3 ms·

I find this thought process (the one in the article) to not be very accepting of "failure". So what if the Ugandan kid comes over and thinks he can change the

by Laaw 11y ago

I find this thought process (the one in the article) to not be very accepting of "failure". So what if the Ugandan kid comes over and thinks he can change the way the US thinks of guns? It's not like he's going to have an impact unless he's right, so bring him and everyone else on! I agree that problems are way more complex, in general, then they tend to first appear, but that naivety is sometimes good, because it's insulating against the thinking that created the problem. Maybe the Ugandan kid will learn a great deal about the US and its gun situation, but still maintain that "outsider looking in" viewpoint, and that's unique, in a good way.

stinkytaco 11y ago
Sure, in the case of gun control he can likely do no harm, so more power to him. But this is not always the case. The list of problems caused by well meaning outsiders trying to solve a problem is too long to list. Pouring money into corrupt dictatorships who then use those funds to enrich themselves is a time honored solution (see: IMF). Or even better, there's a bad guy in this country? Let's give them some freedom, that should work out (see: Vietnam)! Or maybe we ought to limit ourselves to humanitarian aid? If that's the case we can set up camps that will then house and abet one side of a conflict (see: Rwandan genocide). There is a place for outside groups to try and effect change, but that needs to be carefully balanced against understanding of complex problems. Lots of money and resources is not always a good thing and can even cause harm when not used in the right way.
- Laaw 11y ago
  Sure, but that's true as with anything else in the world. I don't think "Don't bother" is a message that this article should be conveying to the folks who might be inclined to try. If this article were more about what you're saying, and less negative, I might not have made my comments.

by Laaw 11y ago

stinkytaco 11y ago

Sure, in the case of gun control he can likely do no harm, so more power to him. But this is not always the case. The list of problems caused by well meaning outsiders trying to solve a problem is too long to list. Pouring money into corrupt dictatorships who then use those funds to enrich themselves is a time honored solution (see: IMF). Or even better, there's a bad guy in this country? Let's give them some freedom, that should work out (see: Vietnam)! Or maybe we ought to limit ourselves to humanitarian aid? If that's the case we can set up camps that will then house and abet one side of a conflict (see: Rwandan genocide). There is a place for outside groups to try and effect change, but that needs to be carefully balanced against understanding of complex problems. Lots of money and resources is not always a good thing and can even cause harm when not used in the right way.

Laaw 11y ago
Sure, but that's true as with anything else in the world. I don't think "Don't bother" is a message that this article should be conveying to the folks who might be inclined to try. If this article were more about what you're saying, and less negative, I might not have made my comments.