Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bobboau on March 07, 2012, 12:02:06 am
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4MnpzG5Sqc#!
-
Just saw this, came to see if someone else had mentioned it. I am in full support.
-
I don't like being told to watch a video without any context.
I am 1:50 in and still have no idea wtf this is about.
-
From what I've heard elsewhere, the organization promoting this video is very shady, and the individual in question hasn't posed a threat for several years due to being on the run from international law enforcement.
-
(http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/420406_10150726013037812_704387811_11355464_468655325_n.jpg)
(http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s320x320/430433_10150604692498271_514513270_9035189_1588326498_n.jpg)
(http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/420289_341330609242309_100000961190426_903993_1338074658_n.jpg)
EVERYONE on Facebook has been on about Kony
-
you know you can, not give this group money, and still support the plan.
-
I've heard a lot of people talking a great deal about how this group is ****ed up and not worth supporting.
also they look dumb
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_-PnDZmngAhM/Sa_KBGNySiI/AAAAAAAAAJY/uBOfiAysghs/s400/IMG_2941.JPG)
-
http://youtu.be/YzjFlULsY-c
this is nonsense
(http://i.imgur.com/aVqEb.jpg)
-
you know you can, not give this group money, and still support the plan.
This is my current M.O.
My understanding is that the movement as it stands is publicly there to bring about appropriate political pressure to make the withdrawal of current US Military advisers in Uganda politically untenable for the incumbent government - this is made pretty clear in the video. By making this a known issue, they've done effectively that and can more or less rest on their laurels regarding it.
I shared it, even attached a sappy little comment to it on facebook and that was that. I'm satisfied that that particular mission is done and I don't see a great deal wrong with doing that.
Whatever Invisible Children's ulterior motives are to this, and what the components of their overall goal is do not matter to me. They do not need our money, and I personally don't think they should have it, given their record.
I think though that the whole thing sets an interesting precedent as one of the handful of things to become worldwide news solely through social networking, and as the video itself says, it's a good example of public pressure effecting positive change out of a government in this context. :. I think that the awareness has been achieved for there to be a major public backlash if the forces were pulled out, which is just about the most we can hope reasonably out of this and there's no reason to give these jokers money given that.
-
Okay I have to add I know literally nothing about this except what I've seen from both sides on Facebook so I probably shouldn't judge yet
-
I've only done some basic reading up on it myself, there are some pretty strong fanatics on both sides of the fence (many who sit on the letskillkony side) but I don't think that Invisible Children's crappy track record should detract from the principles that found the issue itself. To stake a commitment to improving things at least a tiny bit over in Africa is a good enough precedent to set for me.
-
Watch this before you even think of donating. Afterwards feel free to proceed. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvqFi_HRPmk)
-
Or you could just troll (http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-who-think-carl-weathers-is-joseph-kony).
-
So the newspaper ran an article on the group's fiances (since they're local, I can now be ashamed of them AND the Creation Museum), and it appears from their tax returns and so forth that they only send about 1/10th of the money they collect.
Which is sent to Ltd. subsidiary in Africa about which nobody knows anything and nothing can be proved.
Sounds good!
-
A much much more reasonable look at the whole subject, you know, reasonably critical and not catering to any extreme, though admittedly not explicitly referenced and pretty much entirely aimed at the guy's followers on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO_tSVSg0qc&list=UUOT2iLov0V7Re7ku_3UBtcQ&index=1&feature=plcp
-
Or you could just troll (http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-who-think-carl-weathers-is-joseph-kony).
HAHAHAHA
I've gotta do this
-
Well executed campaign, questionable aims.
Mr. Kony has been out of Uganda for about six years and his paramilitary organization mainly doesn't even operate in Uganda any more. Yet, this campaign focuses on calling for help to Uganda (mostly military help).
Factual errors aside, it's questionable whether Ugandan government would be any more deserving of assistance, for what it's worth. President Uganda [sic*] has been in power for 25 years and has removed any limitations to how many subsequent terms one person can be the president. Additionally, Ugandan army stands equally accused of using child soldiers and sexual crimes as Kony's posse, so it begs the question who benefits from this campaign the most?
Certainly Kony and his organization is harmful, but I for one think this might actually be a well executed campaign to turn attention away from the malpractices and problems within official Ugandan leadership and governance.
Or, it might just be people taking economical advantage of the situation and using it to get people to buy stuff to "support" these "invisible children".
In fact that is far more likely option, though the two are not mutually exclusive.
Either way the people doing this campaign are either not aware of full facts, or are cherry picking what information to publish. Either way, they have their own agenda and I doubt it has anything to do with altruism.
Summary: Uganda is yet another corrupt African nation with an authoritarian leader whose army does bad things.
In this nation, there was a rebel faction with an authoritarian, religious leader whose army does bad things.
It is ethically problematic to favour either side - if any assistance were delivered, it should be for removing both problems, and doing that by force usually seems to result in problems far worse than the original cause...
* Don't remember who is president of Uganda, so I am using established practice and calling him President Uganda.
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/056/667/madagascar.gif)
-
Hey, Uganda! I've been there. It's a nice country, easy to travel in. Nice nature. People speak English. Good infrastructure, feels pretty safe. Can recommend.
I decided to write up a little effortpost to describe the Ugandan road to... 2012, I guess. It also sheds a little light on this entire Joseph Kony thing.
Meet Milton Obote, a nice guy. In 1950s he becomes involved with the Bugandan independence movement that later escalates into Ugandan independence movement (Buganda: the southern and southwestern Uganda). In early 1960s he meets an endearing young man named Idi Amin. Obote becomes the first ruler of now-independent Uganda: a nation torn by ethnic and religious conflict. In 1966 Obote's forces perform a coup, overthrow the figurehead king Kabaka Mutesa II, kill a couple of thousand of their political opponents and suspend the constitution. Obote becomes the military dictator and declares himself president for life.
In 1971 a promising young officer, Idi Amin, overthrows Obote, gets Obote supporters killed in scores and starts a new reign. However, he does not kill Obote (who was out of the country at the time), so Obote and his lackeys start plotting against Idi Amin. They get their chance when powertripping Amin decides to attack EVERYTHING around him. Ugandan troops are finally defeated by Tanzanians, who now support an Obote-led competiting faction (UNLF). UNLF was a loose alliance controlled by Obote and one Yoweri Museveni. Uganda's Amin regime is crushed. UNLF is kinda victorious.
Amin was overthrown and fled to exile. Yay, I guess? Ugandan hopes were crushed, however, when the Amin regime was replaced by fractured, bitterly infighting and unstable leaders (three of them, actually). After a bunch of failures, Obote decides no longer to bother with lackeys and runs for president. In fraudulent elections, Obote becomes president and bitter Museveni decides to take his toys, flees to the jungle and gathers a fine collection of child soldiers, war orphans and other choice material. He then begins an armed revolt against his former ally, Obote. Obote and his military right hand, an acholi called Tito Okello, decide to answer in kind and his troops slaughter thousands of people all around the place. In 1985 Okello overthrows Obote. (I have skipped some people, such as Yusuf Lule, for the sake of clarity). Okello, unsurprisingly, becomes associated with the Acholi people in northernmost Uganda - an area and people neglected by Kampala since... I have no idea. Long time.
Museveni's army of miscreants decides now to stop their insurgency and join forces with Okello. it didn't really work, so Museveni threw a fit, continued his insurgency and after a long bush war overthrows Okello in 1986. Okello's troops scatter around northern Uganda. Phew! Seven years and seven leaders.
For Acholi people, however, the coup is not just political, but also ethnical and partially religious conflict - a former ally overthrowing a first Acholi leader since god knows when. Acholis are not happy. So they do what people did best: ARMED REVOLT!
Armed revolt didn't quite work, and finally Museveni's troops crush the Acholi rebellion (unsurprisingly, hundreds of people are killed in the aftermath). One Acholi spiritualist from this defeated army was called Joseph Kony. He fled into the bush.
While all is going to **** in Northern Uganda, Museveni shows some tact and tries to defuse the northern situation by negotiation - get the rebels and veterans to join his ranks. However, his previous adventures with Okello regime are still fresh in the memory. Many veterans are dubious of Museveni and throw their lot in with yet another splinter army, now known as LRA, Lord's Liberation Army, led by that same Joseph "Spirits are talking to me" Kony.
Kony's force started as a simple run-of-the-mill overthrow the government guerilla movement, but in 1989 they apparently changed their objective. They started to target the Acholi people - which is weird, seeing as many of them are either Acholi or Acholi sympathizers. In 1990s LRA attacked villages, Ugandan troops attacked LRA and villagers, and finally Sudan supported Kony (because Museveni had earlier supported south Sudanese separatists). In 2002 Sudan and Uganda finally got onto a negotiation table and decided to give Ugandan troops a chance to follow Kony across the border (the border issue is a common problem around the world). As a result Kony's LRA lost most of it support areas. LRA decided to move it's base of operations from Uganda to what is now known as Democratic Republic of Congo. In 2006 many LRA guerillas voluntarily left the shady group to return home... but not everyone. After a joint military operation by Uganda, DRC and Sudan the LRA fled (casually killing congolese, to no one's great surprise) to Central African Republic. LRA has not operated in Uganda since 2006.
I don't even want to start about the Congo wars. It's much longer and more confusing than this story.
Back to 1986. Since then Museveni has ruled Uganda. He is... not that bad, or at least used not to be. Under his rule people are relatively secure* and Uganda is not that poor anymore. He is also pretty liked in Central and South Uganda, and the latest election gave Museveni even more ammo (and of course crushing protests, throwing people into jail etc. etc.).
But the Acholi people? For them Museveni is a bad guy. Museveni's regime has done little to dispell this myth - the northern Uganda is not a warzone, but is badly lagging behind in economic and infrastructure, has a large number of refugees and is still at least somewhat sympathetical to insurgency against Museveni's regime.
-
It's better that the government wins as soon as possible just to get the war over with. But I'm sure there are other causes that are worth giving money to.
-
bestseller
No one could write this **** up. If they tried, the plot would be called incredibly cheesy, disjointed and unrealistic.
-
It's better that the government wins as soon as possible just to get the war over with. But I'm sure there are other causes that are worth giving money to.
Which war? North Uganda and the country as whole has been at peace since 2006 and there are more pressing problems than LRA guerillas (ranging from corruption to bed nets and nodding disease).
Kony causes problems in DRC area, at least if the raports are correct. That's a whole another bag of horrible, and I can write a summary later if someone wants. There's no single military that can win LRA in there - and if there were, it most certainly shouln't be Ugandan army!
-
Well, you know way more about it than I do.
In that case I guess it's best not to restart a war if ya can.
I actually watched the video for two seconds just now and it seems like more "the internet matters in the real world" bull****.
-
In late 1876 Belgian king Leopold II decides to get into this entire colonialism thing. Using smoke and mirrors he manages to employ Henry Morton Stanley, a devout Christian, to get himself to Congo area and get as many treaties with local bosses as he can. Stanley accepts the offer, does his best, and then runs back to Europe, where the civilized and deeply christian ethical leaders split the Africa into colonial holdings. Leopold II manages to nab the entire Congo area as his personal holdings. Then he starts to be deeply christian and ethical and begins a reign in what is nowadays Democratic Republic of Congo - in that time, the area was known as Congo Free State. His ethical burden was made heavier by the fact that he had to blackmail as much rubber as he could from the locals. During Leopold's wonderful reign, between 5 and 15 million congolese were killed. The funds went to Leopold's personal coffin and also funded Belgian infrastructure.
Meanwhile, the Germans colonize a neighbouring small area, known as Rwanda and Burundi. They immediately notice that the locals have a hierarchial society, relatively well-doing one in fact. Because the Africans cannot be that intelligent, the Germans immediately throw their lot in with one of the ruling clans in the area: the Tutsi. Although kinda separate clans, the ethnic difference between the Tutsis and Hutus were small and they were more an economical thing. Germans promote Tutsi supremacy, because they could (and because Tutsis were richer). Britons join the game and place an adjacent area under their rule. This area will later become Uganda. In the north the French colonize what is now known as Central African Republic.
In early 1900s the people start to inquire as to what exactly is going on in Congo. Belgian parliament and other nations thought hard what to do, and finally annexed Congo Free State into a Belgian colonial holding. At no point is anyone even considering giving it back to what people were left. That was the end of Congo Free State, arguably one of the worst human right violations in the world.
After a couple of happy or not so happy decades there's a little problem in Europe. A bunch of bumbling losers manage to murder yet another royalty in a debacle that wasn't supposed to work. As a result, the continental Europe sits on trenches and gets killed for four years. In the aftermath, the Germans lose their colonial holdings in Africa. Belgians take control over Rwanda and Burundi. Now they control Congo, Rwanda and Burundi, nice going! Belgians continue the wonderful project of Tutsi support. Surely nothing bad can come out of it.
In 1950s people are really starting to question the entire colonialism thing, and finally the West decides to grant Congo independence. Immediately both the Congo and the West run into lots of problems. The problems included, but were not limited to, zinc, uranium, copper, gold, cobalt, geopolitically superb location, congolese not actually willing to give their national wealth away and what have you. And of course the entire area, which had never been a nation itself, was experiencing a pretty standard ethnic strife.
Immediately after Congo gets granted independence in 1960, the west-aligned leader of Katanga region, Moise Tshombe, declares independence. At the same time, the anti-European sentiments in Congo are through the roof and there's a military mutiny. Prime minister Patrice Lumumba throws out the Belgian troops in exchange for UN mission to help him fight the impeding civil war. Three provinces declare independence. The entire nation is thrown in a secessionist chaos, mostly along ethnic lines. Prime minister Lumumba, president Joseph Kasa-Vubu and the chief of armed forces, Joseph Mobutu, try to defuse the situation.
Meanwhile the neighbouring Rwanda has become independent as well. Before leaving, the good ol' Belgians had suddenly reverted the tables, starting to favour Hutus for some reason, I seriously do not know. The then president, Grégoire Kayibanda, decides to do something completely unheard of - and incites ethnic strife. Hutus and tutsis clash violently, with lots of Tutsis leaving the country. A sizeable minority moves to neighbouring Uganda, where they become complete bottom-class citizens. Disappointed in Milton Obote's policies, many Tutsi refugees greeted Amin's 1971 coup with relief and supported him. Other tutsi refugees moved to Tanzania and joined forces with Museveni and his anti-Amin alliance. One of these people, Fred Gisa Rwigema, became a close friend to Museveni and formed a tutsi guerilla group, Rwandan Patriotic Front, with the intent of returning to Rwanda. RPF fights alongside Museveni for better part of 1980s, becoming a force to be reckoned.
Back to Congo and 1960. After the entire "split the country into four different separatist regimes" thing that was hot **** in 1960, Lumumba loyalists in Katanga region start a long and confusing low-level guerilla war. One of the leaders was a former youth activist, Laurent-Désiré Kabila. Running a prolonged guerilla campaign, he aligned himself with Tanzania, Uganda, Che Guevara and other people who mattered. Kabila is somewhat competent and became a de facto criminal boss and smuggler, using his connections to set up bases of operations and, of course, apartments in both Dar-es-Salaam and Kampala. The uprising itself wasn't doing so well, though. During the uprising from 1960 to 1990s, he met regional players, such as Museveni (then a fresh dictator, see the above Uganda post for more information) and Tanzanian president Julius Nyerere (Museveni's and Obote's pal, who had helped them depose Idi Amin back in 1979).
AGAIN BACK TO 1960. Lumumba, pissed off at the inability of UN to help him accomplish his goals (re-annexing separatist areas) and facing mounting difficulties, calls for Soviet help. Soviets eagerly agree, willing to have a presence in the crown jewel of Africa. President Kasa-Vubu is furious and dismisses Lumumba. Lumumba gets back and orders Mobutu to arrest Kasa-Vubu. Mobutu doesn't know what the ****. USA intervenes: Mobutu deposes of Lumumba, throws out the Soviet advisors, get Lumumba killed and finally, in 1965, deposes of Kasa-Vubu as well. He becomes a proxy for mostly Western interests in Congo, which he renames Zaire. Oh, and he uses another name: Mobutu Sese Seko. His dictatorial rule lasted for 32 years, during which former colonial powers benefitted from his reign. Amidst fraudulent elections, political terror and other standard practices, Mobutu Sese Seko was a good western ally in the long and twisted Cold War.
Fast forward. In 1990 Rwandan Patriotic Front, supported by our good old friend, Yoweri Museveni, and led by former Ugandan minister, one Fred Gisa Rwigema, invades Rwanda. For Tutsies the Rwanda was old home, a land they had been wrongfully driven away from, and they were now coming back home. For Hutus, the invading Tutsies were foreign old evildoers, the lackeys of Belgians and Germans, who had kept the poor majority down for decades. The local Rwandan non-diaspora tutsies were now the second-grade citizens, but who really cared? After a long and bloody conflict, in which hundreds of thousands of people were displaced and peace accords were written, negotiations were halted etc., the Hutu part of Rwanda engaged in Rwandan genocide of 1994, where a huge number of Tutsies and moderate Hutus were massacred. Hutu-controlled Rwandan Defence Forces were led by Sylvestre Mudacumura, who studied military science in Germany.
Following the 1994 genocide, Tutsi-led and Uganda-supported RPF attacked once again, finally defeating the Hutu regime. About two million refugees, mostly Hutu but also some Tutsi, escaped from RPF to Burundi, Uganda and especially eastern Congo. Ironically, the Rwandan refugees included both the people who had escaped the ethnic cleansing and the ethnic cleaners who were afraid of RPF revenge.
Again, back to Eastern Congo, where Laurent Kabila and his supporters were planning to get rid of Mobutu Sese Seko once and for all. In 1996 Kabila, with support from Uganda and Rwandan tutsi government, overthrew Mobutu Sese Seko's regime in what is known as First Congo War. The reasons for war were most likely not humanitarian, but had more to do with Congo's natural wealth. Rwandan line was to hunt the interahamwe, the Hutu militia that had participated in the Rwandan civil war. Mobutus's answer to mounting threat from Kabila-Rwandan-Ugandan attack was to arm the hutu refugees, including the interahamwe, but it didn't help. Kabila's forces conquered Kinshasa in May 16th, 1997. Kabila showed himself to be a great man by immediately throwing people to jail, becoming an authoritarian assheadm and as a icing on the cake, hiring former Mobutu henchmen to help him in building up his PR.
Almost immediately after he "won" the war, Kabila decided that he didn't really like Rwanda or Uganda, and Ugandan and Rwandans realized the same thing. This started a war known as Second Congo War. I'll do a writeup about it later, I have to take a break.
-
I... skimmed most of that post.
It just seems to me like what the young youtube social activist is proposing costs a lot of money- not the charity's money, Uganda's and the Army's- and isn't likely to work better than the past 26 years of trying to get the guy, plus it'll lead to more violence and reprisal killings.
-
I think the main thing to take away from this is that none of these guys are good guys and they don't need our help to kill each other better.
-
Museveni is a relatively good guy and hasn't directly ordered any major human rights abuses for the past while. But even just supporting an adviser team in Uganda costs millions of dollars and might not have much effect.
-
Museveni is a relatively good guy and hasn't directly ordered any major human rights abuses for the past while. But even just supporting an adviser team in Uganda costs millions of dollars and might not have much effect.
His army, however, is pretty bad even for Ugandan civilians. I do not think that giving money or aid to any armed group in the area is a good idea. More can be achieved by negotiation and patience than gun-ho attitudes and simplistic narratives.
Museveni is not that bad, as I said (he's at least willing to put up democratic facades and is actually pretty popular in Buganda), but he is not an angel. One part of it is definitely his history. Dude fought against Amin, Okello and Obote and not only survived, but became the longest-standing dictator in the area. That's a bonus. He also intervened in the Second Congo War and that's... not very nice.
I believe the last thing the area needs are well-meaning but ignorant people, who throw 100 million to Ugandan army or some other armed group in an effort to help. The entire discussion reeks of sentimental colonialism, and it's not something Africa wants or needs.
-
And just when liberals grow balls, they screw things up. Oh well.
-
And just when liberals grow balls, they screw things up. Oh well.
this.
the best way to deal with africa is to let them sort it out for themselves. stop pumping in money, stop pumping in weapons, stop exploiting their resources, etc.
-
..... or just nuke it all, right?
-
..... or just nuke it all, right?
do i have to even say it anymore?
-
Apparently not! :D
-
well then, everything is falling into place.
*evil laugh*
-
Military assistance would probably help the humanitarian situation a little. Random atrocities are usually a sign of undisciplined and poorly trained troops, so US advisors could cut down on that. I'm mainly concerned about the cost; there's only about 300-400 LRA soldiers left, so it's really a case of squashing an eggshell with the US military hammer.
However, there's still a legit role for the US to play in the region in helping Uganda counter al-Shahab.
-
Apparently they screened this thing in Uganda and it made people made enough to throw rocks at the screen.
-
let me preface this post by saying i have nothing to add to the discussion. i did not watch the video. if that will upset you, read no further.
i just want to make my limited feelings on this known. the extent of what i know is africa is a ****ed up place, and that i've heard of "invisible children." i understand it is some sort of 'awareness' group that seems to me to be pretty well summed up by those meme pictures posted in this thread. feel-good but accomplish nothing at best, exploit this stuff to take people's money at worst. don't care enough to actually research it though. upon clicking the link (i also was rather annoyed by there just being a nondescript title and no explanation), the first thing i noticed was "comments disabled" (ok second, i noticed invisible children first). red flag. that happens on youtube almost exclusively for two reasons: the uploaders know they are going to get called out big time and can't defend themselves, or they are intentionally stirring up controversy. this, combined with my assumptions about invisible children and my not knowing what the hell i was even supposed to be watching, led me to close the video.
-
Apparently they screened this thing in Uganda and it made people made enough to throw rocks at the screen.
Between the narrarator's nasal hipster castrato soprano and his idiot brainwashed kid, there's likely more reason than one behind that.
-
Apparently they screened this thing in Uganda and it made people made enough to throw rocks at the screen.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/03/201231432421227462.html
Yes.
-
"For many people here, the video is simply puzzling."
Well put, Al-Jazeera.
It seems like the main reason people are upset is not so much the content of the campaign but the application of Americanski consumerist marketing to raising awareness of human rights atrocities. Imagine what it would be like if a Ugandan guy made a video with the twin towers burning superimposed over "Osama 2012".
Your assignment is to deconstruct the meaning of the Kony 2012 memetic space in terms of the cultural vacancy of late capitalism in an essay of 50000 words or more. Extra credit for hypens, prefixing every other noun with "post-", and citing people who have never held a real job in their life.
-
"For many people here, the video is simply puzzling."
Well put, Al-Jazeera.
What's wrong with the analysis?
It seems like the main reason people are upset is not so much the content of the campaign but the application of Americanski consumerist marketing to raising awareness of human rights atrocities. Imagine what it would be like if a Ugandan guy made a video with the twin towers burning superimposed over "Osama 2012".
yeah?
Your assignment is to deconstruct the meaning of the Kony 2012 memetic space in terms of the cultural vacancy of late capitalism in an essay of 50000 words or more. Extra credit for hypens, prefixing every other noun with "post-", and citing people who have never held a real job in their life.
I frankly do not understand your position. Could you make it more precise?
-
It's nothing, Janos, nevermind.
I wasn't disagreeing with Al Jazeera at all.
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/16/kony-2012-campaigner-detained
I guess some people can't handle fame.
-
hospitalised after police said he was detained for running around the streets screaming in his underwear.
Well I can't really think of a better way to end this kerfluffle.
-
sure. it'd have been better if he was harmed in the detainment process. tasered in the neck, bean bag round to the ballsack. something like that.
-
vandalised cars and made sexual gestures while wearing his underwear
Couldn't have imagined a better way for this to turn out. Thanks, Ketamine.
-
i saw a small video clip. he wasn't wearing underwear.
-
I guess some people can't handle fame.
The fun thing is he lives around here, so maybe I'll get video on the evening news.
-
http://www.tmz.com/2012/03/16/jason-.../#.T2PHF5glZlI (http://www.tmz.com/2012/03/16/jason-.../#.T2PHF5glZlI)
-
404 Page Not Found.
We're sorry, but we weren't able to find that page.
Perhaps we can interest you in one of the categories below.
http://www.tmz.com/2012/03/16/jason-russell-video-naked-meltdown-kony/?adid=hero1
-
Does....does it make me a bad person for laughing at that?
-
no.
and i just thought of something. the founder of Invisible Children will now be a registered sex offender. if that doesn't do this retarded group in, there is no hope left for the world.
-
Sex offender registries are stupid and evil. Nobody deserves that fate, not even actual rapists and child molesters.
-
Sex offender registries are stupid and evil. Nobody deserves that fate, not even actual rapists and child molesters.
I'm not sure about that. I do think they're too widely applied, however.
-
Sex offender registries are stupid and evil. Nobody deserves that fate, not even actual rapists and child molesters.
i agree, only because such people should not be released from prison, thus rendering such a list unnecessary.
but people don't need to end up on it for pissing in public. unless maybe you were pissing ON someone in public.
-
i would argue that public nudity has nothing to do with sex, unless of course he was wanking it or humping vehicles. same goes for pissing in public. the list should really only be for serious offenders, the fact that we put people with lesser offenses on it is cruel and unusual punishment.
-
i would argue that public nudity has nothing to do with sex, unless of course he was wanking it or humping vehicles. same goes for pissing in public. the list should really only be for serious offenders, the fact that we put people with lesser offenses on it is cruel and unusual punishment.
the very first headlines said pretty much said that was exactly what he was doing. then for some reason all the news outlets balked and reverted to "running around in his underwear" or just that he was "dehydrated." you'll note he's not wearing underwear in that video. i don't get it. they have a REAL story that they can run with, ready-made sensationalism. and they tone it down.
draw your own conclusions i guess.
-
i really dont know what this guy did. ive got everything from wanking in public to running around in his underwear while on drugs (the video seems to illustrate otherwise). its really a failing of news organizations. if an actual celebrity or political figure did this they wouldn't leave it alone. only thing i can think of is that the news organizations are protecting this guy for whatever reason. this whole situation is fishy.
-
Maybe... it was both! He ran around in his underwear and then removed it.
-
its possible. but it seems to be a misrepresentation of the facts to report that he did one (the lesser offense, running around in his undies) but not the other (the greater offense, public nudity, wanking, etc). there are clearly sources out there that support both.
-
and video evidence.