3 ms·

If you believe I do not have an argument, feel free to refute my references and construct a coherent argument backed up by credible references (YouTube or theko

• gmerc 3y ago
  None of these seem relevant to the question of why you feel the need to jump onto a thread about the colors found in Singapore with colonial mansplaining about authoritarianism.. backed up by writings from Cambridge, cherry on top by a writer specialized in Colonial Law. Since all you do is basically spew links while ignoring any of the attempts to have a conversation, we thank you for your service of acting as a poster child for colonial mansplaining we shall be using in an upcoming article on the topic.
• hnfong 3y ago
  If I wanted to refute a bunch of random scholar's books and papers I'd be in academia already. The fact that you think a reference ending in cambridge.org and princeton.edu is "credible" quite laughable. They're literally a government's propaganda reserve. It's like claiming studies funded by narcotics companies are credible for informing you about the benefits of smoking to your health. (Hate to "mansplain" for you but the main source of funding for universities are governments.)
  • mdp2021 3y ago
    > the main source of funding for universities are governments Further off-topic, but extremely important: was a way ever found to avoid that pitfall, of intellectual production being bound by financial contributions? Freelance intellectuals living on other means (e.g. book sales) may be only somehow less constrained. Aware of the issue of biased sources, you will have faced the problem: do you also have keys to get to unbiased sources?
  • lgvln 3y ago
    This conversation perfectly illustrates the sort of bad reasoning common among anti-vaxx, conspiracy theorists etc. They have little understanding of what constitutes good, credible evidence - Cambridge and Princeton publications are "literally a government's propaganda reserve" while the sources used are "YouTube and blogs such as the kopi.co". Along with this erroneous standard is poor reasoning - "I read a blog post by thekopi.co on standards of the Singapore police so Singapore is not a police state"; "universities are funded by government hence universities are biased". When they are faced with overwhelming evidence against their views, instead of changing their views, they refuse to accept the evidence and resort to ad hominem arguments plus abusive language. If all else fails, they move the conversation to something else (shifting the goal posts) - "this post is not about politics, we shouldn't be talking about politics". It is impossible to convince someone with reason if the person is simply unreasonable - erroneous standards, bad reasoning, fallacious arguments - but it has been illuminating on how such minds "work". Carry on hnfong and gmerc, I'd love to add more to the above.
    • hnfong 3y ago
      If you think online discussions are to "convince" people of anything, that is really hilarious. If anything, to me, the more interesting discussions are the ones that present me with unexpected views that challenge my established views. Your parroting of stereotypical Anglosphere academia ideologies is pretty boring TBH. You can't convince anyone with evidence they've already known. I have a law degree from Hong Kong and you better believe me when I say I've read enough of those Cambridge and Princeton crap on ivory tower notions of how governments should be run.