Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
"On March 23, the African Union said it would send 5,000 soldiers to join the hunt for Mr. Kony. The mission would be launched from South Sudan, United Nations and African Union officials said."
April 3, 2012 at 3:34 am (This post was last modified: April 3, 2012 at 3:38 am by Tempus.)
(April 2, 2012 at 7:16 pm)LukeMC Wrote: 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.
(April 2, 2012 at 7:16 pm)LukeMC Wrote: 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.
(April 2, 2012 at 7:16 pm)LukeMC Wrote: 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.
(April 3, 2012 at 3:34 am)Tempus Wrote: 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.
Thanks for the response Tempus. I hadn't read all 6 pages of the discussion before chipping in so I apologize for overlooking your very important criticisms. The level of thought evident in your post is not what has seemed representative of the "unconverted" mainstream, whose lazy critiques I endeavoured to address. Some of your points have rested heavily upon my own mind, not least the potential for similarly uninformative media to inspire great evil. With the case of this video, as I mentioned briefly in my last post, many people have latched onto the campaign under false pretences and without critical inquiry. This is problematic even if the cause will do good for the world. But this criticism isn't (as you said) a direct criticism of the campaigns aims, but a healthy pondering of the means they have employed- perhaps better discussed in a general Propaganda thread than here.
(April 3, 2012 at 3:34 am)Tempus Wrote: 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".
A fair point. Again (and at risk of sounding too apologetic) I was levelling this criticism against those who haven't even taken the time to investigate the basic claims of the organization. Checking the website should really be an elementary introduction before expanding your research into wider fields. I see that you have done exactly that and I commend you for it. Again, this point rests mainly on the tactics of IC and not on the content of the campaign, with which I still tentatively side.
(April 3, 2012 at 3:34 am)Tempus Wrote: 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.
I'm frightfully aware now of the straw man I created. I wouldn't say I was "close" so much as I fully and unapologetically dove into one. I wouldn't level the same criticisms I made in that post towards the points you made or various others I've discussed the issue with. I understand that "those who dismissed the video without further investigation" are a large group but not representative of the whole, and I should have made that clear.
(April 3, 2012 at 3:34 am)Tempus Wrote: 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.
Again, thanks for the response. If I get a chance later today I'll look at making a proper response to your post on page 5.
A lot of debating going on in this thread... I'll refrain from joining those ranks just as of yet. However, i do have this to say *In fat ginger nerdy voice* KONY 2012!!!!!!!!! KONY 2012!!!!!!!!! KONY 2012!!!!!!!!!KONY 2012!!!!!!!!!
