I am flabbergasted by people reacting to the
assumption of my words instead of themselves researching the context -_-
And then going about 'shutting down
legitimate criticism' without following it up with the same degree of detail.
Dudes, I get the impression, I get the emotions, but if one is to
discuss this, one has to be direct with what's going on rather than feeling that their concern for
human life is being overridden because people are saying
nice things about this one person who is directly connected to these situations, or whichever is the feeling within your own perceptions;
talk about it instead of being passive or indirectly going "HUMPF". It's both confusing and strange to see the reasoning of others being stifled just because of impressions, especially if they don't express it but keep it within their own perceptions.
I mean I pretty much mentioned that my concern was that those posts were
incomplete in my previous posts. I can't even see where the reasoning is about any kind of 'shutting down' at all. If you've something to say, please say it. o_O If what you've to say is criticizing this guy because of what he's doing, say it too--but please don't generalize the whole darn country on the actions of one person if one isn't to consider the context. We're also affected by what you say.
((eg A good friend of mine on the IRC said 'The Philippines is going to shit' as an initial reaction. I was silently hurt by what he said but decided not to say anything. I got that he was speaking emotionally, but I don't take hyperbole well if it makes up mostly all of what's being said
and...that's it, about what's being said. It doesn't help one's outlook.))
That's pretty much partly why the title and OP should be more...
dynamic with its idea, lest the opinion be turned to bashing, rather than giving arguments/criticizing for mutual benefit and learning.
Yes, it's understandable, but I wasn't going into the very serious reasons why he was elected, but rather responding to the statement that nothing is wrong in a system where this fellow is popularly elected. Whether what is wrong was corruption in other parties, a drug epidemic, a figure's shady past being "forgotten", or a combination of the above isn't the discussion- the people of the Phillipines had their reasons to elect Duterte, reasons which were, to my knowledge, very powerful and pressing, but I strongly disapprove of subsequently shutting down legitimate criticism of a wannabe mass-murderer as western imperialism.
Because I'd like it if people are being
direct with their context than complaining about their own opinions being overridden in emotion or otherwise--if you've got something to bring up, say it, but also be sure that the context of what you're saying is just as applicable.
>_>
It's so weird seeing certain people [vague/plural] say that there is 'legitimate criticism' being shut down here without any continuation thereof. It's being acknowledged--and if it isn't,
talk about it instead of acting as if it's the whole piece of what's to be said.I mean come on. Is that going to become an argument rather than
just asking the other person involved?
And everything Trapezohedron said in that last post.
Get the context in too before arguing your own opinions feel like they're being passed over.Like personally, I hadn't considered directly this one thing: I thought it was known implicitly.
http://www.rappler.com/nation/118004-crime-drugs-philippines
I think the main piece of context missing from the thread at this point is the exact nature of the drug and crime problem in Philippines.
89% of all drug offences in Phillipines involve something called "Shabu" - which is the local word for ice/meth. Meanwhile, incidence of crimes increases 5x between 2012-2013, and the ratio of solved crimes fell from ~90% to ~25% across the decade.
So in other words, it's a lot different to e.g. USA where the vast bulk of drug offenses are for pot. There's a massive ice epidemic in The Philippines, and erosion of police effectiveness and safety across the country - everywhere except Davao city, which actually increased it's safety rating to be classed the 5th safest city in the world. So maybe you can get why people might think that electing the mayor of that one safe city to run the country might be worth a shot.
But the general idea is about an idea that doesn't have a direct definition, because
context defines it. Which is what is being talked about now.
And when I mean context--I mean things
inside the events rather than the general idea, like "Duterte = Hitler! :O", then deconstruct it into 'what was really said, what's the context, what did he mean, is he seriously supportive of Hitler's crazyness?! or is he rather speaking about associations with characteristics seen
of Hitler? etc.'
Seriously, nothing beneficial will come out of this other than unspoken, and probably lasting impressions or even
bias because of the lack of expression. It's like thinking 'these other people aren't open-minded to my ideas :/' because {something}, and this something is unknown.
Then the resulting interaction is generally going along those lines of accusation.
...That isn't right.
I'd just like to offer my personal opinion that a democracy that elects a professed would-be-mass-murderer, who says at the height of the elections , "Do not vote for me, there will be bloodshed", who promotes extrajudicial killings and imprisons hundreds of thousands of surrendered """criminals """ in squalid conditions, is not at all "vibrant", but sick to the core.
Again, he was voted not by the majority, but the plurality. But this point is banal given some Filipinos chose to abstain from voting due to the poor choices in candidates (one was a blatant corrupt politician who liked to jack up prices for areas under his control, another was a neophyte who admittedly had more promise but against seasoned political veterans doesn't stand a chance, because due to recent corruption effects, people want "action", not the traditional promises and words presidential elects would say; another was a blatant "Yellow" whose hypocritical campaigning actions proved to be his undoing, moreso that he was crushed under the weight of his party, and the last one was the most competent out of all of them, but she had cancer, and recently passed away.
One interesting trend was that Miriam Defensor Santiago was leading in almost all University polls, but due to a variety of students being below the age of voting, they could not put their votes in. As such, the impressionable masses were left unchecked to leave their Duterte votes inside.
We still had ~2million votes for Miriam :O Objectively--it's the note of her
stage IV lung cancer and the implications involved if, back then, something would happen to her when she would take the presidency. It's something of a major influence too, as these university students do have a voice that affects the older generations who have their concerns in the same placement.
Edoot: On that note, I recall why they define terms and such in the court of law--so such impressions and accusations thrown around in this thread won't even have a chance to develop, because everyone is on the same line of thinking when people say subjective terms requiring context.
x_x umphh
But this isn't a court of law--that doesn't mean it doesn't need to be civil. Let's just get on the same track here--if anyone has questions, ask them, especially if it's about what
people are talking about, or the impression you got.
Instead of vague remarks and criticism.