Yes, it will change *nothing* in North Korea, but I thought the campaign's fun and a nice idea nonetheless.

http://hairprotest.org/

Something fun though for a good cause lol At least it's not gruesome and pathetic like Invisible Children of lastyear   

More "facebook" activism, mainly designed to make people feel good about themselves with the least effort.

317 stole my haircut! I'll sue!!

I will never understand why people think this kind of stuff actually works. Do people think Kim Jong Un will really care what people in the West are doing? The North Korean regime has never cared what anybody outside the country thinks. I can't wait until my facebook feed gets filled up with this... Just like the Kony 2012 video last year. I can't tell how many times I saw that posted and being told I'm a racist bigot for not supporting that organization. Only to be proven right when it was a poor organization that nobody is even mentioning anymore. Amnesty International on the other hand, I'm surprised that they are doing this.
Pat

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 4): I will never understand why people think this kind of stuff actually works.

I don't think they actually do.
However, the campaign helps raise awareness of NK's human rights situation using possibilities the net has to offer. and it is a PR-gag for amnesty as well.

In the case of the Kony video you mentioned things may have been different, but I understand that mostly young (and pretty naive) people kept the Kony campaign alive. It had nothing to do with organizations like amnesty international or Human Rights Watch. Their work does have an influence.

I have to be honest, if the dear leader sees many of the crazy mugs on the petition I fear that it will only confirm to him the correctness of his path!

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 5): Their work does have an influence.

Their work does have influence, I absolutely agree. But in North Korea? I'm not sure they have much pull with them. It is good to bring awareness to the suffering. It brings people into the real world. But you need governments to still do something about it. China isn't going to allow that to happen. I hope I'm absolutely wrong, but there are other problems going on in North Korea that governments are focused on.
Pat

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 7): Their work does have influence, I absolutely agree. But in North Korea?

You are of course right. North Korea is a different matter altogether.

If only this could make any difference in North Korea, I would join this cause, but so far, it looks like a joke.

Seems like a lot of work for something that will be completely ignored by the recipients

Looks more like a "who's who" chart at the local Hipster convention

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 5): However, the campaign helps raise awareness of NK's human rights situation using possibilities the net has to offer.

Everyone is already aware, just like everyone is already aware of cancer. If you want to do something for human rights in North Korea you'd saddle up the military and go spread some democracy, but that won't be happening.

Quoting SW733 (Reply 11): Looks more like a "who's who" chart at the local Hipster convention

I know. Even if by some miracle this was seen by some North Korean officials, it would be like Scarface and make the opposite point of that which was intended.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 12): If you want to do something for human rights in North Korea you'd saddle up the military and go spread some democracy,

No you wouldn't, knowing full well that it provoke China's wrath and potentially a third world war of disastrous nuclear scale. Your first point was true though, this haircut thing will do sod all.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 12): you want to do something for human rights in North Korea you'd saddle up the military and go spread some democracy, but that won't be happening.

Well it's probably better to just let them fail. We don't need to stick our nose in North Korea. They're hanging on by a string, and I think China is starting to get to the point where they are trying to determine if it is even worth it to keep supporting such a regime.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 13): No you wouldn't, knowing full well that it provoke China's wrath and potentially a third world war of disastrous nuclear scale.

I don't think China would hold on as tight as everyone likes to think. With every statement made by the North they become a bigger thorn in the rear end of China. I'm sure there would be some push by them, but if it escalated to a military conflict I'm sure the US and NATO would make an agreement with China before doing anything. Otherwise it would be suicide, though I'm not sure on a worldwide nuclear level.
Pat

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 14): I don't think China would hold on as tight as everyone likes to think

Maybe, but playing fast and loose with those speculations has the potential to end in tears. The point was, it obviously isn't as simple as was suggested.

So has North Korea renounced communism yet?  

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 14): Well it's probably better to just let them fail. We don't need to stick our nose in North Korea.

Well, if you're interested in improving human rights for North Koreans that's how to do it. If we're satisfied leaving them malnourished, uneducated, and brainwashed, that's fine too. (There's more money in war though) But, based on the reaction here, it seems that the bleeding heart neocons have been shuffled to the sidelines.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 16): So has North Korea renounced communism yet?

The whole thing is just pictures of Communists: North Korean ones at the top and American ones below.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 17): bleeding heart neocons

Could you give us an example of a 'bleeding heart neocon', please?

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 15): The point was, it obviously isn't as simple as was suggested.

Understood. Didn't mean to be a little pushy!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 17): Well, if you're interested in improving human rights for North Koreans that's how to do it. If we're satisfied leaving them malnourished, uneducated, and brainwashed, that's fine too. (There's more money in war though) But, based on the reaction here, it seems that the bleeding heart neocons have been shuffled to the sidelines.

Thats not how you do it though. Tons of innocent civilians would be killed in North Korea alone. That doesn't even factor in the soldiers who would be killed in the process. If it spark a battle of nations outside of just NK you could be talking about a world war. There is just no clean way to take over, and reunite Korea. There may be money in war, but for bomb makers and civil contractors. But who cares about the money when even more lives are at risk?
Pat

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 18): Could you give us an example of a 'bleeding heart neocon', please?

Was just wondering the same thing.

The more I look at it, the more it makes me laugh. I prefer the North Korean haircuts to 90% of the ones these people have posted.

These North Koreans don't even have much food or electricty, especially outside of Pyongyang. That's what they want to see...you westerner piss away your money on making your hair green or pink.

Jeez, I sound like the older 29 year old ever.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 18): Could you give us an example of a 'bleeding heart neocon', please?

Start with all the left wingers who supported the Vietnam War. They invented it. And then those who decided to invade Iraq in 2003.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 19): Thats not how you do it though.

Far more effective than pictures of bad haircuts.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 22): Start with all the left wingers who supported the Vietnam War. They invented it. And then those who decided to invade Iraq in 2003.

I was looking for a name or two.

Quoting SW733 (Reply 11):

  

My first impression was that this has hipster written all over it.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 23): I was looking for a name or two.

George W Bush is the first name that comes to mind when talking about modern neocons. Paul Wolfowitz was a leading neocon among his aides while Cheney is a convert at best and perhaps not wholeheartedly in favor of the idea.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 25): George W Bush is the first name that comes to mind when talking about modern neocons.

Perhaps we're not seeing eye-to-eye on the definition of 'bleeding heart'.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 26): Perhaps we're not seeing eye-to-eye on the definition of 'bleeding heart'.

That's because it seems that about 90% of people who think they know what neo-conservatism is are wrong.

When you're talking foreign policy, the liberals go the League of Nations or UN route. Talking about it, building consensus, international "pressure," asking disagreeable characters to play along and expecting them to do so just because, maybe even sanctions and perhaps a few other measures that can be accomplished without a backbone. They are big on human rights and social justice.

Conservatives are more live and let live, but not to the point of being isolationist. They don't get offended enough by human rights violations to take military action and generally adhere to the old fashioned security dilemma with a dose of peace through superior firepower. When they are convinced that they or their allies are threatened they'll deal with the threat swiftly but possibly not do more than necessary. The Gulf War was a nice triumph of conservative foreign policy.

Neoconservatives started as the group of pro-welfare Democrats in the 1960s who were in favor of the Vietnam War. They are really liberals who are okay with using conservative means (military force usually) to accomplish their do-gooding goals. Stopping the spread of Communism in strategically unimportant countries, freeing brainwashed and oppressed citizens, etc. Terms like "nation building" and "spreading democracy" are code words for neoconservatism. Neocons believe strongly in freedom, fairness, and democracy and are willing to use military force to help others get that. It saw a resurgence in the Bush administration partially due to the fact that it dovetails nicely with evangelical Christian beliefs, especially those regarding Zionism and the Middle East, which is perhaps why W was so receptive and surrounded himself with many neocons which eventually led to the invasion of Iraq.

It's somewhat ironic that Democrats always bring up the absence of WMD's in Iraq when making the case for WMD's in Iraq was actually an appeal to conservative sensibilities.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27): That's because it seems that about 90% of people who think they know what neo-conservatism is are wrong.

Nice explanation, for what I already knew about neocons, still without addressing how 'bleeding hearts' fit in.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 28): Nice explanation, for what I already knew about neocons, still without addressing how 'bleeding hearts' fit in.

You can't really be a real neocon without being a bleeding hearts type. First, they started off as people who were liberal on domestic policy: pro-welfare state and pro-Great Society. Secondly, and this is more relevant these days, is that neocons are the ones who are pushing democracy. They are the ones who would be outspokenly opposed to dictatorships like that of North Korea and in many cases are willing to use military force to topple them, even if they pose no direct threat to the United States or our allies.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 29): You can't really be a real neocon without being a bleeding hearts type.

Sure you can, as most, if not all, of the early neocons were fierce anti-communists and against the very type of west coast liberalism which is most associated with the bleeding heart style.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 30): Sure you can, as most, if not all, of the early neocons were fierce anti-communists and against the very type of west coast liberalism which is most associated with the bleeding heart style.

They weren't against the West Coast liberalism as much as they were against the West Coast pacifism. And their anti-communist beliefs stemmed from Communism being bad for citizens, not bad for the US. Fighting a war because a Communist Vietnam is bad for the Vietnamese versus fighting a war because a Communist Vietnam is bad for America is the key difference between neocons and paleoconservatives. Everyone knew that Sadaam was a problem for the Iraqis but Bush had to convince conservatives by trying to build the case that he was a problem for America.

We all understand these arguments. Labeling neocons as 'bleeding heart' will get you absolutely nowhere, as it is attached life-to-limb to the aspects of the socially liberal movement, which doesn't encompass neoconservatism. Definitions are used with a level of precision for a reason. Using 'bleeding heart' inappropriately simply makes you appear to be ill-informed.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 32): Labeling neocons as 'bleeding heart' will get you absolutely nowhere, as it is attached life-to-limb to the aspects of the socially liberal movement,

Neocons were very much a part of that movement, grew out of it really, and still are to some extent. The addition of socially conservative Christians is a relatively recent development.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 33): Neocons were very much a part of that movement, grew out of it really, and still are to some extent.

The reasons for why you're taking such positions are becoming all too obvious.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 34): The reasons for why you're taking such positions are becoming all too obvious.

Then explain it to me, since neocons showed up thirty years before I was born. I'm not part of any of this, I'm just pointing out the history.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 6): I have to be honest, if the dear leader sees many of the crazy mugs on the petition I fear that it will only confirm to him the correctness of his path!

 

And this campaign has already provoked the ire of the Dear Leader!

New video from yesterday: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1gpBm1m2ewo


David