Either you believe the Kony 2012 video will do anything to actually change how people act and will alter what they do, or you don't.
If you don't, I can't see how you in good conscience can suggest that it has any value at all, it's absolutely no different at that point than reading all about how Snooki is pregnant (and she totally is, btw) or spending your day reading Reddit posts about Mass Effect 3 and jerking off into a sock.
If it doesn't do anything, and it doesn't really ask anyone to do anything except "raise awareness", then it's noise. It's the Jersey Shore for slacktivists.
If, however, it does do anything at all to influence how people think and act, if it will have any traction beyond this week when the next internet meme takes Facebook by storm, then I don't know how you can honestly say that the Kony 2012 video is going to result in anyone thinking or doing anything good.
If so, suggest how. I'd fucking love to hear it.
A pre-existing emotional investment in Africa is going to make someone more susceptible to advertising from non-profits, it's going to make them more likely to read international news articles that concern it, it's going to make them more likely to share this interest with the people around them.
You seem to believe that awareness itself does not lead to benefits, when it has been shown in the past to absolutely do so.
I also want to add that the Kony 2012 campaign doesn't actually have any outright lies or misinformation, all of the problems with it are due to misdirection or over-simplification. I honestly believe that someone who has gotten their idea of the political climate surrounding the area from the video will be responsive to being correctly educated to the nuances of the political situation.
EDIT:
That is to say, if they were a person who would be receptive to being educated about the nuances of the political situation at all.
my cousin worked for the red cross and had a lot of bad shit to say about them
whereas everybody i know who has been involved with msf say they are tru ballas
The Red Cross are basically so colossally huge that organizational problems and instances of unethical conduct by their membership is basically inevitable.
But, this is sort of a problem intrinsic to people's attitudes towards NGOs. People become jaded towards trusting any group because all it takes is the bad conduct of some to make people suspicious of doing anything, paralyzed by indecision and doubt that any NGO is actually who they purport to be and are on the up-and-up.
This is where groups like Invisible Children are harmful to the operations of legitimate NGOs. Because when people's blithe ignorance and enthusiasm gets challenged by say, folks like me, the reaction of some is to just say "Well fuck it, then, Africa's just a mess and if I can't trust any group I'm not going to bother"
Either you believe the Kony 2012 video will do anything to actually change how people act and will alter what they do, or you don't.
If you don't, I can't see how you in good conscience can suggest that it has any value at all, it's absolutely no different at that point than reading all about how Snooki is pregnant (and she totally is, btw) or spending your day reading Reddit posts about Mass Effect 3 and jerking off into a sock.
If it doesn't do anything, and it doesn't really ask anyone to do anything except "raise awareness", then it's noise. It's the Jersey Shore for slacktivists.
If, however, it does do anything at all to influence how people think and act, if it will have any traction beyond this week when the next internet meme takes Facebook by storm, then I don't know how you can honestly say that the Kony 2012 video is going to result in anyone thinking or doing anything good.
If so, suggest how. I'd fucking love to hear it.
A pre-existing emotional investment in Africa is going to make someone more susceptible to advertising from non-profits, it's going to make them more likely to read international news articles that concern it, it's going to make them more likely to share this interest with the people around them.
You seem to believe that awareness itself does not lead to benefits, when it has been shown in the past to absolutely do so.
I also want to add that the Kony 2012 campaign doesn't actually have any outright lies or misinformation, all of the problems with it are due to misdirection or over-simplification. I honestly believe that someone who has gotten their idea of the political climate surrounding the area from the video will be responsive to being correctly educated to the nuances of the political situation.
EDIT:
That is to say, if they were a person who would be receptive to being educated about the nuances of the political situation at all.
Bullshit and cite.
0
Options
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
I. Huh. I could actually do MSF. No plans once I qualify, no jobs lined up or anything...
But I gotta ask, what makes, say, UNICEF better than Invisible Children? Either way you're giving money on faith that it'll go where it should, right?
Awareness campaigns raise money for those best positioned to get it. In this case, a bunch of warmongers. Even when it goes to a good charity, it can cause problems when the problems needed solving are long term that aren't helped by short term donations like with Haiti.
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited March 2012
accountability
you can also check the percentages of money going to the causes they purport to support, etc and on those measurements invisible children compare poorly
I. Huh. I could actually do MSF. No plans once I qualify, no jobs lined up or anything...
But I gotta ask, what makes, say, UNICEF better than Invisible Children? Either way you're giving money on faith that it'll go where it should, right?
UNICEF is very accountable and transparent. There's criticisms of some moves they make and some decisions that they have engaged in that I feel are totally fair to have, but as a whole the organization is good and does good things and this can be supported and monitored.
So why, really, are we aid insiders so bothered? It’s the big green monster. Is there another charity whose message has captivated so many so fast? About six months ago, my niece “Lisa” in Chicago excitedly asked me to contribute to Invisible Children. At the time, I’d never heard of it. I poked around. I can’t say I was taken by the cause, but I couldn’t help feeling envious of IC’s having so effectively reached Lisa, usually more interested in dance and boys. These young upstarts at IC are the next big thing. And we aren’t.
Why? Well, for one, they have a simple message that people grasp. For another, good looks. More importantly, Invisible Children has discovered what the entertainment industry figured out a decade ago. It’s not about us old timers. It’s not people who read the Philip Roth or contribute conscientiously to their pension fund. It’s about the under 25s, maybe even the under 15s. It’s about the kids. That’s why there are a couple dozen TV shows about teenage vampires. That’s why we have Jedward.
The aid industry has just been Biebered. IC’s hundreds of thousands of donor / activist – they were invisible to us. Kids. That’s the target and that’s the message. If you think the aid world depends on gray haired HNWIs (High Net Worth Individuals, aka rich folk), wait and see what IC does with its pubescent legions.
My advice to the aid industry? First, get over it. Then, get on the boat.
If you really do bemoan the state of children in Africa and want to help living children instead of invoking an atavistic vengeful urge to punish a man who has killed thousands like Kony or General Butt Naked
then support Africa AHEAD, which is a sub-saharan Africa-specific hygiene, nutrition, and health charity that is pretty good.
This isn't IC preaching to the choir. It's IC trying to create a new choir out of new converts, one which sings battle hymns over the beat of war drums.
It's downright disgusting how IC simply glosses over the problems with the Ugandan government and military, and argues that the US should support them with war advisers and materiel, simply because they're opposed to Kony - as seen here:
We do not defend any of the human rights abuses perpetrated by the Ugandan government or the Ugandan army (UPDF). None of the money donated through Invisible Children ever goes to the government of Uganda or any other government. Yet the only feasible and proper way to stop Kony and protect the civilians he targets is to coordinate efforts with regional governments.
Seriously, how many times do we have to get fucked over by this idiotic "enemy of my enemy is my friend" crap?
- Soviets are bad, we better help Osama bin Laden!
- Iran is bad, we better help Saddam Hussein!
FFS, in 1996 American advisers were right in the middle of training Rwandan troops when Rwanda invaded Zaire (now named Democratic Republic of the Congo) and started genociding up the place.
The Ugandan govt/army are no angels. In fact, they do all the same things Kony's LRA is accused of.
Finds that the Republic of Uganda, by the conduct of its armed forces, which committed acts of killing, torture and other forms of inhumane treatment of the Congolese civilian population, destroyed villages and civilian buildings, failed to distinguish between civilian and military targets and to protect the civilian population in fighting with other combatants, trained child soldiers, incited ethnic conflict and failed to take measures to put an end to such conflict; as well as by its failure, as an occupying Power, to take measures to respect and ensure respect for human rights and international humanitarian law in Ituri district, violated its obligations under international human rights law and international humanitarian law;
WTF, IC can't have it both ways. If they're so opposed to child soldiers, then they shouldn't advocate helping the Ugandan military that uses child soldiers!
I'm not sure what slick production values mean, video seemed terrible to me - took forever to get to the point and the narrator sounds like he's reading a script in or acting in a bad play even when actually talking to Jacob the first time they met.
I wouldn't be surprised if the real story here is whatever it was that got this started, because I just don't believe a 30 min video that starts like that became this big thing on it's own without some help to reach the critical mass where you're now talking about how it became a big thing.
Or maybe it is just really well focused on it's target audience and doesn't translate well outside of the US?
Warchild's response is the only thing I've seen in my little corner of social media, though I read the Guardian articles first.
I also want to add that the Kony 2012 campaign doesn't actually have any outright lies or misinformation, all of the problems with it are due to misdirection or over-simplification. I honestly believe that someone who has gotten their idea of the political climate surrounding the area from the video will be responsive to being correctly educated to the nuances of the political situation.
The Kony 2012 campaign claims to oppose the US of child soldiers, even as it advocates the US providing military aid to the Ugandan government, which uses child soldiers.
If that's not an outright lie or misinformation, what is it?
Two of the charities that were on the Givewell site last year are no longer recommended because your money would have less marginal effectiveness than donating somewhere else. That garners a whole ton of trust from me.
So why, really, are we aid insiders so bothered? It’s the big green monster. Is there another charity whose message has captivated so many so fast? About six months ago, my niece “Lisa” in Chicago excitedly asked me to contribute to Invisible Children. At the time, I’d never heard of it. I poked around. I can’t say I was taken by the cause, but I couldn’t help feeling envious of IC’s having so effectively reached Lisa, usually more interested in dance and boys. These young upstarts at IC are the next big thing. And we aren’t.
Why? Well, for one, they have a simple message that people grasp. For another, good looks. More importantly, Invisible Children has discovered what the entertainment industry figured out a decade ago. It’s not about us old timers. It’s not people who read the Philip Roth or contribute conscientiously to their pension fund. It’s about the under 25s, maybe even the under 15s. It’s about the kids. That’s why there are a couple dozen TV shows about teenage vampires. That’s why we have Jedward.
The aid industry has just been Biebered. IC’s hundreds of thousands of donor / activist – they were invisible to us. Kids. That’s the target and that’s the message. If you think the aid world depends on gray haired HNWIs (High Net Worth Individuals, aka rich folk), wait and see what IC does with its pubescent legions.
My advice to the aid industry? First, get over it. Then, get on the boat.
He totally has a point. I can absolutely say there's a measure of envy in my fury at IC, because I'd fucking love it if the charities I support and promote could get this kind of airplay. Mind you, I'm not shocked that Invisible Children have been successful. Of course they have. But then I've been sending emails to this effect up the food chain at MSF for a while now to get them to change their outreach programs and marketing.
That said, I have yet to see the proof in that pudding. Whether or not Facebook likes and retweets are actually going to result in a lasting growth for IC's efforts or finances remains to be see. I don't know how many retweeters are actually buying IC's "Action Kits" (jesus fucking christ I get mad writing that), but I don't imagine it's many.
So, while it's safe to say I'm annoyed at how swiftly and easily IC has captivated the social media for right now, compared to how say MSF struggles to self-promote, I'm not too envious because slacktivism rarely turns into activism and I have serious doubts that this buzz is gonna survive the next Rebecca Black for the attention span of the internet.
my cousin worked for the red cross and had a lot of bad shit to say about them
whereas everybody i know who has been involved with msf say they are tru ballas
I was at a mock united nations assembly near the end of high school, at the beginning of which we listened to a speech given by a doctor from MSF. It was, without exaggeration, a moment that has stuck with me nearly a decade and a half later.
Tru ballas indeed. They're up there with Childs Play on my... whatever the opposite of a "shit list" is.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
He totally has a point. I can absolutely say there's a measure of envy in my fury at IC, because I'd fucking love it if the charities I support and promote could get this kind of airplay. Mind you, I'm not shocked that Invisible Children have been successful. Of course they have. But then I've been sending emails to this effect up the food chain at MSF for a while now to get them to change their outreach programs and marketing.
That said, I have yet to see the proof in that pudding. Whether or not Facebook likes and retweets are actually going to result in a lasting growth for IC's efforts or finances remains to be see. I don't know how many retweeters are actually buying IC's "Action Kits" (jesus fucking christ I get mad writing that), but I don't imagine it's many.
So, while it's safe to say I'm annoyed at how swiftly and easily IC has captivated the social media for right now, compared to how say MSF struggles to self-promote, I'm not too envious because slacktivism rarely turns into activism and I have serious doubts that this buzz is gonna survive the next Rebecca Black for the attention span of the internet.
Well, I tell you what then. If IC accomplishes nothing else, what they've done is they just showed all the good charities exactly what they have to do to reach the audience they want to reach. That's something they can put to use for themselves later on.
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
A pre-existing emotional investment in Africa is going to make someone more susceptible to advertising from non-profits, it's going to make them more likely to read international news articles that concern it, it's going to make them more likely to share this interest with the people around them.
or it fatigues the public about the issue and prevents them from consuming more legitimate media about issues in the region.
Or they watch the video, google up some of the background on it and find this thread. Then what?
I no longer believe it's really possible to accomplish anything serious by trying to 'fool' people into paying attention to your issue like this. Real, sustainable activism (whether that means volunteering or being a donor or just writing an amnesty letter) requires commitment, and sensationalist stuff like this destroys that every time. Plus, it feeds into a lot of the negative stereotypes about african/third world charity work.
The best thing you can say this video does is contribute to the vague western idea that africa is generally fucked up. But you know what? Western people have that idea already. It's ingrained enough in our pop culture that even if it stopped being actually true, you could probably get americans to donate to african charities.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
A pre-existing emotional investment in Africa is going to make someone more susceptible to advertising from non-profits, it's going to make them more likely to read international news articles that concern it, it's going to make them more likely to share this interest with the people around them.
or it fatigues the public about the issue and prevents them from consuming more legitimate media about issues in the region.
Or they watch the video, google up some of the background on it and find this thread. Then what?
I no longer believe it's really possible to accomplish anything serious by trying to 'fool' people into paying attention to your issue like this. Real, sustainable activism (whether that means volunteering or being a donor or just writing an amnesty letter) requires commitment, and sensationalist stuff like this destroys that every time. Plus, it feeds into a lot of the negative stereotypes about african/third world charity work.
The best thing you can say this video does is contribute to the vague western idea that africa is generally fucked up. But you know what? Western people have that idea already. It's ingrained enough in our pop culture that even if it stopped being actually true, you could probably get americans to donate to african charities.
Well, I tell you what then. If IC accomplishes nothing else, what they've done is they just showed all the good charities exactly what they have to do to reach the audience they want to reach. That's something they can put to use for themselves later on.
Good charities want a stream of donations rather than for five minutes before they get bored like they would get if they relied on this kind of shit.
Well, I tell you what then. If IC accomplishes nothing else, what they've done is they just showed all the good charities exactly what they have to do to reach the audience they want to reach. That's something they can put to use for themselves later on.
Good charities want a stream of donations rather than for five minutes before they get bored like they would get if they relied on this kind of shit.
I do think legit charities (MSF in particular, to put a fine point on it) need to work harder to embrace viral marketing type techniques and social media outreach
BUT!
They have to do it via legitimate information, non-sensationalist messages, and avoiding horseshit like "Click Like to help stop child abuse!"
You know, the hard way. Because that creates lasting revenue and support.
Nonetheless, there are lessons on what to do and not to do from Invisible Children. Mostly what not to do.
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
I am deeply skeptical that people sharing the Kony 2012 video is in any way replacing actual activism.
Beyond fatiguing the issue, IC is advocating for the Ugandan government. And outside of their relatively successful anti-HIV/AIDS efforts, the Ugandan government is pretty messed up.
At best, the Kony 2012 campaign serves as useful idiots by driving up popular support for American military intervention in Uganda - which just happens to have discovered massive oil reserves within the last decade.
Uganda is really about money. Just like Libya was. Just like Iraq was. All the talk you hear about humanitarian issues is a smokescreen.
What IC has done is absolutely effective publicity. The fact that this thread exists is proof enough of that. But so what? A lot of individuals and organizations have managed to get their 15 minutes (or 30, in this case) with a good publicity stunt.
The question is, can IC leverage this publicity into an actual good outcome for the people in uganda? Almost anybody is willing to momentarily change their facebook status or watch a youtube video. How many of those people (prepubescents, apparently) can you get to actually do something?
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Either you believe the Kony 2012 video will do anything to actually change how people act and will alter what they do, or you don't.
If you don't, I can't see how you in good conscience can suggest that it has any value at all, it's absolutely no different at that point than reading all about how Snooki is pregnant (and she totally is, btw) or spending your day reading Reddit posts about Mass Effect 3 and jerking off into a sock.
If it doesn't do anything, and it doesn't really ask anyone to do anything except "raise awareness", then it's noise. It's the Jersey Shore for slacktivists.
If, however, it does do anything at all to influence how people think and act, if it will have any traction beyond this week when the next internet meme takes Facebook by storm, then I don't know how you can honestly say that the Kony 2012 video is going to result in anyone thinking or doing anything good.
If so, suggest how. I'd fucking love to hear it.
A pre-existing emotional investment in Africa is going to make someone more susceptible to advertising from non-profits, it's going to make them more likely to read international news articles that concern it, it's going to make them more likely to share this interest with the people around them.
You seem to believe that awareness itself does not lead to benefits, when it has been shown in the past to absolutely do so.
I also want to add that the Kony 2012 campaign doesn't actually have any outright lies or misinformation, all of the problems with it are due to misdirection or over-simplification. I honestly believe that someone who has gotten their idea of the political climate surrounding the area from the video will be responsive to being correctly educated to the nuances of the political situation.
EDIT:
That is to say, if they were a person who would be receptive to being educated about the nuances of the political situation at all.
If you’re on Facebook, you’ve probably not failed to notice the meme that has been transforming your friends and contacts into cartoon characters over the last month on behalf of the NSPCC. Of uncertain origins, and centralised at a community page created by Jay, ”a volunteer who aims to raise awareness about Worldwide Violence Against Children and Child Abuse”.
The campaign, despite not being affiliated directly with the NSPCC, has enticed multitudes of Facebook users to swap their profile picture for a cartoon character from their youth: “The aim is not to see a human face on FB until Monday (Dec 6th). Join the fight against child abuse and copy and paste to your status.”
However, the meme has been criticised and widely discussed due to its unknown origins – from blaming a secret society of paedophiles (predictably suggested by the Daily Mail) to the suspicion that the campaign was actually a Green and Cypriot meme originated to celebrate cartoons and comic books, and somewhere along the way took on an additional representation.
Mainly, though, the whole situation has attracted negative attention for its apparent ‘uselessness’ – that changing your profile pic is not active support for the charity and won’t make a difference, or that most users are just taking the chance to flaunt their taste in cartoons: “Look everyone, look how cool and retro my favorite 80s or 90s cartoon character is!”
The NSPCC made clear that they were not responsible for the campaign, but were happy to accept the results it produced, describing today on Twitter how it had created “a massive jump in traffic to [the] website and an unprecedented surge in donations”.
Either you believe the Kony 2012 video will do anything to actually change how people act and will alter what they do, or you don't.
If you don't, I can't see how you in good conscience can suggest that it has any value at all, it's absolutely no different at that point than reading all about how Snooki is pregnant (and she totally is, btw) or spending your day reading Reddit posts about Mass Effect 3 and jerking off into a sock.
If it doesn't do anything, and it doesn't really ask anyone to do anything except "raise awareness", then it's noise. It's the Jersey Shore for slacktivists.
If, however, it does do anything at all to influence how people think and act, if it will have any traction beyond this week when the next internet meme takes Facebook by storm, then I don't know how you can honestly say that the Kony 2012 video is going to result in anyone thinking or doing anything good.
If so, suggest how. I'd fucking love to hear it.
A pre-existing emotional investment in Africa is going to make someone more susceptible to advertising from non-profits, it's going to make them more likely to read international news articles that concern it, it's going to make them more likely to share this interest with the people around them.
You seem to believe that awareness itself does not lead to benefits, when it has been shown in the past to absolutely do so.
I also want to add that the Kony 2012 campaign doesn't actually have any outright lies or misinformation, all of the problems with it are due to misdirection or over-simplification. I honestly believe that someone who has gotten their idea of the political climate surrounding the area from the video will be responsive to being correctly educated to the nuances of the political situation.
EDIT:
That is to say, if they were a person who would be receptive to being educated about the nuances of the political situation at all.
If you’re on Facebook, you’ve probably not failed to notice the meme that has been transforming your friends and contacts into cartoon characters over the last month on behalf of the NSPCC. Of uncertain origins, and centralised at a community page created by Jay, ”a volunteer who aims to raise awareness about Worldwide Violence Against Children and Child Abuse”.
The campaign, despite not being affiliated directly with the NSPCC, has enticed multitudes of Facebook users to swap their profile picture for a cartoon character from their youth: “The aim is not to see a human face on FB until Monday (Dec 6th). Join the fight against child abuse and copy and paste to your status.”
However, the meme has been criticised and widely discussed due to its unknown origins – from blaming a secret society of paedophiles (predictably suggested by the Daily Mail) to the suspicion that the campaign was actually a Green and Cypriot meme originated to celebrate cartoons and comic books, and somewhere along the way took on an additional representation.
Mainly, though, the whole situation has attracted negative attention for its apparent ‘uselessness’ – that changing your profile pic is not active support for the charity and won’t make a difference, or that most users are just taking the chance to flaunt their taste in cartoons: “Look everyone, look how cool and retro my favorite 80s or 90s cartoon character is!”
The NSPCC made clear that they were not responsible for the campaign, but were happy to accept the results it produced, describing today on Twitter how it had created “a massive jump in traffic to [the] website and an unprecedented surge in donations”.
That is not a cite that is a press release.
Winky, I'm done here, dude. I feel I've made my point. You're aggressively not getting it. I have nothing further to say, negative or positive, and you're not really interested in acknowledging the points other people are making, instead just repeating the same "BUT IT STILL DOES SOMETHING" point.
When you make a claim and I ask you to cite it, you quote a guy doing spin. I just... I give up, brah.
You carry on. You raise your awareness or buy your action kits or whatever.
Either you believe the Kony 2012 video will do anything to actually change how people act and will alter what they do, or you don't.
If you don't, I can't see how you in good conscience can suggest that it has any value at all, it's absolutely no different at that point than reading all about how Snooki is pregnant (and she totally is, btw) or spending your day reading Reddit posts about Mass Effect 3 and jerking off into a sock.
If it doesn't do anything, and it doesn't really ask anyone to do anything except "raise awareness", then it's noise. It's the Jersey Shore for slacktivists.
If, however, it does do anything at all to influence how people think and act, if it will have any traction beyond this week when the next internet meme takes Facebook by storm, then I don't know how you can honestly say that the Kony 2012 video is going to result in anyone thinking or doing anything good.
If so, suggest how. I'd fucking love to hear it.
A pre-existing emotional investment in Africa is going to make someone more susceptible to advertising from non-profits, it's going to make them more likely to read international news articles that concern it, it's going to make them more likely to share this interest with the people around them.
You seem to believe that awareness itself does not lead to benefits, when it has been shown in the past to absolutely do so.
I also want to add that the Kony 2012 campaign doesn't actually have any outright lies or misinformation, all of the problems with it are due to misdirection or over-simplification. I honestly believe that someone who has gotten their idea of the political climate surrounding the area from the video will be responsive to being correctly educated to the nuances of the political situation.
EDIT:
That is to say, if they were a person who would be receptive to being educated about the nuances of the political situation at all.
If you’re on Facebook, you’ve probably not failed to notice the meme that has been transforming your friends and contacts into cartoon characters over the last month on behalf of the NSPCC. Of uncertain origins, and centralised at a community page created by Jay, ”a volunteer who aims to raise awareness about Worldwide Violence Against Children and Child Abuse”.
The campaign, despite not being affiliated directly with the NSPCC, has enticed multitudes of Facebook users to swap their profile picture for a cartoon character from their youth: “The aim is not to see a human face on FB until Monday (Dec 6th). Join the fight against child abuse and copy and paste to your status.”
However, the meme has been criticised and widely discussed due to its unknown origins – from blaming a secret society of paedophiles (predictably suggested by the Daily Mail) to the suspicion that the campaign was actually a Green and Cypriot meme originated to celebrate cartoons and comic books, and somewhere along the way took on an additional representation.
Mainly, though, the whole situation has attracted negative attention for its apparent ‘uselessness’ – that changing your profile pic is not active support for the charity and won’t make a difference, or that most users are just taking the chance to flaunt their taste in cartoons: “Look everyone, look how cool and retro my favorite 80s or 90s cartoon character is!”
The NSPCC made clear that they were not responsible for the campaign, but were happy to accept the results it produced, describing today on Twitter how it had created “a massive jump in traffic to [the] website and an unprecedented surge in donations”.
That is not a cite that is a press release.
Winky, I'm done here, dude. I feel I've made my point. You're aggressively not getting it. I have nothing further to say, negative or positive, and you're not really interested in acknowledging the points other people are making, instead just repeating the same "BUT IT STILL DOES SOMETHING" point.
When you make a claim and I ask you to cite it, you quote a guy doing spin. I just... I give up, brah.
You carry on. You raise your awareness or buy your action kits or whatever.
I'm Cave Johnson and we're done here.
What? What the fuck does it even matter? The thing I was pointing attention to there was the twitter post where NSPCC described an "unprecedented surge in donations", that is clearly fucking fact! Did you want me to get you a link to their personal finances and cross-reference that against the cartoon character fad?
You're being ridiculous Pony, and you've erected a massive fucking strawman.
I'm having a hard time understanding what the point actually is that's in dispute here.
Do you have some disagreement with the general concept of issue fatigue, or as it relates to social media specifically?
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
0
Options
Element BrianPeanut Butter ShillRegistered Userregular
Before last week I didn't know who Kony was. But now I do. Does that mean I support IC? Nope. But that does mean they suceeded in raising awareness so that I can donate to worthwhile NGO's.
I'm having a hard time understanding what the point actually is that's in dispute here.
Do you have some disagreement with the general concept of issue fatigue, or as it relates to social media specifically?
My citation was concerning whether slacktivist awareness campaigns actually have beneficial effects.
The cite I asked for was whether you can show that people have "issue fatigue" due to awareness campaigns. Like, can you actually show that hearing about problems in Africa makes someone less likely to care about Africa?
This isn't IC preaching to the choir. It's IC trying to create a new choir out of new converts, one which sings battle hymns over the beat of war drums.
That's an appropriate turn of phrase, given that Invisible Children's founders are, at the very least, in bed with the American evangelical missionary movement.
Is Invisible Children a nonprofit devoted to human needs, or is it a ministry devoted to bringing souls to Jesus ? Judging by a talk co-founder Jason Russell gave last November at Liberty University, it would seem to be a bit of both.
We do not have an interest in spreading conspiracy theories. There is no evidence of any direct and deliberate collusion for ulterior motives. JP Morgan is not the puppet-master of Invisible Children. However, we recognise that those who do believe in such conspiracy theories will damage Uganda less than those who support the armed intervention and promulgation of ignorance that is championed by Invisible Children. Our analysis is intended to show the coincidence of interests and aims of Invisible Children with a material analysis of its partners. It does not show direct, deliberate collusion with Invisible Children at all – only that there is an overlap of interests. In that vein, we have looked into the work of its other supporters and partners.
Of Invisible Children’s network of supporters, two are run on a specifically US evangelical Christian stance. These are AIM AIR and National Christian Foundation. AIM AIR involves itself in the transport of resources to help expand evangelical work and Christian relief in Africa. Their aim is to “share the vision of Africa Inland Mission: to see Christ-centered churches among all African peoples.” National Christian Foundation sponsor organisations who push Christian ideals. They believe in funding organisations that will lift those out of poverty and educate them with Western Christian morality. They seek evangelism and discipleship amongst less controversial aims such as clean drinking water.
The National Christian Foundation is run by board members who have ties to many conservative religious political organisations.Terry Parker is a founder of National Christian Foundation and has served on the Family Research Council , which is registered as a hate group by Southern Poverty Law Center for its denigration of the LGBTQ movement and lobbying against equality legislation. James B. McCabe is senior vice president, finance and chief financial officer of Chick-Fil-A. His company has given $3 million to conservative anti-gay organisations since 2003 and $2million in 2009 alone (technically speaking they did it through their charitable arm, Winshape, and not directly. see: pp41-42 of their IRS form). Jay Bennett is trustee to The Bob Buford Institute.This institute runs several initiatives dedicated to expanding church activity and influence across the US.
The NCF is one of the largest donor-advised funds in the US and are opaque in their operations and dealings, guaranteeing anonymity to their donors and giving business deals to individuals on their board. They are incredibly effective in gathering together the resources of evangelical Christians and deploying them towards many evangelical causes but also political projects that include:
“American Conservative Union Foundation, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, Free Congress Foundation, Accuracy in Media, the Federalist Society, and Judicial Watch, among others. “
It seems clear that the NCF is not a non-partisan Christian charity but one with an active ideology that is tied to US conservative politics and evangelicism. Their board members dealings with other institutes show their dedication to the evangelical idea of promoting the Kingdom and this is shared in their mission statement, “To enable followers of Christ to give wisely to advance His Kingdom”. In “The Power Of Nightmares”, Adam Curtis explains more fully the link between neo-liberal conservative policy and evangelism. Essentially, these conservative Christians see it as their moral duty to use their considerable financial and political power to spread the word of God and to push for the development of neoliberal ideals in periphery economic nations. That they are part of Invisible Children’s network of supporters cements the context of IC’s role in Uganda as being part of a wider narrative of coinciding political and business interests but this is not evidence of direct collusion.
US Evangelical influence has been firmly established in Uganda for several years with Cornerstone Development Africa, AIM AIR, and College of Prayer all operating openly. NCF’s partnership with Invisible Children shows an extensive coincidence of the aims and interests of conservative US evangelicals with those of IC. College of Prayer have ties with the Ugandan government in the form of Julius Oyet:
“COP Uganda President Julius Oyet, friend to the President and First Lady of Uganda, who says he’s co-written the Anti Homosexuality Bill along with Bahati, is more direct. At a Kampala rally filmed by the BBC six months after Hartley’s parliamentary COP training, evangelist Oyet declared, “It is not Uganda putting a death sentence on homosexuals, it is God and his word!” Oyet led his audience in repeated chants of, “No to sodomy! No to sodomy! NO to sodomy!,” and opined, “Even animals are wiser than homosexuals!””
The College of Prayer use their influence to financially support those who will further their own evangelical cause, seemingly regardless of their material impact on the country. This is an attitude that is shared by Invisible Children’s awareness raising platitudes. Much of their money goes into raising awareness for their cause and soliciting donations but, as has been discussed on other sites, with little concern for communicating the complexity of Ugandan politics.
Cornerstone Development has a strong interest in the building of schools and sponsorship of the youth. These schools inevitably follow “the principles, precepts and person of Jesus.” These schools offer scholarships as part of youth leadership programs, which seek the mobilisation of youth awareness to bring together their youth with policymakers in government. They are responsible for the running of Africa Youth Leadership Forum, which seeks to strategically bring together students who happen to be part of their cause with influential policymakers and businessmen in East and Central Africa.
The importance that they place on schoolbuilding and leadership creation in the area echoes the Invisible Children’s programs, “Schools for Schools” and “The Legacy Scholarship Program” but with added evangelic rhetoric. They both follow the same colonial impulses and rhetoric of the wider evangelical movement that is associated with AIM AIR and NCF – White, US citizens using their resources to develop a country on their own terms towards their own ideals. We are not saying to deny education to Ugandans – that would be ridiculous – but encourage you to consider that there are wider political and social implications involved beyond “education is a good”.
Another aspect of evangelism that Invisible Children share is their relation to “business-as-mission” (BAM), a term that evangelical organisations, including the NCF, use to describe the growing movement of entrepreneurs and investors that seek to use their finances to create sustainable foreign business. It is through the proselytising of microfinance in developing nations that much of this is made possible. Invisible Children’s ground operations follow a strikingly similar M.O. They helped form the Village Saving and Loans Association to expand and propagate microfinance initiatives. It shouldn’t surprise us at all that Jason Russell, the founder of Invisible Children also sits as a 2012 Accelerator Mentor for Praxis. Praxis are an evangelical BAM program operator. Their website states:
“Praxis was created to support social entrepreneurs who are compelled by their faith to advance the common good. The vision for the organization was formed out of a passion to assist in the development of high-impact organizations, while providing an environment that allows the leaders of these organizations to explore how to embody the Gospel within their work. Our first and primary offering is the Praxis Accelerator, a mentorship-driven program for these social entrepreneurs & innovators.”
Invisible Children’s campaigns are so similar in style to evangelical modes of operation because they are simply a continuation of the same tactics used by more explicitly christian charities that operate in Africa and internationally..
Although the language that Invisible Children is grounded in humanist rhetoric, their ideals and manner of working tread closely to historical evangelical and neoliberal intervention in the area. They both attempt to establish businesses, education programs, and ties between their sympathetic youth and those who have power and wealth to further their cause (at home and abroad) . We think it to be overly simplistic to view Invisible Children simply as a charity doing “good” things when they have: established ties to the US evangelical movement through their partners; neo-liberal policies that support entrepreneurship and business with an evangelical spin through Russell’s association with Praxis; and a coinciding of aims and interests in the region with regards to awareness raising, business creation, and foreign intervention.
Before last week I didn't know who Kony was. But now I do. Does that mean I support IC? Nope. But that does mean they suceeded in raising awareness so that I can donate to worthwhile NGO's.
They're raising "awareness" through a campaign that advocates things they claim to be against. You can't vilify Kony for using child soldiers, and then turn around and advocate for more aid to the Ugandan army, when the Ugandan army also uses child soldiers.
I also find it confusing to give IC credit in any way for you donating to a worthwhile NGO, when that is specifically what IC is telling you NOT to do. IC doesn't say donate to all these other NGOs, they say to donate to IC.
It's like if I saw a Coke commercial and then read about how bad soda is for you, and quit drinking it. And then saying "Thanks for raising awareness about the health effects of soda, Coca-Cola!"
my cousin worked for the red cross and had a lot of bad shit to say about them
whereas everybody i know who has been involved with msf say they are tru ballas
The Red Cross are basically so colossally huge that organizational problems and instances of unethical conduct by their membership is basically inevitable.
Having worked on-and-off with the ARC for a little while (doing mostly brain-dead customer service type stuff) I can attest to this.
They're well-meaning but just enormously bureaucratic and so many of the people I've met are well-meaning but small-minded.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
There's this Swedish community. For many a year lots of people have had a "Copy this to your profile if you're against child porn! <link>" on their profiles. It's everywhere.
The domain linked to in the text has been expired for years. Nobody even clicks the link to check it out, because that's too much effort when you can just cut and paste some text to your profile.
There's this Swedish community. For many a year lots of people have had a "Copy this to your profile if you're against child porn! <link>" on their profiles. It's everywhere.
The domain linked to in the text has been expired for years. Nobody even clicks the link to check it out, because that's too much effort when you can just cut and paste some text to your profile.
I wouldn't click the link anyway because I don't want to accidentally click on child porn.
Especially now that the children are invisible. You can never be too careful.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Posts
A pre-existing emotional investment in Africa is going to make someone more susceptible to advertising from non-profits, it's going to make them more likely to read international news articles that concern it, it's going to make them more likely to share this interest with the people around them.
You seem to believe that awareness itself does not lead to benefits, when it has been shown in the past to absolutely do so.
I also want to add that the Kony 2012 campaign doesn't actually have any outright lies or misinformation, all of the problems with it are due to misdirection or over-simplification. I honestly believe that someone who has gotten their idea of the political climate surrounding the area from the video will be responsive to being correctly educated to the nuances of the political situation.
EDIT:
That is to say, if they were a person who would be receptive to being educated about the nuances of the political situation at all.
The Red Cross are basically so colossally huge that organizational problems and instances of unethical conduct by their membership is basically inevitable.
But, this is sort of a problem intrinsic to people's attitudes towards NGOs. People become jaded towards trusting any group because all it takes is the bad conduct of some to make people suspicious of doing anything, paralyzed by indecision and doubt that any NGO is actually who they purport to be and are on the up-and-up.
This is where groups like Invisible Children are harmful to the operations of legitimate NGOs. Because when people's blithe ignorance and enthusiasm gets challenged by say, folks like me, the reaction of some is to just say "Well fuck it, then, Africa's just a mess and if I can't trust any group I'm not going to bother"
First World Defeatism.
ugh.
Bullshit and cite.
But I gotta ask, what makes, say, UNICEF better than Invisible Children? Either way you're giving money on faith that it'll go where it should, right?
you can also check the percentages of money going to the causes they purport to support, etc and on those measurements invisible children compare poorly
UNICEF is very accountable and transparent. There's criticisms of some moves they make and some decisions that they have engaged in that I feel are totally fair to have, but as a whole the organization is good and does good things and this can be supported and monitored.
Invisible Children are scam artists.
of all the "immediate relief" charities id say they are by far the best
Man's got a point.
then support Africa AHEAD, which is a sub-saharan Africa-specific hygiene, nutrition, and health charity that is pretty good.
It's downright disgusting how IC simply glosses over the problems with the Ugandan government and military, and argues that the US should support them with war advisers and materiel, simply because they're opposed to Kony - as seen here:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/www.invisiblechildren.com/critiques.html
Seriously, how many times do we have to get fucked over by this idiotic "enemy of my enemy is my friend" crap?
- Soviets are bad, we better help Osama bin Laden!
- Iran is bad, we better help Saddam Hussein!
FFS, in 1996 American advisers were right in the middle of training Rwandan troops when Rwanda invaded Zaire (now named Democratic Republic of the Congo) and started genociding up the place.
The Ugandan govt/army are no angels. In fact, they do all the same things Kony's LRA is accused of.
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/116/10521.pdf
WTF, IC can't have it both ways. If they're so opposed to child soldiers, then they shouldn't advocate helping the Ugandan military that uses child soldiers!
I wouldn't be surprised if the real story here is whatever it was that got this started, because I just don't believe a 30 min video that starts like that became this big thing on it's own without some help to reach the critical mass where you're now talking about how it became a big thing.
Or maybe it is just really well focused on it's target audience and doesn't translate well outside of the US?
Warchild's response is the only thing I've seen in my little corner of social media, though I read the Guardian articles first.
The Kony 2012 campaign claims to oppose the US of child soldiers, even as it advocates the US providing military aid to the Ugandan government, which uses child soldiers.
If that's not an outright lie or misinformation, what is it?
Two of the charities that were on the Givewell site last year are no longer recommended because your money would have less marginal effectiveness than donating somewhere else. That garners a whole ton of trust from me.
He totally has a point. I can absolutely say there's a measure of envy in my fury at IC, because I'd fucking love it if the charities I support and promote could get this kind of airplay. Mind you, I'm not shocked that Invisible Children have been successful. Of course they have. But then I've been sending emails to this effect up the food chain at MSF for a while now to get them to change their outreach programs and marketing.
That said, I have yet to see the proof in that pudding. Whether or not Facebook likes and retweets are actually going to result in a lasting growth for IC's efforts or finances remains to be see. I don't know how many retweeters are actually buying IC's "Action Kits" (jesus fucking christ I get mad writing that), but I don't imagine it's many.
So, while it's safe to say I'm annoyed at how swiftly and easily IC has captivated the social media for right now, compared to how say MSF struggles to self-promote, I'm not too envious because slacktivism rarely turns into activism and I have serious doubts that this buzz is gonna survive the next Rebecca Black for the attention span of the internet.
I was at a mock united nations assembly near the end of high school, at the beginning of which we listened to a speech given by a doctor from MSF. It was, without exaggeration, a moment that has stuck with me nearly a decade and a half later.
Tru ballas indeed. They're up there with Childs Play on my... whatever the opposite of a "shit list" is.
Well, I tell you what then. If IC accomplishes nothing else, what they've done is they just showed all the good charities exactly what they have to do to reach the audience they want to reach. That's something they can put to use for themselves later on.
or it fatigues the public about the issue and prevents them from consuming more legitimate media about issues in the region.
Or they watch the video, google up some of the background on it and find this thread. Then what?
I no longer believe it's really possible to accomplish anything serious by trying to 'fool' people into paying attention to your issue like this. Real, sustainable activism (whether that means volunteering or being a donor or just writing an amnesty letter) requires commitment, and sensationalist stuff like this destroys that every time. Plus, it feeds into a lot of the negative stereotypes about african/third world charity work.
The best thing you can say this video does is contribute to the vague western idea that africa is generally fucked up. But you know what? Western people have that idea already. It's ingrained enough in our pop culture that even if it stopped being actually true, you could probably get americans to donate to african charities.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
:^:
I do think legit charities (MSF in particular, to put a fine point on it) need to work harder to embrace viral marketing type techniques and social media outreach
BUT!
They have to do it via legitimate information, non-sensationalist messages, and avoiding horseshit like "Click Like to help stop child abuse!"
You know, the hard way. Because that creates lasting revenue and support.
Nonetheless, there are lessons on what to do and not to do from Invisible Children. Mostly what not to do.
No, but it creates "issue fatigue", as noted above.
That's slacktivism's most dangerous poison.
At best, the Kony 2012 campaign serves as useful idiots by driving up popular support for American military intervention in Uganda - which just happens to have discovered massive oil reserves within the last decade.
Uganda is really about money. Just like Libya was. Just like Iraq was. All the talk you hear about humanitarian issues is a smokescreen.
The question is, can IC leverage this publicity into an actual good outcome for the people in uganda? Almost anybody is willing to momentarily change their facebook status or watch a youtube video. How many of those people (prepubescents, apparently) can you get to actually do something?
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
http://www.ikroh.com/seo-blog/2010/12/09/nspcc-facebook-meme-increases-awareness-donations/
Issue fatigue?
Cite.
That is not a cite that is a press release.
Winky, I'm done here, dude. I feel I've made my point. You're aggressively not getting it. I have nothing further to say, negative or positive, and you're not really interested in acknowledging the points other people are making, instead just repeating the same "BUT IT STILL DOES SOMETHING" point.
When you make a claim and I ask you to cite it, you quote a guy doing spin. I just... I give up, brah.
You carry on. You raise your awareness or buy your action kits or whatever.
I'm Cave Johnson and we're done here.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
What? What the fuck does it even matter? The thing I was pointing attention to there was the twitter post where NSPCC described an "unprecedented surge in donations", that is clearly fucking fact! Did you want me to get you a link to their personal finances and cross-reference that against the cartoon character fad?
You're being ridiculous Pony, and you've erected a massive fucking strawman.
Do you have some disagreement with the general concept of issue fatigue, or as it relates to social media specifically?
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
My citation was concerning whether slacktivist awareness campaigns actually have beneficial effects.
The cite I asked for was whether you can show that people have "issue fatigue" due to awareness campaigns. Like, can you actually show that hearing about problems in Africa makes someone less likely to care about Africa?
That's an appropriate turn of phrase, given that Invisible Children's founders are, at the very least, in bed with the American evangelical missionary movement.
http://www.alternet.org/media/154477/kony_2012_leader_says:_it's_about_jesus,_and_evangelizing_
http://demandnothing.org/kony-2012-making-invisible-visible-part-2/
They're raising "awareness" through a campaign that advocates things they claim to be against. You can't vilify Kony for using child soldiers, and then turn around and advocate for more aid to the Ugandan army, when the Ugandan army also uses child soldiers.
I also find it confusing to give IC credit in any way for you donating to a worthwhile NGO, when that is specifically what IC is telling you NOT to do. IC doesn't say donate to all these other NGOs, they say to donate to IC.
It's like if I saw a Coke commercial and then read about how bad soda is for you, and quit drinking it. And then saying "Thanks for raising awareness about the health effects of soda, Coca-Cola!"
Having worked on-and-off with the ARC for a little while (doing mostly brain-dead customer service type stuff) I can attest to this.
They're well-meaning but just enormously bureaucratic and so many of the people I've met are well-meaning but small-minded.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
There's this Swedish community. For many a year lots of people have had a "Copy this to your profile if you're against child porn! <link>" on their profiles. It's everywhere.
The domain linked to in the text has been expired for years. Nobody even clicks the link to check it out, because that's too much effort when you can just cut and paste some text to your profile.
I wouldn't click the link anyway because I don't want to accidentally click on child porn.
Especially now that the children are invisible. You can never be too careful.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.