Jump to content

Newer Bigger Better

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,778

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Newer Bigger Better

    korny 2012

    in Channel Zero

    Posted

    Hey instead of doing those pulled pork sliders i went out drinking and doing drugs. But I just took the shoulder out of the brine and dry rubbed it down. It's going in at 6 am. Ill be sure to take pics for ya.

     

    (didn't feel like looking for thread)

    korny 2012

    in Channel Zero

    Posted

    Re: kony 2012

     

    yep

     

    Opinion 1: Joseph Kony is a horrible human being and war criminal

     

    Who believes this: everyone, basically, except Rush Limbaugh and, we assume, Joseph Kony.

     

    What it entails: There's almost no dispute that Kony is a very bad dude. As the head of the Lord's Resistance Army, a violent syncretic Christian guerilla group, he's conscripted somewhere in the neighborhood of 30,000 children to fight as soldiers over the last 20-plus years, and his army committed unbelievable atrocities in northern Uganda before being forced out of the country. He's now believed to be in the Central African Republic — on the run from the Ugandan army — where (a greatly reduced) LRA continues to inflict harm and sow chaos.

    The problem with this opinion: Actually, there's no problem with the opinion that Joseph Kony sucks. The problem is figuring out the next step: given that Joseph Kony sucks, what's the best thing that the U.S. can do to help Ugandans and other Africans affected by him?

     

    Opinion 2: the U.S. military should intervene to find and arrest Kony

     

    Who believes this: Invisible Children, the charity behind the "Kony 2012" campaign

     

    What it entails: Currently, there are 100 military advisors deployed to Uganda to assist the country's army in hunting down Kony. Invisible Children, a charity that's been agitating around the issue of child soldiers and the LRA through totally hip/cool/gnarly/extreme filmmaking and social media campaigns, appears to believe that the U.S. government is wavering on its commitment to the mission. Kony 2012, with its, you guessed it, 30-minute film and extensive social-media component, is designed to not just raise awareness about Kony — to "make him famous" — but also to ensure that the government knows that "people care about Kony." Not, like, his mom, or whatever — care about capturing him.

    The problem with this opinion: Well, it's at best a gross oversimplification of a really complicated situation, and, at worst, an actively unhelpful misuse of resources and attention. Also, guys, that video? Was there not a black kid available?

     

    Opinion 3: the U.S. military should not intervene

     

    Who believes this: Writers in Foreign Policy and Foreign Affairs

     

    What it entails: Not only are U.S. troops deployed in Uganda right now, but the U.S. military has assisted with operations to capture — or, failing that, kill — Kony in the past. They've never succeeded (duh), and in many cases have made the situation worse, prompting vicious retaliatory strikes by the LRA and killing whatever small chance at peace talks might be left. Oh, and the Ugandan government and its army have a good human rights record only in comparison to Kony — they've been accused of rape and looting, and their efforts to stamp out the LRA have involved forced relocation of civilians to terrible living conditions in poorly-protected camps.

    The problem with this opinion: Invisible Children argues that the Ugandan government and military — not to mention the governments and militaries of the other countries affected by the LRA — can't effectively deal with Kony without the equipment, training and coordination that the U.S. could provide.

     

    Opinion 4: Invisible Children is misusing funds, misrepresenting facts and possibly making the situation in Uganda worse

     

    Who believes this: A number of journalists, NGO workers, African activists and academics — most prominently the blog "Visible Children"

     

    What it entails: Invisible Children is more like a hip social media filmmaking company than a charity — last year just under a third of the money it spent was on "direct services." The video is misleading and simple — it glosses over the fact that Kony left Uganda years ago, and that his army has been reduced to a few hundred people. There's a whiff of the "change your profile picture to a cartoon character to protest child abuse" about the whole campaign ("share this video and you've done all you need to do to help Africa") especially because Uganda faces more pressing issues and problems than Kony. Plus, there's that nagging sense of weird racial and colonial politics: the fact that Invisible Children's film centers around a white kid, the way its main objective is to guarantee U.S. involvement (no matter the cost), the picture that's been circulating (see it above) of the founders posing with the not-exactly-the-good-guys of the Sudanese People's Liberation Army while holding heavy-duty weaponry and putting on their best gangster grills. All of which adds up to the unfortunate message of "well-meaning westerners will save Africa," when history has generally proven the opposite to be true.

    The problem with this opinion: Not to gloss over the complexity of the situation, but: What could possibly be the problem with raising awareness? How on earth can it be a bad thing to call attention to the fact that a horrible war criminal is still at large?

     

    korny 2012

    in Channel Zero

    Posted

    Re: kony 2012

     

    Actually i was talking about raping, looting, and child enslavement.

     

     

    But what exactly is the point you're making? Cause i really don't see it at all. Are you saying that we should keep the money here and work on uncorrupting our own shit? Or are you saying that we should keep sending money to kony2012 so we can support a new regime of people doing the same thing, cause hey "at least we got that one guy"

    korny 2012

    in Channel Zero

    Posted

    Re: kony 2012

     

    i skipped page 3, cause all your ignorant babble was making me yawn, but given the obnoxious group think on this board, i doubt anything changed.

     

    the organization wasn't started to feed starving kids in uganda, it was started to bring exposure to the situation, thats why only 32%, or 50% goes to the kids. the rest is going to 'illegal lobbying', i.e.: trying to get the government to get involved and assist the ugandan government, which was the focus of the entire thing. ya'll fools acting like they're just skimming off the top and buying hookers. yes, its tough to watch some white uppity ass privileged kids get all upset about something thats been going on for thousands of years, but so what? so we're just supposed to let it keep happening cause it been happening? cause the dude behind it looks like a douche? maybe he does, but for 10 years he's been working on something far more noble than any motherfucker here has. fail or succeed, look like a total douche in a picture with a rocket launcher, he still attempted something that served no other purpose than trying to help others. fuck y'all did? racked some paint? caught tags on bitches and posted them on the internet?

     

    y'all do realize you're being as cliche as you're accusing these people of. if they're hipsters who only like something on fb to see cool, y'all are only hating to seem cool. this situation is fucked up and no matter how long its gone on, if theres an opportunity to stop it, thats a pretty big goal. not because taking out this one dude will save the world, but because of the message it sends. that in a time where no one trusts any politicians and we're all so fucking jaded that we can't even respect someones good intentions, that people can still make a difference. maybe its just sharing something on fb, making its donating a few dollars, but it all adds up to something larger and sets a president that could be applied to any number of different situations. one of which may someday matter to you. pathetic fucks.

     

     

     

    Actually i said that the 32% that manages to make it out of these dudes pockets goes to supporting military involvement. PARTICULARLY, a rebel military involvement. And this particular rebel miltitary, SHOCKINGLY ENOUGH is doing the same EXACT FUCKING THING KONY DID.

     

    also: Precedent*

    korny 2012

    in Channel Zero

    Posted

    Re: kony 2012

     

    actually i've been trying to make it about the ACTUAL issue.

     

    I do not doubt for a second that those involved in KONY 2012 have great intentions, nor do I doubt for a second that Joseph Kony is a very evil man. But despite this, I’m strongly opposed to the KONY 2012 campaign.

     

    KONY 2012 is the product of a group called Invisible Children, a controversial activist group and not-for-profit. They’ve released 11 films, most with an accompanying bracelet colour (KONY 2012 is fittingly red), all of which focus on Joseph Kony. When we buy merch from them, when we link to their video, when we put up posters linking to their website, we support the organization. I don’t think that’s a good thing, and I’m not alone.

     

    Invisible Children has been condemned time and time again. As a registered not-for-profit, its finances are public. Last year, the organization spent $8,676,614. Only 32% went to direct services (page 6), with much of the rest going to staff salaries, travel and transport, and film production. This is far from ideal for an issue which arguably needs action and aid, not awareness, and Charity Navigator rates their accountability 2/4 stars because they lack an external audit committee. But it goes way deeper than that.

     

    The group is in favour of direct military intervention, and their money supports the Ugandan government’s army and various other military forces. Here’s a photo of the founders of Invisible Children posing with weapons and personnel of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army. Both the Ugandan army and Sudan People’s Liberation Army are riddled with accusations of rape and looting, but Invisible Children defends them, arguing that the Ugandan army is “better equipped than that of any of the other affected countries”, although Kony is no longer active in Uganda and hasn’t been since 2006 by their own admission. These books each refer to the rape and sexual assault that are perennial issues with the UPDF, the military group Invisible Children is defending.

     

    Still, the bulk of Invisible Children’s spending isn’t on supporting African militias, but on awareness and filmmaking. Which can be great, except that Foreign Affairs has claimed that Invisible Children (among others) “manipulates facts for strategic purposes, exaggerating the scale of LRA abductions and murders and emphasizing the LRA’s use of innocent children as soldiers, and portraying Kony — a brutal man, to be sure — as uniquely awful, a Kurtz-like embodiment of evil.” He’s certainly evil, but exaggeration and manipulation to capture the public eye is unproductive, unprofessional and dishonest.

     

    As Chris Blattman, a political scientist at Yale, writes on the topic of IC’s programming, “There’s also something inherently misleading, naive, maybe even dangerous, about the idea of rescuing children or saving of Africa. […] It hints uncomfortably of the White Man’s Burden. Worse, sometimes it does more than hint. The savior attitude is pervasive in advocacy, and it inevitably shapes programming. Usually misconceived programming.”

     

    Still, Kony’s a bad guy, and he’s been around a while. Which is why the US has been involved in stopping him for years. U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) has sent multiple missions to capture or kill Kony over the years. And they’ve failed time and time again, each provoking a ferocious response and increased retaliative slaughter. The issue with taking out a man who uses a child army is that his bodyguards are children. Any effort to capture or kill him will almost certainly result in many children’s deaths, an impact that needs to be minimized as much as possible. Each attempt brings more retaliation. And yet Invisible Children supports military intervention. Kony has been involved in peace talks in the past, which have fallen through. But Invisible Children is now focusing on military intervention.

     

    Military intervention may or may not be the right idea, but people supporting KONY 2012 probably don’t realize they’re supporting the Ugandan military who are themselves raping and looting away. If people know this and still support Invisible Children because they feel it’s the best solution based on their knowledge and research, I have no issue with that. But I don’t think most people are in that position, and that’s a problem.

     

    Is awareness good? Yes. But these problems are highly complex, not one-dimensional and, frankly, aren’t of the nature that can be solved by postering, film-making and changing your Facebook profile picture, as hard as that is to swallow. Giving your money and public support to Invisible Children so they can spend it on supporting ill-advised violent intervention and movie #12 isn’t helping. Do I have a better answer? No, I don’t, but that doesn’t mean that you should support KONY 2012 just because it’s something. Something isn’t always better than nothing. Sometimes it’s worse.

     

    If you want to write to your Member of Parliament or your Senator or the President or the Prime Minister, by all means, go ahead. If you want to post about Joseph Kony’s crimes on Facebook, go ahead. But let’s keep it about Joseph Kony, not KONY 2012.

    • Like 1

    korny 2012

    in Channel Zero

    Posted

    Re: kony 2012

     

    BUMP IT. donate, make your worthless life mean something, even if its something small.

     

    ahem

     

    Invisible Children has been condemned time and time again. As a registered not-for-profit, its finances are public. Last year, the organization spent $8,676,614. Only 32% went to direct services (page 6), with much of the rest going to staff salaries, travel and transport, and film production. This is far from ideal, and Charity Navigator rates their accountability 2/4 stars because they haven't had their finances externally audited. But it goes way deeper than that.

     

    That's fine though. Way to look into shit. Solid bandwaggoning right there.

×
×
  • Create New...