More Kony Shit

[Tempus]

The reason I find the objections of the unconverted to be particularly irritating is

---

because they reflect the same armchair whimsy displayed by creationists when they say "evolution can't be true because then there wouldn't be any monkeys left." If said creationist were to venture as far as a textbook, they would find in abundance the answers to their critiques. In the case of Kony, people offer arguments such as "he's not even in Uganda any more", "he's not as strong as he used to be" and "liking videos won't make politicians act" as if the people at Invisible Children were unaware of these facts. Most of these arguments have been dealt with on their website, data has been published and further video and text documents outline what their funds actually achieve on the ground. This includes radio networks, early warning systems, information on how to defect from the LRA and also rehabilitation projects for the areas affected.

---

Have a look at my post on page 5 - none of my criticisms include that. In fact, I think politicians WILL act under public pressure, which is precisely why I'm concerned. Politicians are (supposed to be) representives of the people, so it is expected they do what the public wants, but if they're caving under the pressure of an ignorant population that's not going to help anyone.

My primary concern with Kony 2012 isn't particularly specific to the campaign (although I also have secondary specific concerns). A concise way of putting my primary concern could be stated like this:

• Organisation X makes misleading and simplified but nonetheless persuasive argument for cause Y
  
• The general public, ignorant in regards to much of the subject of cause Y then heavily supports it
  
• Politicians, now under the weight of public pressure and close to presidential elections, support cause Y to maintain their own support and not look callous.
  

As you can see with the names (and their baggage) removed it doesn't particularly matter whether the organisation or their cause is good or bad. Provided the argument for cause Y is persuasive enough, people will act. And remember, it's incorrect to assume the persuasiveness of an argument comes from how well it is supported by facts. People are persuaded by many things - sometimes facts.

All you have to do to find out what the claimants are actually claiming is to invest a little extra time in investigating the content behind their movement. Go to their website and see for yourself before you set up a strawman to debunk.

I did. I didn't stop at their website though, I did other research on central African history, foreign aid in africa, Joseph Kony and the LRA, IC and their affiliates, as well as refreshers on the techniques used in advertising, psychology and sociology (as they relate to persuading people). Since this research took place over the span of a week I'm not suggesting it's anything more than a crash course, but it's better than simply visiting the website of the people promoting the cause. It'd be like saying "people say McDonald's is unhealthy, but if they just visited their website they'd see this argument has been dealt with". To be clear I'm only using that example to illustrate the mistaken reasoning, I'm not equating McDonald's with IC.

see for yourself before you set up a strawman to debunk.

There's strawman arguments on both sides. You're close to making one by seeming to assume that all critiques spout the same "iT's a SCAM guyz Kody isnt even in uganda anymore lol". Some people actually did do research and still have issues with it. Instead of shouting down, making facetious remarks or outright ignoring actual criticisms maybe some of the supporters might address the actual issues instead of pretending we all think nobody knows Kony isn't in Uganda. That last sentence isn't personally directed toward you, LukeMC - it's more a general response to the replies I've seen by supporters to critics.