4 ms·
That's a pretty rude response to a fairly moderate comment. seanmcdirmid points out that being imperfect doesn't make your criticisms of others invalid. You re
by potatolicious 13y ago
That's a pretty rude response to a fairly moderate comment.
seanmcdirmid points out that being imperfect doesn't make your criticisms of others invalid. You respond by calling him a bigot and suggesting that he's racist to boot ("all asians may look the same").
As an Asian myself, this is uncalled for. Playing the race card when no such sentiment has been expressed weakens us when real racism occurs.
There is a larger, more worthwhile argument here, one that delves into very core personal values, about the fundamentals of governance. Is a completely orderly, benevolent dictatorship "better" (in however dimensions one defines it) than a less orderly system with more self-determination?
In opening up this argument you'll also run into the age-old struggle between common good and individual freedoms. Does maintaining an orderly, prosperous society justify the silencing, oppression, and imprisonment of a minority who disagree? If so, how far is too far - how small of a minority is okay to oppress, and at what point does it become not-okay?
There are some good arguments to be had here, so let's drop the mud-slinging and get on with it.
- Volpe 13y agoI didn't play the race card. I pointed it out. He could have used the terms "propaganda" or "astro turfing" instead he used the very ethnically charged (and derogatory) term "wu mao". Which is specifically Chinese, which is specifically NOT Singapore. You are saying I'm rude for calling a spade a spade. Sorry, but making generalisations about "Asians" (which grouping Singaporeans and Chinese) is racism. But you are right, it is a side track, and the more interesting discussion does centre around the "Is a good dictatorship better than a bad democracy?" or something of the like.
- potatolicious 13y agoI don't see the grouping at all whatsoever. What you're saying is that anyone who compares anything to the wumao party is incapable of telling the difference between the two. That drawing parallels between it and something else is automatically racist. I do not see any evidence to suggest that seanmcdirmid can't tell the difference between Singaporean and Chinese. My parsing of the post reads that he's comparing the behavior of Singapore-apologists to that of the wumao party. This seems uncharitable for sure, but racist is a stretch. Honestly, it seems like you're jumping at shadows here. As an Asian, who cannot speak for any other Asian except myself, who has been subject to a hell of a lot of racism in my life, I simply don't see it here, and I see unsubstantiated accusations of racism as having a chilling effect on the conversation and making reasonable (if somewhat unkind) commentary verboten.
- Volpe 13y agoWu mao = Derogatory terms used to describe anyone who isn't pro democracy or IS pro (chinese) communism. (in the context of china) i.e A P.R.C Government Apologist. > What you're saying is that anyone who compares anything to the wumao party is incapable of telling the difference between the two. That drawing parallels between it and something else is automatically racist. No, I'm saying in this instance (not any instance) they are not the same, and trying to imply they are the same, is bigotry. Meaning: Using prejudice to prejudge someones argument without actually addressing the merits of their argument.
- seanmcdirmid 13y agoYou jumped from wu-mao to racist bigotry very quickly. Wumao simply identifies a government shill/apologist, and I never called anyone a wumao, I just repeated their tactics, which I happen to know. So if the argument matches the wumao argument, why not call it out? What are people afraid of? To be honest, an apologist for any repressive regime would probably use similar relevance fallacies as a way to defend the undefendable. But I'm just not familiar with those.