3 ms·

First of all, do not attempt ad hominem argument by assuming you have knowledge of my race, background or gender. Second, a president elected through an electo

by lgvln 3y ago

First of all, do not attempt ad hominem argument by assuming you have knowledge of my race, background or gender. Second, a president elected through an electoral system purposefully designed by an authoritarian prime minister, whose party the same president-elect was part of, who was elevated to the unelected permanent position of Senior Minister in that party - hardly qualifies as a reputable source. Here are a few reputable alternatives written by Singaporean scholars: [0] https://www.cambridge.org/us/universitypress/subjects/politics-international-relations/south-east-asian-government-politics-and-policy/singapore-identity-brand-power https://www.cambridge.org/us/universitypress/subjects/politi... [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/authoritarian-rule-of-law/E7911140302F6029C738AD13A5D58D0F https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/authoritarian-rule-of-l... [2] https://www.ethosbooks.com.sg/products/air-conditioned-nation-revisited https://www.ethosbooks.com.sg/products/air-conditioned-natio...

gmerc 3y ago
Thanks master for your colonial wisdom explaining the role of the president in the country I live in to me, very relevant. I am deeply moved by your superior knowledge and experience about my country. Also — ad hominem - there’s now way to criticize mansplaining with out addressing the man. So randomly throwing out latin phrases and invoking fallacies isn’t making you look smart. I indeed meant to criticize the person for engaging in behavior.
- lgvln 3y ago
  The issue is you assumed I am white, male and a foreigner, and thus unqualified to discuss the topic. That is the definition of an ad hominem argument. You need to address my argument. Don’t take my word for it, decide for yourself. Check out the readings I quoted earlier, all of them are written by Singaporeans, are in academia, come from a variety of backgrounds and not all are males. If you’re short on time, academic reviews provide a good summary (on whether it is worth reading). Here’s one for you: https://pacificaffairs.ubc.ca/book-reviews/singapore-identity-brand-power-by-kenneth-paul-tan/ https://pacificaffairs.ubc.ca/book-reviews/singapore-identit...
  - hnfong 3y ago
    I must note that the irony of quoting books and articles published by Cambridge University in protest of the allegation of "colonial mansplaining" is not lost on me. One of the quoted scholars apparently has a runs a research network called "British Colonial Legalities" LOL Ad hominem issues aside, I don't think "colonial mansplaining" necessarily means you're a white foreigner, not even necessarily a man (it's obvious this is adapted terminology from feminism). It just means you're just parroting the ideology from their (Singapore's) former colonial masters and assuming they don't understand it well enough. TBH it's quite futile to engage with "your" arguments when all the issues (3 of them?) are already addressed in the long replies by gmerc. The rest that you probably think is unaddressed is just stuff written by somebody else, appealing to "colonial" authorities. When you've been through these "debates" you know how it goes: The western ideology is always correct, and even if theory doesn't work out in the case of authoritarian Singapore, well, they're still wrong for preferring harmless cameras over homeless bums, drunkards, and routine violence. TBH, I'm not sure why somebody would make such a weird choice, but hey, I'm not judging, and frankly speaking, if that's what you prefer, I fail to see how further discussion can be productive.

by lgvln 3y ago

gmerc 3y ago

Thanks master for your colonial wisdom explaining the role of the president in the country I live in to me, very relevant. I am deeply moved by your superior knowledge and experience about my country. Also — ad hominem - there’s now way to criticize mansplaining with out addressing the man. So randomly throwing out latin phrases and invoking fallacies isn’t making you look smart. I indeed meant to criticize the person for engaging in behavior.

lgvln 3y ago
The issue is you assumed I am white, male and a foreigner, and thus unqualified to discuss the topic. That is the definition of an ad hominem argument. You need to address my argument. Don’t take my word for it, decide for yourself. Check out the readings I quoted earlier, all of them are written by Singaporeans, are in academia, come from a variety of backgrounds and not all are males. If you’re short on time, academic reviews provide a good summary (on whether it is worth reading). Here’s one for you: https://pacificaffairs.ubc.ca/book-reviews/singapore-identity-brand-power-by-kenneth-paul-tan/ https://pacificaffairs.ubc.ca/book-reviews/singapore-identit...
- hnfong 3y ago
  I must note that the irony of quoting books and articles published by Cambridge University in protest of the allegation of "colonial mansplaining" is not lost on me. One of the quoted scholars apparently has a runs a research network called "British Colonial Legalities" LOL Ad hominem issues aside, I don't think "colonial mansplaining" necessarily means you're a white foreigner, not even necessarily a man (it's obvious this is adapted terminology from feminism). It just means you're just parroting the ideology from their (Singapore's) former colonial masters and assuming they don't understand it well enough. TBH it's quite futile to engage with "your" arguments when all the issues (3 of them?) are already addressed in the long replies by gmerc. The rest that you probably think is unaddressed is just stuff written by somebody else, appealing to "colonial" authorities. When you've been through these "debates" you know how it goes: The western ideology is always correct, and even if theory doesn't work out in the case of authoritarian Singapore, well, they're still wrong for preferring harmless cameras over homeless bums, drunkards, and routine violence. TBH, I'm not sure why somebody would make such a weird choice, but hey, I'm not judging, and frankly speaking, if that's what you prefer, I fail to see how further discussion can be productive.