Internet political discourse "dangerous"
-
200 posts!
v -
if that is your vision of a middle ground then i find it hard to picture you in this group. if highlighting their short comings is an integral component of the middle ground's stance, then that is something i don't very often see from you ...Originally posted by Fatum:... middle ground in politics ... a group who is not afraid to acknowledge the good that the incumbent has done, while high-lighting it's short-comings, and discussing real and viable alternatives, instead of just playing political gadflies and being ranters and complainers ...
i would imagine a middle ground to be gentlemanly who doesn't resort to cheap insults ... -
hey hey, cool it chaps.Originally posted by snow leopard:if that is your vision of a middle ground then i find it hard to picture you in this group. if highlighting their short comings is an integral component of the middle ground's stance, then that is something i don't very often see from you ...
i would imagine a middle ground to be gentlemanly who doesn't resort to cheap insults ...
-
Originally posted by CaramelCrab:
i think i may have been misunderstood ...
please don't feel apologetic, i wasn't in any way offended. appreciate your good intentions.
At what point do the views of people turn from suggestions into demands? Because, isnt it true that there is no point if suggestions are taken in - but nothing done about them? Do people expect something to come out from their views? Or are they just blowing hot air for the hell of it.
as long as we can correct mistaken perceptions, put a balance to govt rhetoric and contribute to the awareness of the general public, we have done some good.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Done intelligently with proper knowledge, research and a well rounded viewpoint, it can benefit a country. BUT the thing is, most complaints and ramblings are done out of boredom and childish frustration, and i find they tend to do more harm than any real good.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just look at the majority of the forums topic in your Straits Times today. The quality is appaling. That is only one example. You may say that it is the result of the over-control of the government in reining in our views and expressions, but what i will say is that - people first need to start giving valuable, insightful and well-thought out views, only then will the government see that there is some good trains of thought out there. Perhaps then, political discourse will not be viewed with such aversion.
i'm alright with the quality of forum posts and i do not see them as chidish. also, when people point out things that they see wrong, we should not regard them as complaints. if the govt can simply acknowledge their mistakes, i'm sure the 'ramblings' would simply fizzle out and we can move on to focusing on the solutions to those problems. much like the japanese who refuse to admit their past and so the chinese and koreans would keep reminding them of their past.
i still hold onto my stand that the Thai people did not make a good decision in the ousting of Thaksin. Read the artical on Thanksin in this month's Economist magazine to get an idea of why. Btw, he did not "forget" the concerns of his people. He knew exactly what he was doing - it was an opportunity to make money. And right now singapore is at the bad end of the deal (ie we've lost money!!! Haha.) Anyway. This is a real life example of the action of "people power". We'll see how this one goes. Although indonesia should already be a great example after Suharto.
will try and get hold of the magazine. he forgot in the sense that a nation's pride can be a whole lot more precious than money. why do you think Hitler could command the respect of all Germany? because he restored their sense of national pride.
i don't think people power is entirely bad. no one wants conflict or confrontation but when you push the limits of tolerance it will erupt.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
why choose countries like india? why not choose countries like USA, switzerland, finland, australia? compared to these countries how much luckier can we get? teritary education in germany is free. here, they're jacking up fees year after year, so should i count myself unlucky instead?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is exactly the kind of mentality that i'm talking about - the idea that theres so much lacking in singapore that people feel the need to whine. Oh and nothing is ever "free". Check the tax rates if you think so. Btw, the USA isnt much better. Ever been to lower Manhattan? Or the Bronx. Or or or... choose your pick, but please see that we are alot better off than majority of the countries in the world in terms of safety, education and standard of living. i know i sound so damn cliche and cheesy, but its true.
it is not whining. it is merely an example to show you that we're not as 'lucky' as you say we are. their tax rates may be higher but so are their wages, that more than make up for their higher taxes. i debated this with someone here recently, even used his figures to show him why. you can check that out.
no country is perfect, if we were to compare, there would always be things that we lose out and things we're better at. US may not be as safe but their standard of living is higher and their university education is better (even our MM wants his grandchildren to go to US universities).
Injustice, wrong-doing? Oh i've never mentioned anything at all about such unfairness, my friend. Please do not assume or put words into my post. i was referring to "nit-pickers" as you will definetely see in my original post, people who speak up for things that they know nothing logistically about.
you have chosen to see those who spoke up as 'spoilt'. i see them as speaking up for injustice and wrong doing. therefore from my point of view, you have branded those who spoke up, be it for injustice or wrong doing as 'spoilt'.
maybe we are not refering to the same examples. could you give examples of 'nit-pickers', or 'know nothings'?
And i dont understand why i cant compare our two nations. Right after WW2, we were on the same page, werent we?
we cannot compare the two nations because cambodia never had peace until recently. the pol pot regime massacres, invasion by vietnam, subsequent infighting between khmer rouge and other insurgents ... so even though we were on the same page right are WW2, war continued to ravage their country while we were blessed with peace.
if you want to compare, compare with countries that had relative peace like ours.
i doubt the ability of the people to form a new government that can be as successful as previous.
you look at the mess in taiwan's govt and you look at how they're doing, as successful if not more so. you look at hong kong, so laissez faire yet so successful too. whether it is the same govt or a different one, as long as it doesn't impede the good work of its people, the people's drive and ingenuity will ensure that the country stays on top. -
come on, we all have our innate sense of right and wrong. you tell me you think what they're doing is right and fair?Originally posted by ShutterBug:However, the ruling party being what they are, would certainly continue to do things the way they deem fit and fair. Who, are we, to say that what they do with regards to 'the decision to ban political podcast' & 'linking of estate upgrading to how people vote' is wrong and unfair???
As far as I'm concern, we're all C_ockles in the Mud.
cockles as we are, we shouldn't be clouded by the mud to what's right or wrong ... -
hmmm .... this is rather amusing, ....Originally posted by snow leopard:if that is your vision of a middle ground then i find it hard to picture you in this group. if highlighting their short comings is an integral component of the middle ground's stance, then that is something i don't very often see from you ...
i would imagine a middle ground to be gentlemanly who doesn't resort to cheap insults ...
ah well ... a break from my finals mugging anyways ...
so let's take it from the beginning shall we ? ...
out of the nearly 200 posts in this thread, I made an observation about "some of the chaps here" ... but you, somehow seems to have decided that it was an insinuation against you ... I wonder if that implies that you think you fit into one of my categories ? ...
next, from my one post in this thread, you were able to deduce that I, am a "goverment supporter", I should imagine that you didn't catch my other threads in this forum, else you probably wouldn't have come to this conclusion, ... and in case you're wondering, I still stand by my categorization of some of the chaps here, I'll say this again, some are obviously from the opposition with an agenda, others are here for the dialectic game, yet others are the "mental masturbators", and yet some others are here just to rant and complain, and I have come to the same conclusion as OM has, in the original post which prompted my reply; that there is a tendency of some to disparage those who support goverment policies in this forum. Of course, like I said, it takes all sorts eh ? but everyone should recognize the right of each other to be entitled to their own opinions, no ? a contentious point of course, for obviously, I think both of us feel that this is sorely lacking in each other, eh ? with regards to "debates" I whole-heartedly agree with you, but do you think there's much of this here right now ? ... or rather, it's often a case of scratching the backs of those who agree with you, and stomping on those who don't ? no ? ...
so which category do I think I belong to ? ... I'd happily admit that I play the part of "mental masturbator" sometimes, when I see something that particularly irks me (search for "would you fight for Singapore if .... " in this forum for instance, if you're so inclined), though, yes, I'd like to think of myself as straddling the middle ground, the ground that I feel is so lacking, as per my above post ... (interestingly, I wonder how you came to the conclusion that i do very little of "high-lighting of short-comings though .... hmmmm )
so then, my dear sir, again, which category do you think belong to ? ... the combative sort who's here for the dialectic game ? ... the ranters and complainers ? ... or perhaps the middle grounder even ? ... of course, the way you reply to this may just validate my "categorizations", for "gentlemanly" behaviour works both ways eh ? ....
have a good evening ...
(oh yeah, a tip, perhaps you'd like to avoid slicing up posts quotes and placing your own replies in between in your posts, it makes for hard reading, I normally filter out such posts that do not directly pertain to me; for these are obviously nitpicking, personal arguments against another; after a while, one quickly learns to differentiate which posts are worth reading, and which are not eh ? .. ) -
No wonder the government might think political discussion on internet is danagerous. Perhaps Singaporeans are just not mature enough for western-style democracyOriginally posted by drawer:PAP are a bunch of F**KING gangsters who only dare to bully their own ppl and bow to foreigners like a dogs!!!The leading examples are Lee Kuan Yew,Goh Chok Tong and Lee Hsien Loong,they are one hell of a disgrace to Singaporeans,Prosecute Them!!!!
-
i don't think people power is entirely bad. no one wants conflict or confrontation but when you push the limits of tolerance it will erupt.
So how much improvement has there been in the lives of the people in the Philippines, from where we get the phrase 'people power'. Ask your Filippino maids who have left their children behind to look after your children.. -
Kindly look at our society with peoples so frighten of discussing politic, I think it is noting to be amusing.Originally posted by Fatum:hmmm .... this is rather amusing, ....
ah well ... a break from my finals mugging anyways ...
so let's take it from the beginning shall we ? ...
out of the nearly 200 posts in this thread, I made an observation about "some of the chaps here" ... but you, somehow seems to have decided that it was an insinuation against you ... I wonder if that implies that you think you fit into one of my categories ? ...
Our futures lies with people who have an interest to participate with politic agenda's and speak up with their minds, Leaders should see these issues as welfare burdens or just an unjustify complaints ?
If the peoples felt that monies is the only option to resolve problems, then the rules and regulations will be interpreted as "Monetary Option To Rule" -
This is the irksome thing that has me scrolling past many of his posts.Originally posted by Fatum:(oh yeah, a tip, perhaps you'd like to avoid slicing up posts quotes and placing your own replies in between in your posts, it makes for hard reading, I normally filter out such posts that do not directly pertain to me; for these are obviously nitpicking, personal arguments against another; after a while, one quickly learns to differentiate which posts are worth reading, and which are not eh ? .. )
-
-
the government is afraid that opposition parties will utilise the power of the net to get their message across....unfortunately the internet is a monster that is here to stay...no small PAP government will be able to control the powet of the global net no matter how much they try....good luck to the bunch of 'scholars' who are being paid taxpayers money to think up schemes to control peoples thoughts and views...
-
U called them gangsterOriginally posted by drawer:PAP are a bunch of F**KING gangsters who only dare to bully their own ppl and bow to foreigners like a dogs!!!The leading examples are Lee Kuan Yew,Goh Chok Tong and Lee Hsien Loong,they are one hell of a disgrace to Singaporeans,Prosecute Them!!!! 
MM Lee has contributed to Spore since independence until today. -
Sorry but i notice that i'm doing that too. Just to say that it makes for arguing different points oh so much more easier. Because even though we are on one topic, there are many points pertaining to it, and its a whole lot easier than trying to split one giant paragraph up into the different arguments.Originally posted by Fatum:(oh yeah, a tip, perhaps you'd like to avoid slicing up posts quotes and placing your own replies in between in your posts, it makes for hard reading, I normally filter out such posts that do not directly pertain to me; for these are obviously nitpicking, personal arguments against another; after a while, one quickly learns to differentiate which posts are worth reading, and which are not eh ? .. ) -
as long as we can correct mistaken perceptions, put a balance to govt rhetoric and contribute to the awareness of the general public, we have done some good.
I'm all for that.i'm alright with the quality of forum posts and i do not see them as chidish. also, when people point out things that they see wrong, we should not regard them as complaints. if the govt can simply acknowledge their mistakes, i'm sure the 'ramblings' would simply fizzle out and we can move on to focusing on the solutions to those problems.
Somehow i still the newspaper forums dominated by trivial issues which have little or no impact on anyone's lives.. Someone is most probably gonna jump on my back after i've said this but listen first: Try reading another newspaper - anyone will do. Like the New York Times or Washington Post... Just read an editorial, column or two. The difference in quality is worlds apart. And i'm not talking only about views, but also the general articles. Why do we as normal average citizens, not strive to go beyond the usual complaints of "check-out girl at ntuc double-bagged my toilet paper" or "why didnt my daughter who got 12 points managed to get into this jc but her friend with same points did". Granted, there are the rare few articles which are insightful and a breath of fresh air. But i've yet to come across enough to say that they are a part of the forums. Comparatively, sadly i do see alot as childish (sorry as i am to label).
Btw i agree with you - that our government lacks in acknowledging their mistakes. Really, really lacks alot. Alot. Cannot emphasise more.it is merely an example to show you that we're not as 'lucky' as you say we are. ... no country is perfect, if we were to compare, there would always be things that we lose out and things we're better at.
Exactly. But how come you will not admit that singapore is better off than most if not dare i say majority of countries in overall terms? Are you not happy with your present life in singapore if you must insist that we are not "lucky"? That is something that i dont get.. With our level of comfort, security, opportunity and wealth you still find the need to compare to "better" countries. (Note i am not talking about freedom of speech in comparison to other countries. That i am aware that we are lacking, ok)you have chosen to see those who spoke up as 'spoilt'. i see them as speaking up for injustice and wrong doing. therefore from my point of view, you have branded those who spoke up, be it for injustice or wrong doing as 'spoilt'.
There is a difference. There are people who, like you said, genuinely speak up for injustice and their well-put-together views. There are also more often than not, people who speak up because they can. And they do not realise any implications which their words may hold, or how utterly unsound their views are logistically. One giant example right smack in your face: drawer's post. Or, this early post: "Which is why it's even more important to have a change in government, is this the kind of country you want your kids to inherit?" by LazerLordz. i mean, geez this guy is actually suggesting a revolution. An overthrow of the present government! Please convince me how he has spoken up for "injustice" and "wrong doing" and how he has such a sound view, and has fully understood and taken into considerations the implications and logistics required in demanding a new government.
maybe we are not refering to the same examples. could you give examples of 'nit-pickers', or 'know nothings'?whether it is the same govt or a different one, as long as it doesn't impede the good work of its people, the people's drive and ingenuity will ensure that the country stays on top.
That may be true, but you cannot doubt the importance of good governing to the economy of a country. Just recall Suharto in Indonesia and those after him. It made a huge difference.
I'm not done yet but i've gtg. Will continue. -
Originally posted by Fatum:
out of the nearly 200 posts in this thread, I made an observation about "some of the chaps here" ... but you, somehow seems to have decided that it was an insinuation against you ... I wonder if that implies that you think you fit into one of my categories ? ...
and out of those 200 posts you chose to post those comments in one of my replies, how do you expect us to know it wasn't meant for me? response doesn't mean agreement. it can simply be disagweement.
next, from my one post in this thread, you were able to deduce that I, am a "goverment supporter", I should imagine that you didn't catch my other threads in this forum, else you probably wouldn't have come to this conclusion, ...
of course not from this one thread but from all the encounters i have had with you, i would say your overall stance is skewed towards the govt. nothing wrong really, a wise choice in fact when it comes to security and prosperity.
and in case you're wondering, I still stand by my categorization of some of the chaps here, I'll say this again, some are obviously from the opposition with an agenda, others are here for the dialectic game, yet others are the "mental masturbators";, and yet some others are here just to rant and complain, and I have come to the same conclusion as OM has, in the original post which prompted my reply; that there is a tendency of some to disparage those who support goverment policies in this forum. Of course, like I said, it takes all sorts eh ?
i have no problems with standing by your convictions, but do so without insulting anyone else. despite repeating it to me the third time, i still do not agwee with your crude comments. does that therefore make you a "mental masturbator"?
but everyone should recognize the right of each other to be entitled to their own opinions, no ? a contentious point of course, for obviously, I think both of us feel that this is sorely lacking in each other, eh ? with regards to "debates" I whole-heartedly agree with you, but do you think there's much of this here right now ? ... or rather, it's often a case of scratching the backs of those who agree with you, and stomping on those who don't ? no ? ...
we are entitled to our opinions but we're not entitled to insulting or injuring anyone we fancy insulting or injuring. then what do you expect? disagwee with comments you agwee with and agweeing with comments you don't agwee with?
so which category do I think I belong to ? ... I'd happily admit that I play the part of "mental masturbator" sometimes, when I see something that particularly irks me (search for "would you fight for Singapore if .... " in this forum for instance, if you're so inclined), though, yes, I'd like to think of myself as straddling the middle ground, the ground that I feel is so lacking, as per my above post ... (interestingly, I wonder how you came to the conclusion that i do very little of "high-lighting of short-comings though .... hmmmm )
if i have time, but i'd rather not plough through a whole thread and get myself involved in some other discussion i have no interest in. of course you would like to see yourself the unextremed, wouldn't you? all i can say is you're standing to my right and i'm standing to your left. whether the centreline is in between us or closer to anyone of us is unimportant, unless you're merely looking to satisfy your own ego ...
so then, my dear sir, again, which category do you think belong to ? ... the combative sort who's here for the dialectic game ? ... the ranters and complainers ? ... or perhaps the middle grounder even ? ... of course, the way you reply to this may just validate my "categorizations", for "gentlemanly" behaviour works both ways eh ? ....
none of the above. like i've mentioned before, i correct commonly held but mistaken beliefs exemplified by fallacious arguments. as for being gentlemanly, working both ways means you should appreciate my cordiality and refrain from your crude descriptors.
(oh yeah, a tip, perhaps you'd like to avoid slicing up posts quotes and placing your own replies in between in your posts, it makes for hard reading, I normally filter out such posts that do not directly pertain to me; for these are obviously nitpicking, personal arguments against another; after a while, one quickly learns to differentiate which posts are worth reading, and which are not eh ? .. )
on the contrary i think it's easier this way. within the space of our exchanges, we would have touched on five or six topics. if we do not debate them individually, we would've lost focus. you can lump everything together as a summary at the end but not when discussing individual issues. the audience wouldn't be able to relate replies to quotes and would be forced to scroll up and down trying to relate a particular portion of the reply to the relevant quote.
whether or not a debate becomes nitpicking or personal arguments depends on the nature of its contents and not whether they are organised point by point or simply lumped together. you can have shouting matches with your shouts lumped together.
in my case, i look out for certain key writers unless they happen to fall into my path ... -
Philippines is not the first case of people's power, neither would it be the last. people's power too democratised France back in 1799. did France slide into poverty and suffering? certainly not, for France enjoys a very high standard of living today. the same people's power, totally different outcomes, who is to say people's power is good or bad?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:So how much improvement has there been in the lives of the people in the Philippines, from where we get the phrase 'people power'. Ask your Filippino maids who have left their children behind to look after your children..
in fact, we should also ask ourselves is there any difference before and after people's power? filippinos are maids today but were they any different before people's power? can we therefore say that people's power destroyed philippines? obviously not. philippines is what it has always been be it under Marcoss, Ramos or Arroyo.
how much do we attribute the success or failure of a country to a single event like people's power? it is just a one time event, but the fortunes of a nation is built upon the daily grind of life over years if not decades.
govts have come and gone, yet their situation persists. don't you think it's more than just people's power or govt? what the people are, what their destiny as a nation will be ... -
exactly, you are absolutely right and you're not alone. many people here organise their replies in point form as that is the neatest and clearest way of communicating.Originally posted by CaramelCrab:Sorry but i notice that i'm doing that too. Just to say that it makes for arguing different points oh so much more easier. Because even though we are on one topic, there are many points pertaining to it, and its a whole lot easier than trying to split one giant paragraph up into the different arguments. -
Originally posted by CaramelCrab:
Somehow i still the newspaper forums dominated by trivial issues which have little or no impact on anyone's lives.. Someone is most probably gonna jump on my back after i've said this but listen first: Try reading another newspaper - anyone will do. Like the New York Times or Washington Post... Just read an editorial, column or two. The difference in quality is worlds apart. And i'm not talking only about views, but also the general articles. Why do we as normal average citizens, not strive to go beyond the usual complaints of "check-out girl at ntuc double-bagged my toilet paper" or "why didnt my daughter who got 12 points managed to get into this jc but her friend with same points did". Granted, there are the rare few articles which are insightful and a breath of fresh air. But i've yet to come across enough to say that they are a part of the forums. Comparatively, sadly i do see alot as childish (sorry as i am to label).
i see what you mean. perhaps the reason why we revolve around trivial issues is because that is the boundary within which we are bound.
Exactly. But how come you will not admit that singapore is better off than most if not dare i say majority of countries in overall terms? Are you not happy with your present life in singapore if you must insist that we are not "lucky"? That is something that i dont get.. With our level of comfort, security, opportunity and wealth you still find the need to compare to "better" countries. (Note i am not talking about freedom of speech in comparison to other countries. That i am aware that we are lacking, ok)
i do feel comfortable here. but comfort isn't the only thing that matters in life. what is comfort anyway? the comfort that $3000 affords is very different from the comfort afforded by $3 million. surely inequality frustrates you doesn't it? and how comfortable can we get paying all our lives for a tiny flat that will be taken away from us before the turn of another century?
There is a difference. There are people who, like you said, genuinely speak up for injustice and their well-put-together views. There are also more often than not, people who speak up because they can. And they do not realise any implications which their words may hold, or how utterly unsound their views are logistically. One giant example right smack in your face: drawer's post. Or, this early post: "Which is why it's even more important to have a change in government, is this the kind of country you want your kids to inherit?" by LazerLordz. i mean, geez this guy is actually suggesting a revolution. An overthrow of the present government! Please convince me how he has spoken up for "injustice" and "wrong doing" and how he has such a sound view, and has fully understood and taken into considerations the implications and logistics required in demanding a new government.
drawer's language may have been a little foul but i share his sentiments. we do pay undue respect to foreign talents and are paying millions to invite ang mohs to chair our national organisations while our own people have been deprived. these ang mohs have a cozy job because the market of many of these firms are local and monopolised. so it is injustice that we're unhappy with you see?
That may be true, but you cannot doubt the importance of good governing to the economy of a country. Just recall Suharto in Indonesia and those after him. It made a huge difference.
before Suharto, Indonesia was a third world country. post Suharto, Indonesia is still a third world country. i don't see much difference. there are some disturbances but you always get that with any change in govt. in the long term, when the dust settles, if the character of the people and nation doesn't change fundamentally, we're gonna have another Suharto era by another Suharto. so govt may be impt, but more so are its people. the people is the destiny, not the govt. the chinese may have been ruled by Monggols, Manchurians and very nearly Japanese as well for hundreds of years. in the end, the one thing that endures are its people, not any particular govt.