[Kony 2012] tied to "kill the gays" Ugandan pastor Martin Ssempa

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/03/16/446390/kony-2012-invisible-children-anti-gay-pastor/?mobile=nc

People for the American Way's Josh Glasstetter has found what seems to be a connection between Invisible Children, the organization responsible for Kony 2012, and Martin Ssempa, a virulently anti-gay pastor in Uganda who advocates for the "Kill the Gays" bill. The link stems from a student group at Grove City College, an evangelical school, that worked with Invisible Children, and through it, Martin Ssempa:

STUDENT 1: A guy named Martin Ssempa came our way, who is a Ugandan-born world leader in the AIDS activism and abstinence education. He came to Grove City College and spoke to us and gave us the plan to send this shipment of "love" over to Uganda.

STUDENT 2: Martin Ssempa is an amazing man. He just shared a lot about his vision for healing in Africa, particularly in his country.

The connection, if true, is not surprising. Alternet reported earlier this week that Invisible Children receives large sums of money from anti-gay groups linked to Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, The Fellowship Foundation ("The Family"), and Lou Engle's The Call. While Kony 2012, an exposť on Ugandan warlord Joseph Kony that has been viewed nearly 80 million times on YouTube, is not explicitly anti-gay, it seems clear that Invisible Children is committed to a similar worldview as these other groups.

No doubt, Ssempa's complete opposition to the separation of church and state aligns with the Christian Dominionist mentality that links the other organizations. He opposes the use of condoms to fight the spread of HIV, promoting instead abstinence-only education, but he is best known for his anti-gay evangelism. Ssempa shows gratuitous gay porn in his presentations, claiming homosexuality is an "abomination" and that all gay men engage in fisting and "anal licking." Watch him discuss his opposition to homosexuality:

Not only was the co-founder arrested today, but there seems to be a connection from IC to the "kill the gays" Martin Ssempa.

Now searching on google, I see multiple stories like this:

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2012/03/16/KONY_2012_Director_Detained_Org_Tied_to_Antigay_Groups/

So what do you think, Escapist? It seems its all coming out the wood work now. Its to be expected when you're under scrutiny. Since I made the other Kony thread, I thought I might as well toss the second story in, it seems like good discussion material.

EDIT: I found a secondary source with interesting information on what the organizations stand for, and what they did. Charges against them include trying to scare America that "the gays will plunge America into civil war."

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2012/03/11/invisible-children-funded-by-antigay-creationist-christian-right/

Scummy people taking money for crying foul at black people behaving in an uncivilized fashion, then prancing about with this fellow.

Another day at the social networking office.

Huh. I expected more discussion on such a controversial subject.

I guess my mistake was posting when most people were bitching about the endings to Mass Effect and its 15+ different threads about it.

Welp, looks like I have another addition to my ever growing list of reasons to be against the Kony 2012 movement. Plus, this saddens me heavily, since this shows that numerous people are blindly supporting an organization that, while it claims it is fighting to abolish a man who has violated human rights within Africa, supports a man that is fighting to destroy an entire group of people. Hypocritical much?

Skywolf09:
Welp, looks like I have another addition to my ever growing list of reasons to be against the Kony 2012 movement. Plus, this saddens me heavily, since this shows that numerous people are blindly supporting an organization that, while it claims it is fighting to abolish a man who has violated human rights within Africa, supports a man that is fighting to destroy an entire group of people. Hypocritical much?

Well, thats the optimistic route. If the accusations against the OTHER organizations that back them are true, its even worse.

One organization that backed Invisible Children supported keeping gays oppressed in America, because they fear gay marriage would "unleash a wave of sexuality" that would "plunge America into a civil war."

From what I read, these organizations are bat shit crazy.

Ultratwinkie:
Huh. I expected more discussion on such a controversial subject.

I guess my mistake was posting when most people were bitching about the endings to Mass Effect and its 15+ different threads about it.

The thing is that the Kony situation has kind of played itself out, people have drawn their lines in the sand. People either did their research and realized that Kony 2012/ Invisible Children is the shadiest thing /the biggest scam internet has seen in a while; or they are undying supporters because taking any evidence against what they went all nutso over would make them look like complete tards.

This is just the sprinkles on the do not support Kony 2012/IC ice-cream sundae.

Rednog:

Ultratwinkie:
Huh. I expected more discussion on such a controversial subject.

I guess my mistake was posting when most people were bitching about the endings to Mass Effect and its 15+ different threads about it.

The thing is that the Kony situation has kind of played itself out, people have drawn their lines in the sand. People either did their research and realized that Kony 2012/ Invisible Children is the shadiest thing /the biggest scam internet has seen in a while; or they are undying supporters because taking any evidence against what they went all nutso over would make them look like complete tards.

This is just the sprinkles on the do not support Kony 2012/IC ice-cream sundae.

What I expected was discussion on how everything blew up in their faces in one day.

Hell, Uganda just released a statement saying Kony was officially replaced by the ADF on the same day Russel went crazy. The power vacuum allowed a rebel group to form and expand from the Congo. Basically, they didnt fix the issue, they just replaced it. This is no longer considered "hearsay" by IC supporters, its pretty much fact now. You cant argue against Uganda itself, especially since they did a counter-video on the same day.

How does such a huge and popular thing implode in one day? I don't know, but we all just saw it happen... and it was beautiful.

I can still think Kony is a bad guy and should be put to a stop. Because if that is suddenly banned by the overly cynical and outright moronic internet community that refuses to support any kind of internet activism and dismisses it as useless, I just don't know what I'll do.

Seriously guys, Invisible Children may be supported by some douches (as has any social movement ever. You think Malcolm X was a wonderful guy?), but the campaign, to help spread the word to stop Kony, is fundamentally good. Giving them money may not be the best thing to do, but spreading the word that people should get up and do something, anything about the use of child soldiers, that is good. I myself don't think the IC have a clue about how to fix the problem, but spreading the word about it is a clear first step. Yes, we should probably try to fix international relations and develop schools in Africa rather than try to kill different personalities, but most people aren't even aware of the issue at this point. The Kony 2012 campaign is good, even if IC isn't.

And as for them taking money from a douche, I don't see them giving money to said douche, I see them using money to spread the word about something going on that is truly monstrous. If they are doing the former, I will just be more convinced that I should never give those guys money.

Revnak:
I can still think Kony is a bad guy and should be put to a stop. Because if that is suddenly banned by the overly cynical and outright moronic internet community that refuses to support any kind of internet activism and dismisses it as useless, I just don't know what I'll do.

Seriously guys, Invisible Children may be supported by some douches (as has any social movement ever. You think Malcolm X was a wonderful guy?), but the campaign, to help spread the word to stop Kony, is fundamentally good. Giving them money may not be the best thing to do, but spreading the word that people should get up and do something, anything about the use of child soldiers, that is good. I myself don't think the IC have a clue about how to fix the problem, but spreading the word about it is a clear first step. Yes, we should probably try to fix international relations and develop schools in Africa rather than try to kill different personalities, but most people aren't even aware of the issue at this point. The Kony 2012 campaign is good, even if IC isn't.

And as for them taking money from a douche, I don't see them giving money to said douche, I see them using money to spread the word about something going on that is truly monstrous. If they are doing the former, I will just be more convinced that I should never give those guys money.

technically, I had to explain that so many times before. While stopping Kony is good, awareness would never solve it. This isn't an issue for average joes, but for the governments. The international community is doing all they can to catch him. Unless Batman materializes and tracks him down personally, there is nothing anyone else can do.

The only way for this to stop the problems in Africa is to:
A) change the governments, take out the tyrants that generate the need for rebels.
B) fix the tribal relations that cause tension across Africa.
C) Build schools, so that religious-fueled rhetoric is no longer as effective.
D) Fix Africa's economy.
E) Build infrastructure.
F) Build hospitals.

If we can do these things, Africa will be much better off than temporary solutions. However, building a foundation for an entire continent to grow from would be obviously expensive. An effort that no one country can do. A job for the UN and the world. Charities just don't have the pull nor the resources to fix these problems.

If we stop focusing on one problem and look at the big picture, we would be able to make much more of a difference. Unfortunately, doing is hard but talk is easy. I don't see anyone banding together to do any good anytime soon other than lip service.

Now all the people who say they have been helping the world by supporting this and telling all those of us who say they're not doing a difference get to hang their heads in shame. Great work supporting these guys.

Ultratwinkie:

Revnak:
I can still think Kony is a bad guy and should be put to a stop. Because if that is suddenly banned by the overly cynical and outright moronic internet community that refuses to support any kind of internet activism and dismisses it as useless, I just don't know what I'll do.

Seriously guys, Invisible Children may be supported by some douches (as has any social movement ever. You think Malcolm X was a wonderful guy?), but the campaign, to help spread the word to stop Kony, is fundamentally good. Giving them money may not be the best thing to do, but spreading the word that people should get up and do something, anything about the use of child soldiers, that is good. I myself don't think the IC have a clue about how to fix the problem, but spreading the word about it is a clear first step. Yes, we should probably try to fix international relations and develop schools in Africa rather than try to kill different personalities, but most people aren't even aware of the issue at this point. The Kony 2012 campaign is good, even if IC isn't.

And as for them taking money from a douche, I don't see them giving money to said douche, I see them using money to spread the word about something going on that is truly monstrous. If they are doing the former, I will just be more convinced that I should never give those guys money.

technically, I had to explain that so many times before. While stopping Kony is good, awareness would never solve it. This isn't an issue for average joes, but for the governments. The international community is doing all they can to catch him. Unless Batman materializes and tracks him down personally, there is nothing anyone else can do.

The only way for this to stop the problems in Africa is to:
A) change the governments, take out the tyrants that generate the need for rebels.
B) fix the tribal relations that cause tension across Africa.
C) Build schools, so that religious-fueled rhetoric is no longer as effective.
D) Fix Africa's economy.
E) Build infrastructure.
F) Build hospitals.

If we can do these things, Africa will be much better off than temporary solutions. However, building a foundation for an entire continent to grow from would be obviously expensive. An effort that no one country can do. A job for the UN and the world. Charities just don't have the pull nor the resources to fix these problems.

If we stop focusing on one problem and look at the big picture, we would be able to make much more of a difference. Unfortunately, doing is hard but talk is easy. I don't see anyone banding together to do any good anytime soon other than lip service.

And you think that the UN or the governments will give a fuck if their citizens don't. Your cynicism must be very specifically targeted. Shit does not happen until a social movement starts it. The U.S. civil war wouldn't have started without abolitionists, regulation wouldn't have happened without the progressives, the civil rights movement wouldn't have happened without its many supporting organizations. And none of those would have come into existence without people talking about them. Certainly some of the early parts of the movements would have been misdirected in some ways. Both abolition and progressivism find their roots in groups focused on making alcohol illegal, which is never a good idea. Kony 2012 is to fixing the problems in Africa what temperance is to ending slavery, and is probably closer to abolition to be honest.

Revnak:

Ultratwinkie:

Revnak:
I can still think Kony is a bad guy and should be put to a stop. Because if that is suddenly banned by the overly cynical and outright moronic internet community that refuses to support any kind of internet activism and dismisses it as useless, I just don't know what I'll do.

Seriously guys, Invisible Children may be supported by some douches (as has any social movement ever. You think Malcolm X was a wonderful guy?), but the campaign, to help spread the word to stop Kony, is fundamentally good. Giving them money may not be the best thing to do, but spreading the word that people should get up and do something, anything about the use of child soldiers, that is good. I myself don't think the IC have a clue about how to fix the problem, but spreading the word about it is a clear first step. Yes, we should probably try to fix international relations and develop schools in Africa rather than try to kill different personalities, but most people aren't even aware of the issue at this point. The Kony 2012 campaign is good, even if IC isn't.

And as for them taking money from a douche, I don't see them giving money to said douche, I see them using money to spread the word about something going on that is truly monstrous. If they are doing the former, I will just be more convinced that I should never give those guys money.

technically, I had to explain that so many times before. While stopping Kony is good, awareness would never solve it. This isn't an issue for average joes, but for the governments. The international community is doing all they can to catch him. Unless Batman materializes and tracks him down personally, there is nothing anyone else can do.

The only way for this to stop the problems in Africa is to:
A) change the governments, take out the tyrants that generate the need for rebels.
B) fix the tribal relations that cause tension across Africa.
C) Build schools, so that religious-fueled rhetoric is no longer as effective.
D) Fix Africa's economy.
E) Build infrastructure.
F) Build hospitals.

If we can do these things, Africa will be much better off than temporary solutions. However, building a foundation for an entire continent to grow from would be obviously expensive. An effort that no one country can do. A job for the UN and the world. Charities just don't have the pull nor the resources to fix these problems.

If we stop focusing on one problem and look at the big picture, we would be able to make much more of a difference. Unfortunately, doing is hard but talk is easy. I don't see anyone banding together to do any good anytime soon other than lip service.

And you think that the UN or the governments will give a fuck if their citizens don't. Your cynicism must be very specifically targeted. Shit does not happen until a social movement starts it. The U.S. civil war wouldn't have started without abolitionists, regulation wouldn't have happened without the progressives, the civil rights movement wouldn't have happened without its many supporting organizations. And none of those would have come into existence without people talking about them. Certainly some of the early parts of the movements would have been misdirected in some ways. Both abolition and progressivism find their roots in groups focused on making alcohol illegal, which is never a good idea. Kony 2012 is to fixing the problems in Africa what temperance is to ending slavery, and is probably closer to abolition to be honest.

The UN has done more to stop Kony than anyone else. Without the help from foreign countries, Kony would still be running around. Now he is hiding in the congo with only 250 soldiers left, while the ADF take over. They did that while no one else cared. That doesn't sound like "not caring" to me.

Africa is getting better, slowly, but it is. Unlike the Western viewpoint, Africa DOES try to get better. Its the reason the Kony video pissed off so many Africans. It depicted them as helpless. Africans are not. That mentality is no better than the mentality from Movie Bob's "the lost city" episode.

The current system still works, despite what movies have told you. Do you really believe that the UN, the paranoid US, or any other Empire would allow a large warband to roam unchecked? When they want to maintain their imperial power? No, problems get solved and they get brownie points with the smaller countries which expands their influence.

The world isn't as hopeless as you think it is. The only way to go is up, never down.

Ultratwinkie:

Revnak:

Ultratwinkie:

technically, I had to explain that so many times before. While stopping Kony is good, awareness would never solve it. This isn't an issue for average joes, but for the governments. The international community is doing all they can to catch him. Unless Batman materializes and tracks him down personally, there is nothing anyone else can do.

The only way for this to stop the problems in Africa is to:
A) change the governments, take out the tyrants that generate the need for rebels.
B) fix the tribal relations that cause tension across Africa.
C) Build schools, so that religious-fueled rhetoric is no longer as effective.
D) Fix Africa's economy.
E) Build infrastructure.
F) Build hospitals.

If we can do these things, Africa will be much better off than temporary solutions. However, building a foundation for an entire continent to grow from would be obviously expensive. An effort that no one country can do. A job for the UN and the world. Charities just don't have the pull nor the resources to fix these problems.

If we stop focusing on one problem and look at the big picture, we would be able to make much more of a difference. Unfortunately, doing is hard but talk is easy. I don't see anyone banding together to do any good anytime soon other than lip service.

And you think that the UN or the governments will give a fuck if their citizens don't. Your cynicism must be very specifically targeted. Shit does not happen until a social movement starts it. The U.S. civil war wouldn't have started without abolitionists, regulation wouldn't have happened without the progressives, the civil rights movement wouldn't have happened without its many supporting organizations. And none of those would have come into existence without people talking about them. Certainly some of the early parts of the movements would have been misdirected in some ways. Both abolition and progressivism find their roots in groups focused on making alcohol illegal, which is never a good idea. Kony 2012 is to fixing the problems in Africa what temperance is to ending slavery, and is probably closer to abolition to be honest.

The UN has done more to stop Kony than anyone else. Without the help from foreign countries, Kony would still be running around. Now he is hiding in the congo with only 250 soldiers left, while the ADF take over. They did that while no one else cared. That doesn't sound like "not caring" to me.

Africa is getting better, slowly, but it is. Unlike the Western viewpoint, Africa DOES try to get better. Its the reason the Kony video pissed off so many Africans. It depicted them as helpless. Africans are not.

The current system still works, despite what movies have told you. Do you really believe that the UN, the paranoid US, or any other Empire would allow a large warband to roam unchecked? When they want to maintain their imperial power? No, problems get solved and they get brownie points with the smaller countries which expands their influence.

The world isn't as hopeless as you think it is. The only way to go is up, never down.

Social movements will help. I don't know how you can possibly think otherwise. Yes the governments are doing things now, but more can and will be done when people step up and try to change things. More people stepping up to change things cannot be bad. I will concede that the international community is trying to change things for the better on their own, but how can making more people aware of what's going on going to make things worse? Won't that lead to the international community doing more? How is apathy going to make things better, and more importantly, how is arguing against action going to help things?

I seriously do not see why I should have to be defending the idea that social movements to stop the use of child soldiers in Africa is a good thing. The sheer absurdity of this argument is beginning to really annoy me.

Revnak:

Ultratwinkie:

Revnak:

And you think that the UN or the governments will give a fuck if their citizens don't. Your cynicism must be very specifically targeted. Shit does not happen until a social movement starts it. The U.S. civil war wouldn't have started without abolitionists, regulation wouldn't have happened without the progressives, the civil rights movement wouldn't have happened without its many supporting organizations. And none of those would have come into existence without people talking about them. Certainly some of the early parts of the movements would have been misdirected in some ways. Both abolition and progressivism find their roots in groups focused on making alcohol illegal, which is never a good idea. Kony 2012 is to fixing the problems in Africa what temperance is to ending slavery, and is probably closer to abolition to be honest.

The UN has done more to stop Kony than anyone else. Without the help from foreign countries, Kony would still be running around. Now he is hiding in the congo with only 250 soldiers left, while the ADF take over. They did that while no one else cared. That doesn't sound like "not caring" to me.

Africa is getting better, slowly, but it is. Unlike the Western viewpoint, Africa DOES try to get better. Its the reason the Kony video pissed off so many Africans. It depicted them as helpless. Africans are not.

The current system still works, despite what movies have told you. Do you really believe that the UN, the paranoid US, or any other Empire would allow a large warband to roam unchecked? When they want to maintain their imperial power? No, problems get solved and they get brownie points with the smaller countries which expands their influence.

The world isn't as hopeless as you think it is. The only way to go is up, never down.

Social movements will help. I don't know how you can possibly think otherwise. Yes the governments are doing things now, but more can and will be done when people step up and try to change things. More people stepping up to change things cannot be bad. I will concede that the international community is trying to change things for the better on their own, but how can making more people aware of what's going on going to make things worse? Won't that lead to the international community doing more? How is apathy going to make things better, and more importantly, how is arguing against action going to help things?

I seriously do not see why I should have to be defending the idea that social movements to stop the use of child soldiers in Africa is a good thing. The sheer absurdity of this argument is beginning to really annoy me.

You assume I am arguing against action. I am arguing against sensationalism or bum rushing a topic. The masses don't know the big picture, the governments do.

For example. The Kony 2012 movement will only make people think it worked when they capture him, an effort that took 20 years of work and planning beforehand. What else will happen? people will go on bum rushing any other cause without looking behind it. For all we know, we could back some tyrannical regime or fall for a large scam. The masses are extremely easy to manipulate, and they are quick to forget. The harder the work, the less people will come forward. What made Kony 2012 so popular was that it asked that you post a video on facebook or like a status. Hardly anything revolutionary. Problems require actual work, actual planning. That is something limited individuals know.

There is a reason charity wasn't some viral thing. People are too lazy to do anything other than what Kony 2012 demanded of them. When you add the masses into the mix, it becomes a hot button political issue, which we all know is spoon-fed bullshit. It makes the effort to fix a problem that much harder, because it makes it a overly-political issue that turns into a popularity contest.

People spread what they hear faster than what they know. Trying to make the masses bum rush a delicate topic is very dangerous if not handled correctly, and can have adverse effects down the road. sensationalism is not appropriate for change. Sensationalism is only for tabloids and inconsequential trivialities like who wins on a game show. Never should it be used to change the world.

I am not arguing against action, I am arguing against sensationalizing real problems to get people to pay attention.

Ultratwinkie:

Revnak:

Ultratwinkie:

The UN has done more to stop Kony than anyone else. Without the help from foreign countries, Kony would still be running around. Now he is hiding in the congo with only 250 soldiers left, while the ADF take over. They did that while no one else cared. That doesn't sound like "not caring" to me.

Africa is getting better, slowly, but it is. Unlike the Western viewpoint, Africa DOES try to get better. Its the reason the Kony video pissed off so many Africans. It depicted them as helpless. Africans are not.

The current system still works, despite what movies have told you. Do you really believe that the UN, the paranoid US, or any other Empire would allow a large warband to roam unchecked? When they want to maintain their imperial power? No, problems get solved and they get brownie points with the smaller countries which expands their influence.

The world isn't as hopeless as you think it is. The only way to go is up, never down.

Social movements will help. I don't know how you can possibly think otherwise. Yes the governments are doing things now, but more can and will be done when people step up and try to change things. More people stepping up to change things cannot be bad. I will concede that the international community is trying to change things for the better on their own, but how can making more people aware of what's going on going to make things worse? Won't that lead to the international community doing more? How is apathy going to make things better, and more importantly, how is arguing against action going to help things?

I seriously do not see why I should have to be defending the idea that social movements to stop the use of child soldiers in Africa is a good thing. The sheer absurdity of this argument is beginning to really annoy me.

You assume I am arguing against action. I am arguing against sensationalism or bum rushing a topic. The masses don't know the big picture, the governments do.

For example. The Kony 2012 movement will only make people think it worked when they capture him, an effort that took 20 years of work and planning beforehand. What else will happen? people will go on bum rushing any other cause without looking behind it. For all we know, we could back some tyrannical regime or fall for a large scam. The masses are extremely easy to manipulate, and they are quick to forget. The harder the work, the less people will come forward. What made Kony 2012 so popular was that it asked that you post a video on facebook or like a status. Hardly anything revolutionary. Problems require actual work, actual planning. That is something limited individuals know.

There is a reason charity wasn't some viral thing. People are too lazy to do anything other than what Kony 2012 demanded of them. When you add the masses into the mix, it becomes a hot button political issue, which we all know is spoon-fed bullshit. It makes the effort to fix a problem that much harder, because it makes it a overly-political issue that turns into a popularity contest.

People spread what they hear faster than what they know. Trying to make the masses bum rush a delicate topic is very dangerous if not handled correctly, and can have adverse effects down the road. sensationalism is not appropriate for change. Sensationalism is only for tabloids and inconsequential trivialities like who wins on a game show. Never should it be used to change the world.

I am not arguing against action, I am arguing against sensationalizing real problems to get people to pay attention.

How will they educate themselves if they haven't heard about it? The more people that know, the more people that will figure out what is really going on and what really should be done. And sensationalism has brought about change. Good change. The revolution would not have happened without the rather sensationalist Paul Revere. The civil war would not have occurred without John Brown or Uncle Tom's Cabin. People will actually turn their heads and listen to the sensational, and that listening often leads to support. Sensationalism has changed the world for the better, and it will continue to.

Oh, and just because people start out with the wrong picture of what should be done, does not mean they will hold that picture forever. There were still many who tried to fix the real problems that African Americans faced despite Uncle Tom's cabin, and not all Americans thought every British soldier was out to rape and murder despite Paul Revere.

Revnak:

Ultratwinkie:

Revnak:

Social movements will help. I don't know how you can possibly think otherwise. Yes the governments are doing things now, but more can and will be done when people step up and try to change things. More people stepping up to change things cannot be bad. I will concede that the international community is trying to change things for the better on their own, but how can making more people aware of what's going on going to make things worse? Won't that lead to the international community doing more? How is apathy going to make things better, and more importantly, how is arguing against action going to help things?

I seriously do not see why I should have to be defending the idea that social movements to stop the use of child soldiers in Africa is a good thing. The sheer absurdity of this argument is beginning to really annoy me.

You assume I am arguing against action. I am arguing against sensationalism or bum rushing a topic. The masses don't know the big picture, the governments do.

For example. The Kony 2012 movement will only make people think it worked when they capture him, an effort that took 20 years of work and planning beforehand. What else will happen? people will go on bum rushing any other cause without looking behind it. For all we know, we could back some tyrannical regime or fall for a large scam. The masses are extremely easy to manipulate, and they are quick to forget. The harder the work, the less people will come forward. What made Kony 2012 so popular was that it asked that you post a video on facebook or like a status. Hardly anything revolutionary. Problems require actual work, actual planning. That is something limited individuals know.

There is a reason charity wasn't some viral thing. People are too lazy to do anything other than what Kony 2012 demanded of them. When you add the masses into the mix, it becomes a hot button political issue, which we all know is spoon-fed bullshit. It makes the effort to fix a problem that much harder, because it makes it a overly-political issue that turns into a popularity contest.

People spread what they hear faster than what they know. Trying to make the masses bum rush a delicate topic is very dangerous if not handled correctly, and can have adverse effects down the road. sensationalism is not appropriate for change. Sensationalism is only for tabloids and inconsequential trivialities like who wins on a game show. Never should it be used to change the world.

I am not arguing against action, I am arguing against sensationalizing real problems to get people to pay attention.

How will they educate themselves if they haven't heard about it? The more people that know, the more people that will figure out what is really going on and what really should be done. And sensationalism has brought about change. Good change. The revolution would not have happened without the rather sensationalist Paul Revere. The civil war would not have occurred without John Brown or Uncle Tom's Cabin. People will actually turn their heads and listen to the sensational, and that listening often leads to support. Sensationalism has changed the world for the better, and it will continue to.

Oh, and just because people start out with the wrong picture of what should be done, does not mean they will hold that picture forever. There were still many who tried to fix the real problems that African Americans faced despite Uncle Tom's cabin, and not all Americans thought every British soldier was out to rape and murder despite Paul Revere.

That's the thing, lies spread faster than truth. There are still a sizable amount of people who believe the government knew nothing of Kony, and many believe Obama is a Muslim anti-christ. This turns into a "faith" issue where people refuse to debate anything and put anyone else down as a "hater."

You cannot depend on the masses to change their mind in a sensationalist topic. The difference between the revolution and Kony 2012, is that the revolutionary ideas beforehand riled people up toward a revolution. It didn't happen because Paul Revere posted a speech on facebook. It simply ignited something everyone knew, and everyone had a problem with (the authority). People wanted change, and they wanted to work for it. This is not the case, people are no longer willing to work for change. Especially in a demographic that Facebook has.

They would rather parrot words to be popular and fit in, than actually care. Trying to fight a "faith"-like fanaticism to a mindset is like punching a brick wall and hoping it changes its direction.

We all hope for a shining light amongst the scum of humanity and many thought that it would be found in the people behind the Stop Kony campaign, only to find that like everything else is no less corrupted. Making the world aware of Kony was the right step but now what? Give money to a group that affiliate with a malignant homophobe?

Ultratwinkie:

Revnak:

Ultratwinkie:

You assume I am arguing against action. I am arguing against sensationalism or bum rushing a topic. The masses don't know the big picture, the governments do.

For example. The Kony 2012 movement will only make people think it worked when they capture him, an effort that took 20 years of work and planning beforehand. What else will happen? people will go on bum rushing any other cause without looking behind it. For all we know, we could back some tyrannical regime or fall for a large scam. The masses are extremely easy to manipulate, and they are quick to forget. The harder the work, the less people will come forward. What made Kony 2012 so popular was that it asked that you post a video on facebook or like a status. Hardly anything revolutionary. Problems require actual work, actual planning. That is something limited individuals know.

There is a reason charity wasn't some viral thing. People are too lazy to do anything other than what Kony 2012 demanded of them. When you add the masses into the mix, it becomes a hot button political issue, which we all know is spoon-fed bullshit. It makes the effort to fix a problem that much harder, because it makes it a overly-political issue that turns into a popularity contest.

People spread what they hear faster than what they know. Trying to make the masses bum rush a delicate topic is very dangerous if not handled correctly, and can have adverse effects down the road. sensationalism is not appropriate for change. Sensationalism is only for tabloids and inconsequential trivialities like who wins on a game show. Never should it be used to change the world.

I am not arguing against action, I am arguing against sensationalizing real problems to get people to pay attention.

How will they educate themselves if they haven't heard about it? The more people that know, the more people that will figure out what is really going on and what really should be done. And sensationalism has brought about change. Good change. The revolution would not have happened without the rather sensationalist Paul Revere. The civil war would not have occurred without John Brown or Uncle Tom's Cabin. People will actually turn their heads and listen to the sensational, and that listening often leads to support. Sensationalism has changed the world for the better, and it will continue to.

Oh, and just because people start out with the wrong picture of what should be done, does not mean they will hold that picture forever. There were still many who tried to fix the real problems that African Americans faced despite Uncle Tom's cabin, and not all Americans thought every British soldier was out to rape and murder despite Paul Revere.

That's the thing, lies spread faster than truth. There are still a sizable amount of people who believe the government knew nothing of Kony, and many believe Obama is a Muslim anti-christ. This turns into a "faith" issue where people refuse to debate anything and put anyone else down as a "hater."

You cannot depend on the masses to change their mind in a sensationalist topic. The difference between the revolution and Kony 2012, is that the revolutionary ideas beforehand riled people up toward a revolution. It didn't happen because Paul Revere posted a speech on facebook. It simply ignited something everyone knew, and everyone had a problem with (the authority). People wanted change, and they wanted to work for it. This is not the case, people are no longer willing to work for change. Especially in a a demographic that Facebook has.

They would rather parrot words to be popular and fit in, than actually care. Trying to fight a "faith"-like fanaticism to a mindset is like punching a brick wall and hoping it changes its direction.

Except the majority didn't want change. In both of the cases that I mentioned, the majority were against those movements. Sensationalism made those movements popular, and it made those movements work. Slavery supporting democrats were in the majority right up until Abraham Lincoln, who still didn't get the majority of the popular vote (if I remember correctly). It was largely thanks to later sensationalist works like the writings of Thomas Paine that America got the military forces it needed to win the war. Considering that one of the first major American parties formed, the Federalists, preferred the British over the French, people can and have changed their minds from their initially sensationalist view.

There are people out there already that want change in Africa. Do you think that the people won't eventually start aiding them over the rather misleading IC? The exact same criteria that brought about such social movements as the revolution are present here. Why dismiss it? I supose you could say that the remoteness of the activity could cause some kind of disconnect, but that didn't stop the civil war. Sensationalism is not bad, and people swayed by it are not so stupid as to never change their minds about it. Your strangely directed criticism continues to confuse me.

Revnak:

Ultratwinkie:

Revnak:

How will they educate themselves if they haven't heard about it? The more people that know, the more people that will figure out what is really going on and what really should be done. And sensationalism has brought about change. Good change. The revolution would not have happened without the rather sensationalist Paul Revere. The civil war would not have occurred without John Brown or Uncle Tom's Cabin. People will actually turn their heads and listen to the sensational, and that listening often leads to support. Sensationalism has changed the world for the better, and it will continue to.

Oh, and just because people start out with the wrong picture of what should be done, does not mean they will hold that picture forever. There were still many who tried to fix the real problems that African Americans faced despite Uncle Tom's cabin, and not all Americans thought every British soldier was out to rape and murder despite Paul Revere.

That's the thing, lies spread faster than truth. There are still a sizable amount of people who believe the government knew nothing of Kony, and many believe Obama is a Muslim anti-christ. This turns into a "faith" issue where people refuse to debate anything and put anyone else down as a "hater."

You cannot depend on the masses to change their mind in a sensationalist topic. The difference between the revolution and Kony 2012, is that the revolutionary ideas beforehand riled people up toward a revolution. It didn't happen because Paul Revere posted a speech on facebook. It simply ignited something everyone knew, and everyone had a problem with (the authority). People wanted change, and they wanted to work for it. This is not the case, people are no longer willing to work for change. Especially in a a demographic that Facebook has.

They would rather parrot words to be popular and fit in, than actually care. Trying to fight a "faith"-like fanaticism to a mindset is like punching a brick wall and hoping it changes its direction.

Except the majority didn't want change. In both of the cases that I mentioned, the majority were against those movements. Sensationalism made those movements popular, and it made those movements work. Slavery supporting democrats were in the majority right up until Abraham Lincoln, who still didn't get the majority of the popular vote (if I remember correctly). It was largely thanks to later sensationalist works like the writings of Thomas Paine that America got the military forces it needed to win the war. Considering that one of the first major American parties formed, the Federalists, preferred the British over the French, people can and have changed their minds from their initially sensationalist view.

There are people out there already that want change in Africa. Do you think that the people won't eventually start aiding them over the rather misleading IC? The exact same criteria that brought about such social movements as the revolution are present here. Why dismiss it? I supose you could say that the remoteness of the activity could cause some kind of disconnect, but that didn't stop the civil war. Sensationalism is not bad, and people swayed by it are not so stupid as to never change their minds about it. Your strangely directed criticism continues to confuse me.

Again, you assume the youths of today are the youths of the colonial era. Do you really expect people to get off their ass, away from facebook? back then, a lot more was at stake and the conesquences were dire. A revolution doesnt appear out of nowhere, there was reason enough for a revolution. The sensationalism just lit the fuse to the powder keg that built up. Unlike the revolution, Kony 2012 tries to build a powder keg where there is none. If people are not personally involved and effected, they wont care for semantics.

What do people now have to live with? No consequences from Kony 2012 for them, but all the consequences land on the lap of Uganda. People just no longer care if its not their ass on the line. This was the case in the revolution when people were personally involved and on the line. Now what happens? Uganda's government states that its 662$ million dollar tourism industry was just destroyed by one 30 minute video. Kony 2012 did more harm to Uganda than good, especially now that a new army formed in the absence of Kony. So now a Kony-like army is still on the loose and Uganda's tourism industry was struck down.

Ultratwinkie:

Revnak:

Ultratwinkie:

That's the thing, lies spread faster than truth. There are still a sizable amount of people who believe the government knew nothing of Kony, and many believe Obama is a Muslim anti-christ. This turns into a "faith" issue where people refuse to debate anything and put anyone else down as a "hater."

You cannot depend on the masses to change their mind in a sensationalist topic. The difference between the revolution and Kony 2012, is that the revolutionary ideas beforehand riled people up toward a revolution. It didn't happen because Paul Revere posted a speech on facebook. It simply ignited something everyone knew, and everyone had a problem with (the authority). People wanted change, and they wanted to work for it. This is not the case, people are no longer willing to work for change. Especially in a a demographic that Facebook has.

They would rather parrot words to be popular and fit in, than actually care. Trying to fight a "faith"-like fanaticism to a mindset is like punching a brick wall and hoping it changes its direction.

Except the majority didn't want change. In both of the cases that I mentioned, the majority were against those movements. Sensationalism made those movements popular, and it made those movements work. Slavery supporting democrats were in the majority right up until Abraham Lincoln, who still didn't get the majority of the popular vote (if I remember correctly). It was largely thanks to later sensationalist works like the writings of Thomas Paine that America got the military forces it needed to win the war. Considering that one of the first major American parties formed, the Federalists, preferred the British over the French, people can and have changed their minds from their initially sensationalist view.

There are people out there already that want change in Africa. Do you think that the people won't eventually start aiding them over the rather misleading IC? The exact same criteria that brought about such social movements as the revolution are present here. Why dismiss it? I supose you could say that the remoteness of the activity could cause some kind of disconnect, but that didn't stop the civil war. Sensationalism is not bad, and people swayed by it are not so stupid as to never change their minds about it. Your strangely directed criticism continues to confuse me.

Again, you assume the youths of today are the youths of the colonial era. Do you really expect people to get off their ass, away from facebook? back then, a lot more was at stake and the conesquences were dire. A revolution doesnt appear out of nowhere, there was reason enough for a revolution. The sensationalism just lit the fuse to the powder keg that built up. Unlike the revolution, Kony 2012 tries to build a powder keg where there is none. If people are not personally involved and effected, they wont care for semantics.

What do people now have to live with? No consequences from Kony 2012 for them, but all the consequences land on the lap of Uganda. People just no longer care if its not their ass on the line. This was the case in the revolution when people were personally involved and on the line. Now what happens? Uganda's government states that its 662$ million dollar tourism industry was just destroyed by one 30 minute video. Kony 2012 did more harm to Uganda than good, especially now that a new army formed in the absence of Kony. So now a Kony-like army is still on the loose and Uganda's tourism industry was struck down.

I already put a counter to the argument that people won't do anything if it's remote in my previous post, but I guess I can add to it. The majority of the people who were against slavery either benefited from it or had nothing to do with it. The minority were slaves and westerners who didn't want to deal with the competition of slavery. That former, uninvolved group were the ones that put Lincoln into office and who started the underground railroad, despite many of them having never encountered slavery in their life.

As for your arguments that most teenagers today don't care about making a difference, I think you're stretching things a bit. Sure rates are down on volunteering, but they're still over 25%, which is probably more than the people who fought in the revolution who sere members of small communities and were largely uninterested in what happened outside of them. Volunteering is a relatively new invention, and the increasing urban population only makes it easier.

Revnak:

Ultratwinkie:

Revnak:

Except the majority didn't want change. In both of the cases that I mentioned, the majority were against those movements. Sensationalism made those movements popular, and it made those movements work. Slavery supporting democrats were in the majority right up until Abraham Lincoln, who still didn't get the majority of the popular vote (if I remember correctly). It was largely thanks to later sensationalist works like the writings of Thomas Paine that America got the military forces it needed to win the war. Considering that one of the first major American parties formed, the Federalists, preferred the British over the French, people can and have changed their minds from their initially sensationalist view.

There are people out there already that want change in Africa. Do you think that the people won't eventually start aiding them over the rather misleading IC? The exact same criteria that brought about such social movements as the revolution are present here. Why dismiss it? I supose you could say that the remoteness of the activity could cause some kind of disconnect, but that didn't stop the civil war. Sensationalism is not bad, and people swayed by it are not so stupid as to never change their minds about it. Your strangely directed criticism continues to confuse me.

Again, you assume the youths of today are the youths of the colonial era. Do you really expect people to get off their ass, away from facebook? back then, a lot more was at stake and the conesquences were dire. A revolution doesnt appear out of nowhere, there was reason enough for a revolution. The sensationalism just lit the fuse to the powder keg that built up. Unlike the revolution, Kony 2012 tries to build a powder keg where there is none. If people are not personally involved and effected, they wont care for semantics.

What do people now have to live with? No consequences from Kony 2012 for them, but all the consequences land on the lap of Uganda. People just no longer care if its not their ass on the line. This was the case in the revolution when people were personally involved and on the line. Now what happens? Uganda's government states that its 662$ million dollar tourism industry was just destroyed by one 30 minute video. Kony 2012 did more harm to Uganda than good, especially now that a new army formed in the absence of Kony. So now a Kony-like army is still on the loose and Uganda's tourism industry was struck down.

I already put a counter to the argument that people won't do anything if it's remote in my previous post, but I guess I can add to it. The majority of the people who were against slavery either benefited from it or had nothing to do with it. The minority were slaves and westerners who didn't want to deal with the competition of slavery. That former, uninvolved group were the ones that put Lincoln into office and who started the underground railroad, despite many of them having never encountered slavery in their life.

As for your arguments that most teenagers today don't care about making a difference, I think you're stretching things a bit. Sure rates are down on volunteering, but they're still over 25%, which is probably more than the people who fought in the revolution who sere members of small communities and were largely uninterested in what happened outside of them. Volunteering is a relatively new invention, and the increasing urban population only makes it easier.

Again, since when was the revolution done by people outsdide the country? Ugandans know what is happening, they live there. Americans? Not so much.

You go on about problems solved by the people within that same country. Last I checked, America didnt have "King George 1781" going for it.

Ultratwinkie:

Revnak:

Ultratwinkie:

Again, you assume the youths of today are the youths of the colonial era. Do you really expect people to get off their ass, away from facebook? back then, a lot more was at stake and the conesquences were dire. A revolution doesnt appear out of nowhere, there was reason enough for a revolution. The sensationalism just lit the fuse to the powder keg that built up. Unlike the revolution, Kony 2012 tries to build a powder keg where there is none. If people are not personally involved and effected, they wont care for semantics.

What do people now have to live with? No consequences from Kony 2012 for them, but all the consequences land on the lap of Uganda. People just no longer care if its not their ass on the line. This was the case in the revolution when people were personally involved and on the line. Now what happens? Uganda's government states that its 662$ million dollar tourism industry was just destroyed by one 30 minute video. Kony 2012 did more harm to Uganda than good, especially now that a new army formed in the absence of Kony. So now a Kony-like army is still on the loose and Uganda's tourism industry was struck down.

I already put a counter to the argument that people won't do anything if it's remote in my previous post, but I guess I can add to it. The majority of the people who were against slavery either benefited from it or had nothing to do with it. The minority were slaves and westerners who didn't want to deal with the competition of slavery. That former, uninvolved group were the ones that put Lincoln into office and who started the underground railroad, despite many of them having never encountered slavery in their life.

As for your arguments that most teenagers today don't care about making a difference, I think you're stretching things a bit. Sure rates are down on volunteering, but they're still over 25%, which is probably more than the people who fought in the revolution who sere members of small communities and were largely uninterested in what happened outside of them. Volunteering is a relatively new invention, and the increasing urban population only makes it easier.

Again, since when was the revolution done by people outsdide the country? Ugandans know what is happening, they live there. Americans? Not so much.

You go on about problems solved by the people within that same country. Last I checked, America didnt have "King George 1781" going for it.

I'm taking down specific parts of your arguments with examples from different eras of history. The one that refuted your idea that people from far away don't care was the civil war. Northerners from that time experienced just as much disconnect from slavery as modern Americans do for child soldiers. And we did have "King George 1781" only it happened earlier. The writings of Thomas Paine had to point out things that would seem incredibly obvious about their adversary, the British monarchy. A good portion of it is just going on about how the ruling class has only gained its power through war and therefore has no legitimate right to rule.

Revnak:

Ultratwinkie:

Revnak:

I already put a counter to the argument that people won't do anything if it's remote in my previous post, but I guess I can add to it. The majority of the people who were against slavery either benefited from it or had nothing to do with it. The minority were slaves and westerners who didn't want to deal with the competition of slavery. That former, uninvolved group were the ones that put Lincoln into office and who started the underground railroad, despite many of them having never encountered slavery in their life.

As for your arguments that most teenagers today don't care about making a difference, I think you're stretching things a bit. Sure rates are down on volunteering, but they're still over 25%, which is probably more than the people who fought in the revolution who sere members of small communities and were largely uninterested in what happened outside of them. Volunteering is a relatively new invention, and the increasing urban population only makes it easier.

Again, since when was the revolution done by people outsdide the country? Ugandans know what is happening, they live there. Americans? Not so much.

You go on about problems solved by the people within that same country. Last I checked, America didnt have "King George 1781" going for it.

I'm taking down specific parts of your arguments with examples from different eras of history. The one that refuted your idea that people from far away don't care was the civil war. Northerners from that time experienced just as much disconnect from slavery as modern Americans do for child soldiers. And we did have "King George 1781" only it happened earlier. The writings of Thomas Paine had to point out things that would seem incredibly obvious about their adversary, the British monarchy. A good portion of it is just going on about how the ruling class has only gained its power through war and therefore has no legitimate right to rule.

Exactly, and Thomas Paine ended up being hated when he went against the church. The crowd that he wooed to go against authority failed when he went against religious authority. He ultimately failed against religious sensationalism, and the church spent years ruining any credibility he had using lies after he died.

Ultimately, people care when their ass (ie in their own country if you havent noticed)was on the line. The British was screwing people over, yet when threats of hell came into play everyone ran off. Your civil war argument doesnt work, because its still within the same country. Kony 2012 effects a country on the other side of the world. The only way for your argument to hold would be for a European power coming in on the closing years of the war and claiming credit just like Kony 2012 did.

Ultratwinkie:

Revnak:

Ultratwinkie:

Again, since when was the revolution done by people outsdide the country? Ugandans know what is happening, they live there. Americans? Not so much.

You go on about problems solved by the people within that same country. Last I checked, America didnt have "King George 1781" going for it.

I'm taking down specific parts of your arguments with examples from different eras of history. The one that refuted your idea that people from far away don't care was the civil war. Northerners from that time experienced just as much disconnect from slavery as modern Americans do for child soldiers. And we did have "King George 1781" only it happened earlier. The writings of Thomas Paine had to point out things that would seem incredibly obvious about their adversary, the British monarchy. A good portion of it is just going on about how the ruling class has only gained its power through war and therefore has no legitimate right to rule.

Exactly, and Thomas Paine ended up being hated when he went against the church. The crowd that he wooed to go against authority failed when he went against religious authority. He ultimately failed against religious sensationalism, and the church spent years ruining any credibility he had using lies after he died.

Ultimately, people care when their ass (ie in their own country if you havent noticed)was on the line. The British was screwing people over, yet when threats of hell came into play everyone ran off. Your civil war argument doesnt work, because its still within the same country. Kony 2012 effects a country on the other side of the world. The only way for your argument to hold would be for a European power coming in on the closing years of the war and claiming credit just like Kony 2012 did.

That actually proves my point. When he did something disagreeable, the people initially swayed by his sensationalism wound up going against him. The same will be true about IC. And I think my civil war argument does work, because the disconnect is the same. Distances have shrunk. Our other side of the world is the same as the civil wars few hundred miles. A better equivilant would be the Spanish-American war I suppose. We fought in the Philippines and Cuba to free them from the Spanish. The war was brought about by sensationalist journalism. Though it didn't end in a particularly positive manner, I'd still say the movement ended better than it started.

Revnak:

Ultratwinkie:

Revnak:

I'm taking down specific parts of your arguments with examples from different eras of history. The one that refuted your idea that people from far away don't care was the civil war. Northerners from that time experienced just as much disconnect from slavery as modern Americans do for child soldiers. And we did have "King George 1781" only it happened earlier. The writings of Thomas Paine had to point out things that would seem incredibly obvious about their adversary, the British monarchy. A good portion of it is just going on about how the ruling class has only gained its power through war and therefore has no legitimate right to rule.

Exactly, and Thomas Paine ended up being hated when he went against the church. The crowd that he wooed to go against authority failed when he went against religious authority. He ultimately failed against religious sensationalism, and the church spent years ruining any credibility he had using lies after he died.

Ultimately, people care when their ass (ie in their own country if you havent noticed)was on the line. The British was screwing people over, yet when threats of hell came into play everyone ran off. Your civil war argument doesnt work, because its still within the same country. Kony 2012 effects a country on the other side of the world. The only way for your argument to hold would be for a European power coming in on the closing years of the war and claiming credit just like Kony 2012 did.

That actually proves my point. When he did something disagreeable, the people initially swayed by his sensationalism wound up going against him. The same will be true about IC. And I think my civil war argument does work, because the disconnect is the same. Distances have shrunk. Our other side of the world is the same as the civil wars few hundred miles. A better equivilant would be the Spanish-American war I suppose. We fought in the Philippines and Cuba to free them from the Spanish. The war was brought about by sensationalist journalism. Though it didn't end in a particularly positive manner, I'd still say the movement ended better than it started.

Not necessarily, because the church was still fear mongering as it ever was. The church had centuries to instill fear in people, Thomas Paine didn't. While the revolution was a cause (since authority was hated and Britain was weakened), the religious authority had a monopoly that it has since lost. Two different scenarios.

I can still bring examples of negative sensationalism. What about the litany of priests and religious zealots that capitalized off the sensationalism left after Thomas Paine? Cementing religion in America? Which culminated in Dr. Kellog who lied to the face of America to commit atrocities on children? His fear mongering sensationalism is still felt today as some took it upon themselves to continue his ideals. Sensationalism is a two edged sword, if its not handled or controlled it can and will harm you and everyone else for a long time.

I no longer support Invisable Children, but I still support the UN hunt for Kony, and the awareness that it spreads, killing of capturing Kony won't end Uganda's Struggle, let alone Africa's. The LRA wont just give up becuase their leader is dead, pherhaps they will even fight harder. But its a little step and I do feel that it might be the start of something new, the principle of letting a top ICC criminal get away is what makes me want to go after the bastard. Though if they wanted Kony out, send in a SF team instead of a simple Advisor Force, use HUMIT (Human Intellegence) and a QRF/IRF (Quick Reaction Force/ Immediate Reaction Foce.... same thing) with a helicopter and then wait 3 weeks, bang you have yourself a captured/killed UN War Criminal, its done in afganastan all the time by Australian Special Forces who hit local Warlords and Al Queda/Taliban Commanders. though I believe are resources could be better spent in Syria, or further more in the Republic of Congo, the country where the LRA and ADF are fleeing into, and cuasing more destruction there. if you truly want to fix africa, shooting bullets at a warlord wont fix the problem, I believe Ultratwinkie above summed that up pretty well

Wall of text, yo.

I saw the name of Pastor Doctor Martin Ssempa.

Thought of this.

Ultratwinkie:
Huh. I expected more discussion on such a controversial subject.

I guess my mistake was posting when most people were bitching about the endings to Mass Effect and its 15+ different threads about it.

It's not that this doesn't spike a controversy, it's the fact that those who post here are those who were generally telling people that supported this were wasting their time and not doing anything useful post here. Those who were strong supporters and made topics about how those of us who were against it should be ashamed of themselves are most likely too ashamed to post that they were wrong in their support. Since this is the internet they don't really have to admit that so they are hiding it by avoiding this thread.

Their relevance amounts to a well edited video full of misinformation, and misinformed people padding their ridiculous budget. Them possibly being tied to this other group just confuses their message more.

The only thing I am more sick of hearing about these days than Kony2012 is Mass Effect 3.

Seriously, I'm sick of these internet bandwagons, people jump on, wreck up the place, then fall off a few weeks later feeling none the better, having accomplished nothing.

I think I'll need to leave these forums for a few weeks.

Ultratwinkie:

Revnak:

Ultratwinkie:

Exactly, and Thomas Paine ended up being hated when he went against the church. The crowd that he wooed to go against authority failed when he went against religious authority. He ultimately failed against religious sensationalism, and the church spent years ruining any credibility he had using lies after he died.

Ultimately, people care when their ass (ie in their own country if you havent noticed)was on the line. The British was screwing people over, yet when threats of hell came into play everyone ran off. Your civil war argument doesnt work, because its still within the same country. Kony 2012 effects a country on the other side of the world. The only way for your argument to hold would be for a European power coming in on the closing years of the war and claiming credit just like Kony 2012 did.

That actually proves my point. When he did something disagreeable, the people initially swayed by his sensationalism wound up going against him. The same will be true about IC. And I think my civil war argument does work, because the disconnect is the same. Distances have shrunk. Our other side of the world is the same as the civil wars few hundred miles. A better equivilant would be the Spanish-American war I suppose. We fought in the Philippines and Cuba to free them from the Spanish. The war was brought about by sensationalist journalism. Though it didn't end in a particularly positive manner, I'd still say the movement ended better than it started.

Not necessarily, because the church was still fear mongering as it ever was. The church had centuries to instill fear in people, Thomas Paine didn't. While the revolution was a cause (since authority was hated and Britain was weakened), the religious authority had a monopoly that it has since lost. Two different scenarios.

I can still bring examples of negative sensationalism. What about the litany of priests and religious zealots that capitalized off the sensationalism left after Thomas Paine? Cementing religion in America? Which culminated in Dr. Kellog who lied to the face of America to commit atrocities on children? His fear mongering sensationalism is still felt today as some took it upon themselves to continue his ideals. Sensationalism is a two edged sword, if its not handled or controlled it can and will harm you and everyone else for a long time.

The worth of a sensationalist argument depends on what it is directed against. I will admit that most sensationalism is a net harm, but to disregard a social movement based on its sensationalist elements means disregarding the vast majority of successful movements. I do not believe there is a single successful social movement without these elements, save possibly AIDs awareness, as that was effectively a campaign against sensationalism, though it was never as large or successful as other movements. Like most things, sensationalism's worth is dependent upon the situation.

Where the hell did all those "if u dunt support kony 2012 u r a stupid ashole go die in a hell" people go?

Saulkar:
We all hope for a shining light amongst the scum of humanity and many thought that it would be found in the people behind the Stop Kony campaign, only to find that like everything else is no less corrupted. Making the world aware of Kony was the right step but now what? Give money to a group that affiliate with a malignant homophobe?

You're forgetting that Invisible Children is a scam.

Kony and the folks at the Ugandan government really seems to deserve each other...

New bandwagon: Ssssempa 2012! This guy are bad and anyone who disagrees with my campaign supports lynching gay people. Totally transparent funding, just send a donation via paypal to my swiss bank account - all proceeds go towards videogames hiring robot assassins.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked