To me, the people who forwarded this letter are no different from the slogan-chanting tibaks they distance themselves from, in the sense that they’re merely repeating a prepackaged message they happen to agree with without giving much thought to what they're saying
( ... )
- big assumption: Just because people didn't choose to add more to what is written doesn't they don't have anything more to say.
Let's not talk about big assumptions, ese. I never said anything about repetition amounting to having nothing to say: you're the one doing the assuming here.
To engage what you've said at face value: if you feel you've got something to say, don't resort to a goddamned "baaah". You aren't sheep, for chrissakes.
After all since civil liberties are what we protect, that also includes the right of other people to just forward/paste what they only CHOOSE to, and to participate or forward what they want. Even if they don't want to participate too.Yes, you (and the dozens of other people who were so passive in their assent) had the right to copy-paste the letter as a response, but whether or not you had the right to choose was never the issue here. The issue is the effect it had on the quality of the discourse
( ... )
- Tibaks infringe upon the right of other people, taking it into their own hands to be the "saviour" of the world. The idea that you equated ALL the people who posted it to tibaks like stand up already shows that you're the one assuming here. Perhaps some people who posted are like that, but can you really say that all people are tantamount to that
( ... )
a.) I do agree that to some, it may be a full representation of their beliefs. They posted it out of whim and "elitism". They might not contribute to the discourse and yes they're comparable to STAND UP (not necessarly because choice is yet to go to another choice) but I don't agree that just because people posted it out of whim, doesn't mean all are like that.
b.) The discourse part is contentious though, it can be because people posted it, than it can spark discourse (because of people like you and m.class apathy).
1.) Is posting it tantamount do having counterproductive discourse at all?
2.) Does posting it have harmful effects on people so we can finally equate posting it to STAND UP (depends on the first question).
Comments 9
Reply
Let's not talk about big assumptions, ese. I never said anything about repetition amounting to having nothing to say: you're the one doing the assuming here.
To engage what you've said at face value: if you feel you've got something to say, don't resort to a goddamned "baaah". You aren't sheep, for chrissakes.
After all since civil liberties are what we protect, that also includes the right of other people to just forward/paste what they only CHOOSE to, and to participate or forward what they want. Even if they don't want to participate too.Yes, you (and the dozens of other people who were so passive in their assent) had the right to copy-paste the letter as a response, but whether or not you had the right to choose was never the issue here. The issue is the effect it had on the quality of the discourse ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
a.) I do agree that to some, it may be a full representation of their beliefs. They posted it out of whim and "elitism". They might not contribute to the discourse and yes they're comparable to STAND UP (not necessarly because choice is yet to go to another choice) but I don't agree that just because people posted it out of whim, doesn't mean all are like that.
b.) The discourse part is contentious though, it can be because people posted it, than it can spark discourse (because of people like you and m.class apathy).
1.) Is posting it tantamount do having counterproductive discourse at all?
2.) Does posting it have harmful effects on people so we can finally equate posting it to STAND UP (depends on the first question).
Reply
Leave a comment