Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Should the "Yes Men" be able to change the world?

Jump to new
basilio

basilio

Joined
30 June 2008
Posts
15,498
Reactions
7,369
Jonathan Dyles hoax with Whitehaven Coal raises the question of how far should citizens go in challenging what they see as corrupt or illegal behaviors particularly by business interests. The Yes men are 2 activists who have created a series of hoaxes to highlight particular issues.

In 2009 they created a Press Conferance as representatives of the American Chamber of Commerce and announced a reversal of the Chambers position on Climate Change. (interestingly enough 2 weeks after the hoax the Chamber actually did reverse its position...)

In 2004 the impersonated a spokesman from DOW chemicals to take full responsibility for the Biphol chemical disaster. They fooled the BBC into running that interview.

What do you think of their actions ? Check out the you tube clips.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pmTwIRErcI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiWlvBro9eI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lScyQYUHLA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yes_Men
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhrpSW_pnck
 
Re: Should the 'Yes Men" be able to change the world ?

Firstly, I doubt the premise that either hoax has the capacity to "change the world". It merely polarises and antagonises two sides of society at large: Those, who think with their hearts, and those, who use their heads.
IMO it's not so much a question of "Should the 'Yes Men' be able to change the world ?" but one of "Is one criminal act justified by the mere allegation of another?"

And my answer to that is clearly "No!"

I also find it extremely distasteful to compare Dyles and the Yes Men, Whitehaven and Union Carbide.
As far as I'm aware, WHC has complied with all legal and administrative requirements and is providing jobs in a lawful business. Union Carbide, not Dow Chemical btw, has negligently brought death and misery to thousands of Indians.
 
Re: Should the 'Yes Men" be able to change the world ?

pixel said:
Firstly, I doubt the premise that either hoax has the capacity to "change the world". It merely polarises and antagonises two sides of society at large: Those, who think with their hearts, and those, who use their heads.
IMO it's not so much a question of "Should the 'Yes Men' be able to change the world ?" but one of "Is one criminal act justified by the mere allegation of another?"

And my answer to that is clearly "No!"

I also find it extremely distasteful to compare Dyles and the Yes Men, Whitehaven and Union Carbide.
As far as I'm aware, WHC has complied with all legal and administrative requirements and is providing jobs in a lawful business. Union Carbide, not Dow Chemical btw, has negligently brought death and misery to thousands of Indians.
Click to expand...

+1

It's essentially fraudulent behaviour and financial terrorism in my view. If everyone with an axe to grind took matters into their own hands in this way, there'd be chaos on a grand scale.
 
Re: Should the 'Yes Men" be able to change the world ?

DocK said:
+1

It's essentially fraudulent behaviour and financial terrorism in my view. If everyone with an axe to grind took matters into their own hands in this way, there'd be chaos on a grand scale.
Click to expand...

In addition, I was reminded of another recent "hoax", and a thought occurred to me:

What if one of the duped shareholders saw the unexpected slump and suffered a heart attack? Or worse, as has been reported from the Crash of 1929, a few traders got depressed and committed suicide? Would they be considered collateral damage en route to "a better world"? Or would the Social Media crucify the hoaxer as they did the shock jocks?
 
Thanks for the observations.

Couple of points. With regard to who was responsible for Bophal. Union Carbide was the original perpetuater . However when DOW chemicals bought them out they assumed responsibility for the fallout from the disaster.

With regard to "financial terrorism" and "fraud". I can't agree that these incidents are close to these descriptions. Firstly no one attempted to make any financial returns from the actions. So there was no attempt to profit from the stunts.

Secondly these were very short term actions that were quickly challenged. The social message got through and there wasn't a long term financial fallout.

And with regard to "changing the world" ? Lets recognise that "changing the world" to their advantage is the intention of all big businesses. Essentially they are looking out for No 1 and will (generally) do whatever it takes to extract maximum advantage at anyone else expense. In my view being able to push back against this trend is in the interests of the little guys.

Anyone else seen the clips and wish to add to the discussion ?
 
Re: Should the 'Yes Men" be able to change the world ?

pixel said:
Firstly, I doubt the premise that either hoax has the capacity to "change the world". It merely polarises and antagonises two sides of society at large: Those, who think with their hearts, and those, who use their heads.
IMO it's not so much a question of "Should the 'Yes Men' be able to change the world ?" but one of "Is one criminal act justified by the mere allegation of another?"

And my answer to that is clearly "No!"

I also find it extremely distasteful to compare Dyles and the Yes Men, Whitehaven and Union Carbide.
As far as I'm aware, WHC has complied with all legal and administrative requirements and is providing jobs in a lawful business. Union Carbide, not Dow Chemical btw, has negligently brought death and misery to thousands of Indians.
Click to expand...

+1

Union Carbide, Ford, James Hardie all got what they deserved.
 
Reminds me of the show continuum.

Am just waiting for when enough Govts are bankrupted and the corporations step in.

Suppose then unless your a shareholder, you wont get to vote :rolleyes:

I support the hoaxers intentions, but do question his methods. I wonder how many small investors sold out and lost some hard earned $$$
 
sydboy007 said:
Reminds me of the show continuum.

Am just waiting for when enough Govts are bankrupted and the corporations step in.

Suppose then unless your a shareholder, you wont get to vote :rolleyes:

I support the hoaxers intentions, but do question his methods.
Click to expand...

Jonathan Moylan, whom basilio (for reasons known only to him) has alternately rechristened Doyle, Doyles and Dyles has been elevated to hero status by your party for his gallant efforts to reduce the heat wave and bushfires by harassing coal producers and their shareholders.

If ever an irresponsible lout deserved to have his ar$e kicked, it is this guy.

080113-Jonathan-Moylan.jpg
 
The topic is not specifically about Jonathan Moylan. It is the question of how activists can effectively highlight corrupt or antisocial business practices.

The Yes Men have used creative impersonation very effectively for this effect.

Has anyone yet watched any of the clips?
 
Is there any possible chance that people can stop kicking Jonathan Moylon to death on a thread that is specifically about other people and bigger issues ?:mad:

Or is that just the way it is on ASF at the moment ?
 
basilio said:
Is there any possible chance that people can stop kicking Jonathan Moylon to death on a thread that is specifically about other people and bigger issues ?:mad:

Or is that just the way it is on ASF at the moment ?
Click to expand...
You want to judge what may be posted now? Perhaps set out some guidelines so that we do not OFFEND you, something that will apparently become an offence if Roxon's legislation to that effect is passed.

The translation will be: No one with any views right of centre may say anything against anyone with views left of centre because it will ipso facto cause offence.
 
Julia said:
You want to judge what may be posted now? Perhaps set out some guidelines so that we do not OFFEND you, something that will apparently become an offence if Roxon's legislation to that effect is passed.

The translation will be: No one with any views right of centre may say anything against anyone with views left of centre because it will ipso facto cause offence.
Click to expand...

Nuh !! Just trying to get the discussion back to the topic Julia. I specifically introduced a quite different range of material for comment and discussion. Yours was the third successive comment that decided having a free kick at Jonathan was easier thinking about the bigger picture.

And I was a bit surprised that it came from you. Any other thoughts on the Yes Men ?
 
basilio said:
Is there any possible chance that people can stop kicking Jonathan Moylon to death on a thread that is specifically about other people and bigger issues ?:mad:

Or is that just the way it is on ASF at the moment ?
Click to expand...

As far as I'm aware, nobody has kicked JM to death yet. (Although I wouldn't shed too many tears if someone did.)
That aside, I believe the point has already been made that both actions: by the yes Men and by JM, have been criminal acts that only a small fringe group seems to condone. Neither will endear the respective perpetrators to "we, the people" who find it tough enough to survive without stunts like that.

Try and get hold of a novel "The Gods Themselves" by Isaac Asimov. He shows - IMHO - the only way how this kind of "bigger issues" can be resolved. Trying to put Humpty Dumpty together again is not it. Nor will anything be achieved by shooting everybody that picked up one of Pandora's gifts - if you pardon my mixing metaphors.
 
basilio said:
Is there any possible chance that people can stop kicking Jonathan Moylon to death on a thread that is specifically about other people and bigger issues ?:mad:

Or is that just the way it is on ASF at the moment ?
Click to expand...

John Cardinal Newman said in the 19th Century that the definition of a gentleman was one who did not cause others pain.

Moylan has his beliefs and I would defend his right to hold them.

He is not a gentleman however.

His actions though have caused many ordinary people to suffer.

So it is valid to discuss him given the context of your original post.

gg
 
basilio said:
Nuh !! Just trying to get the discussion back to the topic Julia. I specifically introduced a quite different range of material for comment and discussion. Yours was the third successive comment that decided having a free kick at Jonathan was easier thinking about the bigger picture.
Click to expand...

You can't deny that it was the "heroic" actions of Moylan (Dyles?) that inspired you to start the thread. You can't complain that posters have taken you up on the absurdity of your Green movement installing this nasty piece of work into their hall of fame. He has also given you and other radical posters a lift in wavering spirits.
 
pixel said:
As far as I'm aware, nobody has kicked JM to death yet. (Although I wouldn't shed too many tears if someone did.)
That aside, I believe the point has already been made that both actions: by the yes Men and by JM, have been criminal acts that only a small fringe group seems to condone. Neither will endear the respective perpetrators to "we, the people" who find it tough enough to survive without stunts like that.
Click to expand...
Basilio, you may take pixel's remarks as speaking for me also. Imo he should be up for a considerably greater 'kicking' than the few words that have been thus far offered on this forum.

He has caused considerable concern and distress to others with respect to a legitimate business, complying with the laws of this country.

I heard some ABC radio commentator this morning likening this character to Rosa Parks and Emily Pankhurst!:banghead:

The one positive that might emanate from this stupid stunt will hopefully be that a few more people who ill advisedly dumped their vote with the Greens in the last election will see them more clearly.
 
The activists mentioned in this thread appear to be self deluded publicity seeking egomaniacs. Being noticed within society is their primary motivation as it satiates their inner insecurity. Their fictional claims of altruistic intent are simply a creative cover story used to excuse and justify the crimes they perpetrate in their quest for publicity.

These activists are emotionally insecure on account of the fact that honest and industrious conduct within society has proven to be too daunting a challenge for them. In order to placate their personal insecurity they have, instead, subscribed to a heroic fantasy i.e. "save the planet from industrial tyranny". They choose to live out this fantasy irrespective of its contrast to reality. Anyone they encounter whom doesn't subscribe to (or support) their fantasy automatically arouses a fear response and is perceived as a threat that must be either converted or invalidated ( ie. denounced, incarcerated,destroyed etc.) so that their fantasy may continue unhindered. Until their personal issues are dealt with, it will be very difficult for them to break the hold that their heroic fantasy has over their lives. After all why would someone choose to embrace the reality of their life as a pathetic and fearful under achiever when this can all be avoided via the perpetuation of a heroic fantasy?

The harmful and misguided actions of these self deluded individuals poses a definite threat to the fabric of our society. As such, I believe it is in our best interests to take protective measures against such activism. To this end, I am of the opinion that these activists require professional assistance/guidance in addressing their innermost fears and insecurities. Failing this, society will need to give serious consideration to incarceration in an appropriate mental health care/rehabilitation facility. Anything less will likely result in further atrocities being perpetrated against innocent entities (individual and corporate) courtesy of these mindless and self ingratiating psychopathic primates.
 
Top