Complaining about those who generalize about conservatives by....generalizing about liberals.
Should have trusted my gut instinct instead of wasting my time.
Ringo
The problem is you're trying to isolate this and pare it down to Ann Coulter. If you can lump all the blame on Coulter, then you can pretend as if no one else is like her, it's just dumb liberals going after Ann Coulter. But that's not what the article was about; the article was about the cheerleading that followed. The question asking about empathy was more than about Coulter using this campaign as a selfish political attack, it was chiefly about the almost wholesale promotion by conservative media outlets of that message. Trying to say Ann Coulter argues like liberals, but then ignoring the same people promoting that message? Please...Whose complaining?
My whole point is that liberals deserve Anne Coulter.
I have long given up on having conversations here with people on the left here about issues.
It is a waste of time, and it is impossible. If it is not impossible, it just doesn't happen often enough to bother to keep on trying.
Your example of abortion and the war on women was not the counter-example you think it is, but basically a doubling down on what I had been saying.
the only thing missing was WAR ON WOMYN being presented in in all caps and bold print.
If liberals/international community of very caring and very sensitive, really care about these kids, why aren't they using #mercenaries and #donatenow to fund, something, like, say, hiring a group of mercenaries to venture into Africa, raid the camps of these pestiferous boils on the hind end of humanity, arrange a meeting so that the boils can account to Allah for their doings, and then re-unite the children with their parents?
The problem is you're trying to isolate this and pare it down to Ann Coulter. If you can lump all the blame on Coulter, then you can pretend as if no one else is like her, it's just dumb liberals going after Ann Coulter. But that's not what the article was about; the article was about the cheerleading that followed. The question asking about empathy was more than about Coulter using this campaign as a selfish political attack, it was chiefly about the almost wholesale promotion by conservative media outlets of that message. Trying to say Ann Coulter argues like liberals, but then ignoring the same people promoting that message? Please...
Notice that they want to make this thread about Michelle Obama. It's all about making this black woman a burden on the country. They consider her to be living a lifestyle that she does not deserve. Notice that has nothing to do with Boko Haram, these girls, this Twitter campaign, etc. This is about seeing a liberal doing something and opposing it because it must be wrong if a liberal does it.
KCW's intention to direct others to stop mocking a form of activism that benefits Nigerians is in no way self-serving.
In the future, KCW may roll up her sleaves and wittingly take down Coulter and her ilk.
Most who do not use Twitter are reserved with their intentions not to tweet. Some of these individuals were prompted to act because of the #Hashtag even though they do not have a Twitter account. There is no reason why Twitter can not be used for social concerns.
One of my favorite writers, Jamelle Bouie, wrote about the 'myth of black-on-black crime'. Quoting Bouie, "There is nothing about blackness that makes violence more likely."
Hey! That was one of my favorite movies when I was a kid.
The Wild Geese - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Generalizing your political opponents is always self serving. It's self serving in the sense of providing an ego boost of feeling superior. It's self serving in that the person making the argument doesn't have to expend much intellectual power in making their argument.
You apparently missed my point about the generalizing of blacks and violence completely.
I think it's also the most rational thing to do if you have money and are interested in freeing the girls.
Have you or any of the others here who are advocating armed intervention by outside forces signed up for the task? Come on, put your bodies where your mouth is.
umm...I said that they should hire a group of mercenaries to do it.
And I'm sure you've made a sizable contribution, right? Our you could just join a mercenary troop of freedom loving troops yourself. Right?
I might have put in a little coin.
Of course it would depend on their ROEs.
Well good for you!
Have you mustered up your veteran brothers to lead an attack? Or are you too nothing more than an internet armchair activist calling for blood?
I doubt they anticipated the massive public outcry that was spread via....the internet
It got us talking about it. It got newspapers talking about it. It got politicians talking about it. It brought attention to the issue rather than having a one or two day BBC news headline.
I don't think the hashtag had the intention of getting Boko Haram to release the girls. Its about raising awareness and getting people and politicians involved in the issue.
Once again, Kony 2012 was labelled a "disaster" and "idiotic" by many, but it helped give some much needed military and strategic support to the region. It gave politicians the public mandate to act, knowing that millions of people had 'liked' this page and were recognizing it as a serious issue.
The Boko Haram are not a small terrorist organization. Asking Obama to "go after" Boko Haram is like asking Bush to "go after" al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Bush acted as C in C and it resulted in a decade-long and very unpopular war thousands of miles from home.
Attacking Boko Haram would have to involve a large scale invasion of most of northern Nigeria in order to weed them out.
As I said, Boko Haram is very diffuse. They don't really even seem to have an explicit leader. So who should the Navy Seals go after? And where do you go find them? They don't advertise their presence.
Another very unsettling part of Boko Haram (like Kony) is that they use child soldiers. So if you send troops in to fight Boko Haram, you are essentially telling your troops that they have to go kill children that have been brainwashed and mutilated.
Keep in mind, that one of the reasons that the US may get involved with Boko Haram in Nigeria is largely due to public pressure...via the internet.
I ultimately see very few negatives surrounding the internet campaign. I don't see how it harms anyone.
It is a great way to spread information and knowledge about something and build support for action. I have little doubt that there will be action against Boko Haram because of this.
Straw man. The campaign is not about getting Boko Haram to change their actions. You're just making stuff up.
Ibrahim M. Abdullahi, a Nigerian, was the first tweet to express his complete dissatisfaction with the government response...
Another straw man, I am not surprised.
You're on a roll, another straw man. The campaign was not directed at Boko Haram, so all your points are meaningless.
The frothing at the mouth by conservative media only began because they saw liberals doing something, and since liberals are doing something...
Raising money for cancer research? Attack, they're liberal. Dedicating a memorial to a civil rights icon? Attack, they're liberal. Showing solidarity for a cause?
The only fault here is that conservative media thought it was fun and games to attack a response to a deplorable act because some involved with the campaign sre their perceived political enemies.
You can buy those on the internet.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?