3 ms·

Ah, your cherry picked definition of authoritarian police state. And custom definition of abuse as freedom from having your nose thumbed into cognitive dissonan

by gmerc 3y ago

Ah, your cherry picked definition of authoritarian police state. And custom definition of abuse as freedom from having your nose thumbed into cognitive dissonances. No, I need to do no such things as to address the vapid statements you make more than pointing your the internal inconsistency and massive cognitive dissonance of Americans and Brits trying to define true freedom. By all means, let’s glance over the National Security Letters, Family Separation at Borders, the Snowden and Assange clown shows, Guantanamo, Black Sites, Texas or North Carolina travesty of governance but mention at any random thread about Singapore (colors!) that it’s authoritarian because … princeton study says it is. What is the thought process behind this urge? You avoided this question at every step, yet you demand engagement and protest abuse. No, I don’t need to refute your arguments. Because they are none, but shifting strawmen. They are massive blinders of cognitive dissonance. Spare us your judgement over here, all you have is books and definitions and colonial mansplaining. May you one day travel the world and get cured from your indoctrination.

lgvln 3y ago
[dead]
mdp2021 3y ago
> cognitive dissonance of Americans and Brits Gmerc, you have provided good information and insight - and I myself have noted about 24hrs ago here that if someone wants to mention authoritarianism (or oddity, whatever daring idea) in a page about colourfulness some reference about how the two would relate is required -, and I understand that hearing the same in-ways weak ideas past the n-th time can make one edgy, but look: if a Norwegian noted that Swedes have bumpy roads, he is not at all mandated to live somewhere without bumpy roads. The bumpy roads of Sweden are such if it is reasonable to call them so after fair assessment. The bumpy roads of Norway become relevant when somebody is denying that. There are not just «Americans and Brits» in the public, there are not just people interested in defending one specific position in public, and crossfire that gets divergent from substance is not good for the system. Some people may instead look at Singapore with interest (naturally also its counterpart: concern) because they are seeing a crisis in their own environment and may look at apparent champions with hope. Assumptions should be limited. And we should remain coolheaded.

by gmerc 3y ago

lgvln 3y ago

[dead]

mdp2021 3y ago

> cognitive dissonance of Americans and Brits Gmerc, you have provided good information and insight - and I myself have noted about 24hrs ago here that if someone wants to mention authoritarianism (or oddity, whatever daring idea) in a page about colourfulness some reference about how the two would relate is required -, and I understand that hearing the same in-ways weak ideas past the n-th time can make one edgy, but look: if a Norwegian noted that Swedes have bumpy roads, he is not at all mandated to live somewhere without bumpy roads. The bumpy roads of Sweden are such if it is reasonable to call them so after fair assessment. The bumpy roads of Norway become relevant when somebody is denying that. There are not just «Americans and Brits» in the public, there are not just people interested in defending one specific position in public, and crossfire that gets divergent from substance is not good for the system. Some people may instead look at Singapore with interest (naturally also its counterpart: concern) because they are seeing a crisis in their own environment and may look at apparent champions with hope. Assumptions should be limited. And we should remain coolheaded.