Mooninites in Boston

[eat_toast]

By now you may have heard the ruckus about Boston ... and Aqua Teen.
Here is an article I Googled, you can find them everywhere. The gist is that two guys put up several LED panels of the two Mooninites from the show, in an ad campaign for ATHF, which were then mis-identified as terrorist bombs, causing panic. The two were arrested, and Turner is apologizing. In the process $750,000 is spent, and the ad's are labeled "hoaxes". Here is a vid of the guys putting up the panels.

What are your opinions? Is it a massive overreaction, or are they justified in calling these men malevolent? Personally, it reminds me of a similar incident in Canada, where in several towns bits of the Mario Bros game series (Mostly Question mark boxes) were hung up as avant garde art. The government reacted, arresting several. Should this be happening? Please discuss.

[Assassin]

I think it was completely stupid, and a result of the fear tactics employed by the american govt and media. Its one thing for the police to be cautious and even check out the devices, but the public reaction is just ridiculous. people are scared shitless in thier own homes....its like the cold war all over again, only this time the "hide under the magic desk" option isn't there.


I dont know the whole sotry obviously, but from what i saw on cnn while at the gym, it was a company (the one that owns Cartoon Network i think) that decided to put the devices there, and they should've had the common sense to notify the police ahead of time. i dont know why anyone is being arrested, unless this wasn't an advertising campaign but a solo act by some fans of the show.

[ChaosK]

I found it hilarious, and now find the residents of Boston (even more) morons. How in the world those lights creating a messed up cartoon blob giving the finger, can strike fear in so many people leaves me flabbergasted...(I'll be honest, I just like using that word...) But in all seriousness, nobody needs to be arrested for marketing a cartoon because the general public was too stupid to realize it wasn't an act of terrorism.

[masamuneehs]

this borders on restriction of free speech...

it was not a threat, not meant to scare anyone, not meant as a hoax. it's not like they mass dialed 911 and had a recording keep saying to all the operators "you could be saving lives! but instead we feel you should go watch our animated television show!"

And i think it is outrageous that the city wants to charge them the money spent by police teams. They decided how to go about it, and clearly they went about it the wrong way. They made it into some great big scare and used clumsy tactics that crippled the city. Instead they could have done what 9 of the other cities where the "guerilla ad campaign" has been implemented in did, talk to Turner and their advertising group and get the locations of the ads, obviously turning "reports of possible terrorist bombs!" into non-factors.

[Kraco]

Yeah. The reaction seems quite over the top indeed. But on the other hand, at least over here, you should have some kind of city approval to place ads in public places. While that's not a regulation to prevent terrorists from placing bombs, it's there to prevent the looks of the city being marred by all manner of business ads and signs placed randomly here and there.

So, if there are similar requirements in the US, then both sides made a mistake.

[Augury]

"Aqua Teen Hunger Force" is a cartoon with a cultish following that airs as part of the Adult Swim late-night block of programs for adults on the Cartoon Network.

That entire article reeks of bias with the above caption being the most blatant. "Cultish following"? I've never seen Aqua Teen Hunger Force but that's a thinly-veiled way of placing dirt and blame on the series and advertisers. The article doesn't even mention detonation until halfway down, and focuses on police actions that are worded to sound inevitable and logical.

I don't care much for the story since Boston's actions were obviously an overreaction and can be compared to how other cities dealt with these ads. What is more disturbing is non-objective reporting from the media.

EDIT: Spelling... Mozilla also says that "cultish" is not a word.

[XanBcoo]

ATHF does have a cult following, Augury. Not "cult" as in hoods and Koolaid and such, but rather "cult" as referring to a dedicated fanbase, kind of like Donnie Darko, The Big Lebowski, The Rocky Horror Picture Show, or even fans of Anime. There is no bias in that word.

As for the whole ordeal, I just think it's ridiculous. I agree with what's been said so far. Boston bollocksed this up big-time by making such an issue out of it. Everything is a threat now (even Leetspeak!). Cold War indeed. I'd cut Boston a little slack if it actually did cause some sort of nationwide panic, but the 8 other cities dealt with it maturely and intelligently. The fact that it was just one city out of many that started kicking up fear and talk of terrorism just makes me laugh.

Edit: And they're calling it a hoax! The government freaks out, the news jumps to conclusions and calls it a terrorist attack, and now it's a "hoax". I can't even begin to understand the logic behind that.

I never realized some fucking Lite Brites could be so dangerous in this "Post 9/11 world". Christ.

[SK]

These days I can't call the reaction an overreaction, especially since the 9/11 attacks were launched from Boston. But I don't think charges or anything on that level is really needed.

[woofcat]

Sk, America has had

One Terrorist Attack
from an outside source in its history.

Why do they feel the need to shit bricks at everything, congrats the terrorist have won. You fear every every fucking thing.

You have a 1 in 88,000 of dying terrorist attack, and 1 in 20,605 chance of your clothes igniting and killing you.

You are 4 times more likely to burn to death from your clothing igniting then from a terrorist.

[SK]

Sk, America has had

One Terrorist Attack
from an outside source in its history.

Why do they feel the need to shit bricks at everything, congrats the terrorist have won. You fear every every fucking thing.

You have a 1 in 88,000 of dying terrorist attack, and 1 in 20,605 chance of your clothes igniting and killing you.

You are 4 times more likely to burn to death from your clothing igniting then from a terrorist.

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing the relevance of your post.

[woofcat]

Not to turn and derail this thread.

These days I can't call the reaction an overreaction, especially since the 9/11

I was making the point that any "reaction" was pretty much a overreaction because the odds of something like that happening are well slim to say the least.

[masamuneehs]

Both of you articulate your points in such regal and eloquent style that it reminds me of Petrarch. And kudos on the historical reference, SK, that has been much overlooked and not often cited in recent years to rationalize and shed light on anything and everything political. Kudos also to woofcat for his statistical research, which undoubtedly will use its crushing force of pure logic to overcome the unimportant and foolishly founded emotional baggage that has dictated the great majority of people's reactions and thoughts since that fateful day. Truly i am lucky to be in the company of such scholars.

But, on the topic at hand, I have some interesting/laugh inducing news articles about the actual event and subsequent aftermath.

The glorious and prestigious NY Post reports: Ratings up after "Toon-atics" for Adult Swim's maligned show
"Marketing becomes terrorism by other means"
and, for not a laugh but actual news Turner agrees to pay some of the $1million cost of "scare"

I think it's a smart move by Turner to step up and offer to pay some of the bill, but part of me is equally outraged by them giving in to these outrageous demands. If nothing they did was illegal (zoning for advertisements laws, not "was it meant to scare people?" tomfoolery dressed up in some kind of law), then they should buckle down and declare their right to free speech. Of course, nobody wants to walk the hard-line and oppose anything that any government official says which might be seen as "emboldening" the enemy, but, as woofie so eloquentley alluded to, that is one of the most distressing things about the War on Terror so far: if you restrict everyday life with all these laws and (largely irrational) fears, then Osama is probably smiling from his cave somewhere and saying, "good, good".

Defending something is fine. But if you have to lock it up so nobody can have it anymore or alter/"reinforce" it until it no longer resembles its original form or cut of its nose to save its face, you're not doing a very good job of defending, now are you?

[SK]

Not to turn and derail this thread.



I was making the point that any "reaction" was pretty much a overreaction because the odds of something like that happening are well slim to say the least.

The chance, even if slim, warrants this type of reaction to any threat, even if seemingly not one.