Comments on: Signature.

By: monster

monster — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 00:32:39 +0000

I know they’re not yours. I didn’t mean you as you, but a generic entity.

mmmark’s comment meant to address OTOH’s simplistic view on civilians trapped in war realities.

A lobbying group can sway a CIC to some ~~oil~~ action.

For what it’s worth, between AI and the UN, the latter’s a more scintillating disappointment.

By: Becki

Becki — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:52:04 +0000

monster – those were OTOH’s sentiments, not mine.

My point would be that mmmark’s sentiments are equally
worthless. “…imagine your parents, etc. being tortured and killed in front of you…”
Those victims have NO interest in you or ten million like-minded people signing anything – except perhaps the Commander-In-Chief signing orders for military action against the offending regime.

By: monster

monster — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 02:59:53 +0000

Becki, it doesn’t have to stop to a literal scrawl of your pen on a campaign. You may interpret the ad’s message where sharing your mark (signature) as being involved on a concrete and personal level, and it doesn’t have to be via AI. Even just by involving yourself, say as a member with a group (hey, some signing involved there, too), support in any way is good; not everyone wants to be and has to be in the gritty action.

And I agree AI has leanings; then again, there’s not one “global” agency that doesn’t and let’s not get started on the UN. If you find AI irrelevant, no quibbles about that. As long you don’t say defenseless people deserve to be herded and slaughtered, because it’s a totally different can o’ worms.

By: Becki

Becki — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:55:49 +0000

True, monster – and mmmark – creating awareness is valid. However, Shamnesty International is a very partisan political organization that veers way left, so as a skeptic one needs to run their messages through a filter to try to discern what they’re really saying. They do themselves and the victims they purport to be concerned about no favors when they alienate large portions of the population.

To clarify my original point – I personally think the message in this animation is counterproductive. It is vague about the specific locations of the atrocities portrayed and serves only to entrench the woolly beliefs of people who believe all they have to do to solve problems like this is to sign something, and to express that vapid “solidarity” feeling. What good is that to the victims they’re supposed to be concerned about?

By: mmmark

mmmark — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:47:01 +0000

Although it seems simple, shining a spotlight on repression, torture, and abuse has many times helped to stop it. World opinion and pressure does do some good. Not always, not in every case, not for every situation. And OTOH- imagine your parents, children, brothers, sisters, neighbors, being tortured and killed in front of you. Got it? Now step up to those people (you unarmed) and tell them you’re not going to tote their water bottle. Not so easy, right?

By: monster

monster — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:17:38 +0000

Becki, I personally don’t find actions of this nature the most efficient, but I appreciate the awareness that it incites. And OTOH isn’t really addressing the ad, but the victims themselves. I give OTOH some credit that he/she actually grasps the severity of situations like these, but oversimplifies the solution– people who are unable to fight for/protect themselves MUST be enjoying their romanticized victimization because they’re not doing anything, right? Boo hoo, right? Yeah, these people don’t deserve exposure nor sympathy. It’s not an argument, it’s misanthropic elitism.

By: Becki

Becki — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 04:36:11 +0000

At least Alex addresses OTOH’s argument. I can only imagine that monster’s sentiments are as woolly as the message in the animation. It’s the usual lazy, wishy-washy way to address problems. All you have to do is sign something and it helps worldwide torture go away – somehow.

To Alex I would say that the second amendment – the right of a citizen to bear arms, etc. – could be as great a defender of oppressed people as anything else – if they benefited from living under it. Perhaps if all those massacred hundreds of thousands of Tutsi’s in Rwanda had been air-dropped cheap firearms instead of being given platitudes by the UN they might still be alive. Sometimes guns ARE the answer.

By: monster

monster — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 01:11:08 +0000

OTOH, though I am unable to decide if your comment’s ignorant or idiotic, it’s a relief to know that at least you got what the video meant to invoke.

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:19:00 +0000

Because the bad guys got guns, OTOH. Lots and lots of guns.

By: OTOH

OTOH — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 18:14:57 +0000

Oh boo hoo.

If people continue to act like sheep, they should expect to get herded (and slaughtered).

All of these “poor” repressed people reside in Countries where the civilians out number the military by VAST numbers.

Their leaders and soldiers must eat, must sleep, must have basic services (water, electricity, gas, etc.), must be supplied, yet the VAST population sits back and weeps hoping that someone else in the world will solve their problems (and fight their battles) instead of doing something about it themselves.

So why does such pathetic in-action deserve a film, let alone any sympathy?

By: Street Attack

Street Attack — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:07:57 +0000

very well deserved award….the graphics are stunning and the message is very poingant. …I have to say it does make the veiwer a bit teary..

By: TheGoodReverend

TheGoodReverend — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:37:18 +0000

Beautiful and effective.