrected the video.
Lee’s reaction to the comment I posted was to delete it. So I posted a new comment with the added question “why did you delete my comment?”. And it to was removed. He responded by placing the following message on my channel:
I linked to their website in thecomments genius. Stop posting the same link over and over and over.
Now I only had posted two similar comments and this seemed to look like it was getting out of hand. So I sent the following message to Lee to clarify my position and to see if I could calm things down.
What I’m pointing out with my comment is that they are not eco-fascists. They apologized for their video.
They admit they missed the mark with it being funny, they thought they had a good video as it was written by Richard Curtis (writer of for example Blackadder, Four Weddings and Notting Hill).
However you are still trying to misrepresent them as someone who says “join us or we will kill you”. Which was not their intent. They say they listened to people criticising them for this very video and pulled it. They state so on the page you link to: http://www.1010global.org/no-pressure
However, not a lot of people are following that link and reading their apology. And with you removing my comments it even further reduces the chance of people noticing this (from the comments you can see most people aren’t following the link). If you keep the text on the video as is this really looks like misdirection on your part.
The video was in poor taste, but it’s not what you are trying to make it look like.
When I didn’t get a response from him, I posted another comment, a summary of what was in the email. And I noticed he blocked me. When I checked my sent messages I could verify he blocked me when he removed my second comment. As a PM will not be shown in the sent messages if it’s sent to a user who blocked you. Although it looks like it was sent when you send it.
My language was strong, but I was civil. And I didn’t get any warning from Lee before he blocked me. So I had no chance of rectifying the situation. And lee has still the video up without any changes.
Lee’s comments and responses to me look like someone who is reading more into something than there is. Judging by his responses towards me I have the suspicion he at the very least knows he’s reaching, and also has trouble dealing with criticism on the statements he makes. And subsequently lashes out to such voices on his channel, which he has done before.
Now he has succeeded in preventing me from communicating with him. But he has now made sure my only way of communicating with him is via public videos. And I can still subscribe to him via his channel RSS feed. So Lee, I’ll still be here fact checking you.