Kony 2012 !

KONY 2012 is a film and campaign by Invisible Children that aims to make Joseph Kony famous, not to celebrate him, but to raise support for his arrest and set a precedent for international justice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4MnpzG5Sqc&feature=g-logo&context=G2db1bc5FOAAAAAAABAA

idk if u euros know about this vid but u should rly watch this and help spread it. it's really touching so0o0o0z.

Yeee.
Some days ago a few people invited me to the 'KONY 2012' Group.

Niggers will be Niggers.

ye this guy is a monster and we have to help the supergood ugandan goverment to stop him omg!!!11!! they sayed in video that he eat children omg we gotta stop him totally i cant believe my eyes he is worse than hitler and osama !!!!!!!! kony 2012!!!!!!





Seriously people is so tomfoolish, how do you blindly believe in a fucking youtube video made by some random organisation with high connections to the ugandan goverment? This is a perfect example of how the majority of people swallow everything they hear. Newsflash, demonizing rebel groups and their leaders is a common strategy among corrupt goverments in order to stay in control. Do you really think everyone in this gigantic rebel group is either crazy psychopaths or children forced to fight? Don't you think that perhaps the majority is against the corrupt and unfair goverment? If you fully believe in everything this video says i'm truly sorry for you because you are a brainwashed retard.

Don't get me wrong tho, i'm sure this hippie actually tries to do something good and i don't defend Kony whatsoever, i'm certain he commited a lot of horrible crimes, probably much worse than i can imagine. I just believe that minimizing this problem to a "good vs evil"-problem is insanely contraproductive. The goverment is just as corrupt, "evil" and power-hungry as the rebel groups, supporting either one of the sides is stupid. If you do a little research you will realize this very fast. The problem is that most of the people who share this on facebook can't even point out Uganda on a map, even less do they have any idea of how the situation in Uganda is.



People lacking the ability to think rational and critical is the reason to why we still have people like Kony and the CIA roaming free. If people just would stop swallowing everything they're told without a ounce of analyzation there wouldn't be any need for "help"-organisations such as invisiblechildren. But ye, it's much easier to live in the illusion of a "good vs evil" world so you can spend more of your tiny brainpower on discussing Jersey shore.



Critical and consequential thinking should be made into an obligatorical school subject.

Isn't easier to get rid of rebels (that fuck enslaved girls, brainwash little bois and cripple/break the ones that they can't brainwash in order to fight a government that doesn't act in a way the holy leader of the rebels doesn't like) and then to deal with bad government instead of watching any party win and then maybe have to deal with a situation we have 0 exp with? :/

ofc the invisblechildren make like 2/3 profit of what they earn, but do they really just brainwash us retards to... to what? earn money? even you didn't say that, so why do they brainwash us? what's the use for them if we swallow that Joseph Kony is the "bad guy"? I can't help it, but I think they really just brought our attention to the issue.. bummer they also said what they think of it :<

btw, what's your source for the motives of Kony that he acts against the government for good reasons? It's also quite imaginable that he lost his motives and became a freak

Lolz. First the all-hate-Kony campaign, now the all-hate-InvisibleChildren campaign. Both equally silly.

If sarcasm-brawler chakra didn't get what I meant I maybe should remove my post :/

Quote :

ofc the invisblechildren make like 2/3 profit of what they earn

I assume you really meant they use 2/3rds of their revenue to pay for internalized costs (such as for production, staff, transportation, etc). Just yesterday Keesey was on the news and said that Invisible Children's purpose was not to bring aid to the area, but to bring awareness... Which they seemed to have done quite well.

They are a not-for profit organization. That doesn't mean they don't pay their staff or other bills. It just means they don't seek profit (that is, for those founding/"investing" in the organization).

Enstek's post is really just retarded. Of course Uganda has a shit government. Most of Africa has shit governments. Doesn't mean we shouldn't stop warlords.

I bring crush post tomorrow, too tired now.

Thank you for posting about posting and upcoming post.

e8lakes wrote:

Isn't easier to get rid of rebels (that fuck enslaved girls, brainwash little bois and cripple/break the ones that they can't brainwash in order to fight a government that doesn't act in a way the holy leader of the rebels doesn't like) and then to deal with bad government instead of watching any party win and then maybe have to deal with a situation we have 0 exp with? :/

ofc the invisblechildren make like 2/3 profit of what they earn, but do they really just brainwash us retards to... to what? earn money? even you didn't say that, so why do they brainwash us? what's the use for them if we swallow that Joseph Kony is the "bad guy"? I can't help it, but I think they really just brought our attention to the issue.. bummer they also said what they think of it :<

btw, what's your source for the motives of Kony that he acts against the government for good reasons? It's also quite imaginable that he lost his motives and became a freak

Idk where you got that i believe Kony is good-minded from? It's pretty obvious he is a powerhungry evil person although the video probably makes him look worse than what he really is.

I got nothing against dealing with freakshow rebels, the problem is the way it's done. In the video they clearly state it should be done by helping the ugandan government, this is what i'm against. The ugandan government is basically the same shit as the rebels, sure the video might portrait the rebels as evil and the ugandan government as okay but it's a youtube video after all. If you don't believe this video makes people believe Kony is evil and the ugandan government is good you haven't watched it at all. This is what i got a problem with, turning the whole conflict into a good vs evil conflict.

I'm against choosing a side in this conflict because it's pretty obvious what it will lead to. First of all there's a reason to why the rebels even exist, it's just not some crazy fanatics who likes to commite horrible crimes, they exist because the government is powerhungry corrupt anti-democratic freakshows. By supporting the government you allow them to crush any opposition in the country under the excuse of "fighting Kony", this with the worlds good will. The government don't give a jackfuck about the "invisible children", they just want more power and if they can use the invisible children as an excuse to gain more power they will do so.

Now you might argue "Let's help Uganda to crush the rebels and then we crush the government and it's all good??" but it's not that simple. If everyone sees the government as good people and the rebels as evil the government will abuse their power even more simply because they are seen as good. This will lead to more people joining Kony since he is the easiest way to change the country, that way you make the conflict even bigger and soon we have an all out war. If you don't realize that this will ruin the country even more and cause so much more suffering than if you act otherwise i feel sorry for you.

Afghanistan is a perfect example. Our troops just makes the terrorists grow bigger and make the situation in Afghanistan grow even worse than it was before.

What do i believe we should do then? I believe violence is contraproductive, instead we should focus on helping Uganda by promoting democracy, starting up schools, creating jobs and so on. This way people will stop joining the rebels aswell as the government becoming less corrupt. In time Kony will be stopped aswell as war being avoided.



As for the hippie-organisation. I don't believe in any conspiracy, i'm sure they want to do good and all. It's just that they are too stupid to realize that what they are promoting is actually contraproductive. Just look at the guy making the video lol, he is the kind of guy who travels to africa, hold hands with some 4 year old 5 kg somalian then return to the western world and arrange a charity-show so we can donate another trillions of billions $ to Africa just to stand there and not understand wtf that happend when the situation grows even worse. Another stupid "good-doer" with other words

Also i had no idea that they took all the money they got, i didn't even know they got any money since i thought their purpose was making the world notice Kony. Anyways, if this is true it just makes what i say even more rational. If they just want to make money based on some african conflict it's obviously much easier to take a warlord and put all focus on him.

Kony is no longer (or hardly so) fighting in Uganda. He's fighting in Sudan (or South Sudan) and the Congo. Are you going to say these governments are also evil, corrupt, power-hungry entities? South Sudan was formed less than a year ago.

Kony is a warlord. His purpose isn't to spread a new kind of government; he wants to be the government: dictatorial style. This becomes even more obvious by simply stating the age of his "rebellion": 26 years. That means he started in 1986--a few years before the African revolutions towards Democracy. That is, his campaign started when Africa was already controlled by warlords. Perhaps his mission was more noble than what Uganda had before, but since then Uganda changed (actually, in the same year).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_generation_of_African_leaders

Kony is a militant from the the darker years of Africa. While Uganda is not the epitome of a westernized country (and won't be for some time), it is a much better starting point than Kony. Providing blind aid won't help the situation, it never does. We must work with someone the people identify with: the government.

What do you mean when you say "westernized country"?

A country with liberal democracy.

Quote :

When oil executives announced the discovery of the largest onshore oil reserves in the Lake Albert region of Uganda in July 2009, the landlocked, oft-neglected East African nation of Uganda went from relative obscurity to a key partner for multi-national oil conglomerates.

Although buoyed by the news, the people of Uganda were naturally cautious, having seen how oil finds in Nigeria and Angola have brought more violence, bloodshed and instability than peace or prosperity.

These worst fears of Ugandans were lent further credence late last year, when President Obama announced he would be deploying US troops on the ground in Uganda, ostensibly to help capture Joseph Kony, the charismatic leader of a small rebel force that has been accused of murders, rapes and kidnaps in Uganda for decades. The timing of the deployment, however, coming at the exact same time as accusations that some of the highest officials in the Ugandan government were guilty of accepting bribes from international oil companies, only further confirmed that the deployment had less to do with Kony, an elusive figure who in fact left Uganda six years ago, and more to do with the securing of American oil interests.

What the film’s well-meaning supporters, many of them youth activists rallying behind a political cause for the first time, don’t realize, is that the Kony film, whether wittingly or not, is accomplishing what years of Pentagon propaganda could not muster: public support for an expanded American military role in Africa.

In the end, perhaps there is something positive that can be taken out of this latest ploy to rally public support for greater military conquest. If nothing else, the Kony phenomenon has shown us that with the right video and the right marketing, any idea–no matter how periphery to the current political debate–can be catapulted into the limelight and become a rallying cry for millions.

http://www.corbettreport.com/uganda-africom-and-the-kony-boogeyman/

There's a lot more but that's what I thought was most relevant people just don't know how to think critically anymore, myself being one of them. It's just hard to discern the truth from all the propaganda and be able to work out all these hidden agendas.

Why dont you say that instead then Chakra?

And also, what is the difference between a liberal democracy and a democracy?

Because he said "west" first.

A liberal democracy is a democracy with a particularly high level of civil and political freedom. This is as opposed to Middle Eastern "democracies" and east European/Asian "democracies" (Japan/South Korea/Mongolia/etc excluded) which, while they may vote (even fairly), generally exhibit low levels basic freedoms such as speech, movement, and organization. Also very popular are one-party states (China, I think Russia, Iran, etc). Most the time religion plays a very strong role in inhibiting these freedoms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

They vote in Uganda, and their votes may be heard to a certain extent, but they are by no means a liberal democracy.

What do you mean he said west first lol?

What I really want to know I assume is why you make "westernized" a synonym to "liberal democracy"? Seems like westernized has to do with a lot of other aspects than just being a constitutional democracy, and as for political pluralism, which is one of the first things in your link, can this even be said about USA - "the epitome of a "westernized country"?

Go to the first page, do Ctrl+F, type "west". He said it first. And it isn't completely removed.
And the replacement of liberal democracy isn't so removed from "western." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westernization

Yeah, the US isn't known for pluralism. However, we have a very weak party system compared to must European countries. That is, the candidates running on a party may have very little to do with party leaders. I'm not completely sure you need permission, and if you do very low standards are applied, to run on either party (Democrat/Republican). If you are running on either, you don't need to fall perfectly in party lines, and this is often a bad thing to begin with.
That is, parties in the US don't define the politicians, politicians define the parties. This is why the platforms of Democrats/Republicans flip (Democrats were originally based on the white majority vote, now the minority vote, Democrats are now pushing for civil rights, Democrats are now progressive, etc).

But really, his post was anti-Africa, really, not just anti-Uganda, and it is probably because Africa doesn't share other elements similar to the west besides simply being a liberal democracy.

Well my point Chakra is that a country dont need to adopt western diet, music, religion, industry etc to become a liberal democracy. Most of these things have little or nothing to do with democracy in the first place. My point isnt that you used the term westernized, my point is that you used is a synonym for liberal democracy which is wrong. Westernized and liberal democracy are 2 different things, you can however argue that liberal democracy is a part of being westernized but you cannot argue that you have to be westernized to be a liberal democracy.

I wasn't speaking of only a liberal democracy, but of a westernized country--liberal democracy being just one element thereof.

Well you did write that when I asked you, but ok.

I also still think you use westernized in a way that makes it seem like thats the obvious goal for other countries. Liberal democracy might be a good idea, but maybe not McDonaldsfood and monstertrucks.

And before anyone say something about semantics. It IS important how you phrase things in this circumstances. We dont call it being "Middle-easternized" when we use Algebra, and we shouldnt call it "Westernized" when someone uses democracy just because it is a European idea.