Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Cheeetar]

Are you complaining that desiring the thread title be changed is an attempt to shut down legitimate criticism?

[Reelya]

There was no shutting down of legitimate criticism.

Implying Tiruin can't post on bay12 because "glorious leader" might come for her is not "legitimate criticism" of Duterte - it's a ridiculous thing to say, and I called it out for being ridiculous criticism.

Yes, and there are no worthy takers of benefits in the U.K. Because one woman was abusing them for a comfortable work-free income.

When someone gives a specific fucking example of what they fucking mean, maybe you shouldn't fucking pick a moronic strawman example and argue against that.

I'm failing to follow you now, because that was the specific example that the discussion was centered on. How is it a strawman when it was the exact topic of discussion?

[Dorsidwarf]

There was no shutting down of legitimate criticism.

Implying Tiruin can't post on bay12 because "glorious leader" might come for her is not "legitimate criticism" of Duterte - it's a ridiculous thing to say, and I called it out for being ridiculous criticism.

Yes, and there are no worthy takers of benefits in the U.K. Because one woman was abusing them for a comfortable work-free income.

When someone gives a specific fucking example of what they fucking mean, maybe you shouldn't fucking pick a moronic strawman example and argue against that.

I'm failing to follow you now, because that was the specific example that the discussion was centered on. How is it a strawman when it was the exact topic of discussion?

Remember, the other point was whether Philippines is a "vibrant democracy". Sure there's crime and drugs, but does that mean e.g. America in the 1980s wasn't a "vibrant democracy". They had some pretty bad crime and drug figures back then, too.

The specific example I specifically stated -not martinnuzz's loldictator shit, that's offensive bs, as tiruin pointed out-

I don't believe Philippine democracy to not be healthy because there is a drug problem, but because the public saw the only solution to that problem to be a man who publically idolises Hitler and demands the death of millions, who specifically warned them not to vote for him

[Reelya]

Duterte is backtracking now however, saying he only said the hitler remarks because people were already calling him hitler so he said "fine, you're calling me hitler...i'm happy to go hitler on ur ass". Basically he's a loudmouth.

And you're kind of making an anachronism, because that statements only came out a few days ago, now your hypothesizing about why people elected a guy months ago over a Hitler statement he made a few days ago. Perhaps because he never mentioned Hitler at all until people started calling him Hitler?

because the public saw the only solution to that problem to be a man who publically idolises Hitler and demands the death of millions

The problem with this statement is that it's hyperbolic and a fairly false depiction of the order events. Knowledge of the world is not increased by glossing over things, exaggerating and mixing up the timeline.

[Trapezohedron]

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.

People like Duterte, whether your opinion on what he's doing is bad or good, do not get elected in a healthy democracy. They get elected in one where the stance against corruption is seen as important enough that mass murder is seen as an acceptable byproduct.

Unfortunately, this is very true. Since Ferdinand Marcos was ousted (despite the fact that some reliable sources state that he plundered the majority of Philippine funds,) the poor sector of the Philippines have been in a semi-stagnant downward spiral. Cory Aquino didn't do much to alleviate the problems (although given that she was immediately succeeding a Dictator who was funneling funds straight to his own family, the scope is likely too large for a housewife whose husband had been assassinated), subsequent Presidents having been more focused on lining their pockets with money rather than alleviating the problems of the poor sector, especially the parts of the oft-ignored Mindanao region, and Benigno Aquino III being an outright indifferent person.

For years nothing was happening and curing the problems of the poor sector so much that they viewed Duterte as their savior. And for some reason some people I spoke to lined the drug problem to drug lords getting terribly rich, running businesses locally and generally bribing government officials to give them some leeway, and they saw need to stop it.

This is compounded really by the fact that a great majority of poor children and their parents don't/didn't even have the opportunity to take any form of formal education beyond grade school (grade years 1-6).

So yes, TL;DR, Philippines, due to those factors, has a very unhealthy democracy, who value survival on the day-to-day scale as something they should consider instead of the long term which is why they are accepting this as a solution to the country's problems.

On another note, Mar Roxas was tailing Duterte by an approximate 5 million votes anyway, so it's not as if the guy didn't have any significant form of support on his end. It's just that the masses won and ended up electing someone with zero ability to mask his language. That and murdering people before they even get tried.

because the public saw the only solution to that problem to be a man who publically idolises Hitler and demands the death of millions

The problem with this statement is that it's hyperbolic and a fairly false depiction of the order events. Knowledge of the world is not increased by glossing over things, exaggerating and mixing up the timeline.

Agreed. That is indeed full of hyperbole. You could say that the vocal masses instead of the public saw the only solution to be the blind murder of millions. It's the clickbait summary of the entire problem, that doesn't really state the "why" of things. As stated, there is a visible rift between two parties, those pro- and those anti-, and the pro-Duterte public are very vocal. That doesn't mean I'm pro-murder. Hence why we're having this discussion. What everyone over here can agree on is that, yes there is indeed a drug problem, and yes, it needs to be solved. But there's also a great majority of people who think that this could be solved non-violently, and wording it that way makes it seem like the Philippines is just some barbaric, unthinking people who are pro-genocide.

This is why I implore people to look at things on the macro scale, instead of saying "I don't care, I don't give a shit. What I need to say is that you need to stop killing people." Because man, you're not the only ones who think that murder in this country is not the solution.

[Tiruin]

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.

[Reelya]

I'm starting to get upset about this too

the statement that nothing is wrong in a system where this fellow is popularly elected

First up, this is a 100% straw man, because it doesn't closely resemble any argument made by anyone, but you attribute it to someone else. What "statement"?

Now, here's the line I wrote which you accused me of making a "ridiculous strawman":

Implying Tiruin can't post on bay12 because "glorious leader" might come for her is not "legitimate criticism" of Duterte - it's a ridiculous thing to say

Something is a strawman if it mischaracterizes the original statement. But this does not do that. Here's the exact post I was referring back to, the source of the discussion in question:

I figured it might be because it's not safe to post anything but we love the glorious leader

So what exactly is martinuzz saying here? he's implying that Tiruin needs to censor what she types into Bay12 because of the Philippines government could come for her, which is exactly what I said he said. I pointed out that it was hyperbole that makes very little actual sense - then got accused of ignoring "legitimate criticism". But the problem was that the criticism was unsourced hyperbolic paranoia and not based on reality.

The rest of the context is that I had countered Martinuzz's claims by pointing out that Philippines is a "vibrant democracy" by which I meant they have a free press and people are free to hold and express opinions that differ from any government line. And suddenly, Dorisdwarf reinterprets this to mean I said "nothing is wrong in a system where this fellow is popularly elected" - a statement that has almost zero connection to whatever I wrote.

[Tiruin]

So what exactly is martinuzz saying here? he's implying that Tiruin needs to censor what she types into Bay12 because of the Philippines government could come for her, which is exactly what I said he said. I pointed out that it was hyperbole that makes very little actual sense - then got accused of ignoring "legitimate criticism". But the problem was that the criticism was hyperbolic paranoia and not based on reality if something is extremely improbable and has no evidence it's not legitimate criticism.

Tiny bop here Censors aren't going to get you--people can say what they want about Duterte, and he's also ok with people talking about him like that because he respects others' opinions (he may say something about it in return but he isn't going to punish what people are going to say); he's human too, and affected by if people get an incomplete story about him and it becomes the more vocal idea than what's fully happening.
_{Unlike Marcos' later term, but that's a whole other story right there and a totally general thing, but it happened and it was horrible, and it isn't in our current history books. >_>}

[Sergarr]

This is just another indication to the fact that Philippines have started to walk on the path of evil after electing Duterte, who has long been revealing his evil nature, and has started to brutalize his own people ever since he took power through populism, despite him being woefully unqualified for that role.

The forces of the free world must realize that, if they continue to ignore this travesty, the world will be one good democratic/capistalist pro-freedom/USA Banner of Liberty country poorer, and one evil authoritarian/communist pro-slavery/China Axis of Evil country richer.

Thankfully, I know that the future most qualified President of the United States in all history, Hillary Clinton, will stand up to this march of evil, and save the country by overthrowing this unlawful and unqualified populist tyrant, Duterte, through the unstoppable force of progress, American arms!

/liberty prime

(this is intended to be a parody, no offence intended)

[Reelya]

Yah, I was just thinking as I read that how half the world is seeing radical populism sweeping politics. It sort of seems like a theme these days. Possibly due to the fact that modern geopolitics seems to be in a state of flux and nobody is really sure what comes next.

[Dorsidwarf]

Now, here's the line I wrote which you accused me of making a "ridiculous strawman":

Implying Tiruin can't post on bay12 because "glorious leader" might come for her is not "legitimate criticism" of Duterte - it's a ridiculous thing to say

Something is a strawman if it mischaracterizes the original statement. But this does not do that. Here's the exact post I was referring back to, the source of the discussion in question:

I figured it might be because it's not safe to post anything but we love the glorious leader

I would actually like to take a step back here to apologise for calling you referring back to this statement a strawman, as obviously that is in fact exactly what he said and that was entirely the wrong terminology. What I meant is that I felt that you were deflecting from the actual point I was arguing over (Whether a democracy can be considered to be entirely healthy if the country hosting it is suffering a problem deep-rooted enough to create popular sentiment to give a plurality to such a highly controversial(to put it lightly) candidate), by referring back to a quote I did not, in fact, support to challenge my point.

<snop for still being a statement that I'm supporting martinuzz's "lol phillipines has no free speech">

The rest of the context is that I had countered Martinuzz's claims by pointing out that Philippines is a "vibrant democracy" by which I meant they have a free press and people are free to hold and express opinions that differ from any government line. And suddenly, Dorisdwarf reinterprets this to mean I said "nothing is wrong in a system where this fellow is popularly elected" - a statement that has almost zero connection to whatever I wrote.

You didn't exactly what you felt a "vibrant democracy" to mean. I took it to mean that the political, [well I'll be honest, there's probbably a german word for this, but I can't exactly place what I mean, perhaps a combination of "Well being" and "factors affecting it" and "outcomes"? I'm not always the most coherent about expression of ideas] was stated to be extremely well-off and good, as the term "vibrant" implies.
I was not aware that you were, rather, using it in the sense of freedom of speech and press and opinion, as that was not supplied context, and reacted as such. Yes, clearly the various geopolitical tensions that resulted in the outcome of your recent election have not affected the freedoms and rights of the citizens, and Duterte seems very strongly in favor of the citizens' rights. (as long as they don't use a drug)

On the other hand, I would like to apologise for the confrontational, less-than-precise and extremely-agressive nature of my series of posts this morning. I will in future refrain from angry political arguments on my phone right after waking up.

Yah, I was just thinking as I read that how half the world is seeing radical populism sweeping politics. It sort of seems like a theme these days. Possibly due to the fact that modern geopolitics seems to be in a state of flux and nobody is really sure what comes next.

This is a statement that I agree with. Hurray.

[smjjames]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/philippine-president-tells-obama-you-can-go-to-hell-in-latest-tirade-229085

I wonder how well he and Trump would get along, heh

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Trump would literally start giving MILF funding after their first meeting.

[Loud Whispers]

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/05/the-unthinkable-olive-branch-colombia-farc-tunisia/
gorillion hitlers

[Reelya]

FARC were the only group putting up resistance to a government who ran chainsaw-wielding death squads, and who's army was notorious for kidnapping and murdering teenagers so they could pretend they were fighting rebels. Sure FARC could have peacefully joined the political process and tried to get elected to defeat that government, but most of the people who did that have been assassinated.

Those child-mass-murdering right-wing death squads have already been given an amnesty for mass child-murdering. Anything FARC did is child's play by comparison. Uribe, who is now agitating against the peace process, and both the Bush and Obama administration have been complicit in ensuring that the paramilitary killers have gotten away with much worse than FARC was ever even accused of.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/09/20/our-terrorists-in-colombia-death-squads-as-freedom-fighters/

The gist of the NYT story is that, beginning in 2008, the U.S. has extradited “several dozen” top paramilitary leaders, thereby helping them to evade a transitional justice process which would have held them accountable for their war crimes and crimes against humanity.   They have been brought to the U.S. where they have been tried for drug-related offenses only and given cushy sentences of 10 years in prison on average. And, even more incredibly, “for some, there is a special dividend at the end of their incarceration. Though wanted by Colombian authorities, two have won permission to stay in the United States, and their families have joined them. There are more seeking the same haven, and still others are expected to follow suit.”

That these paramilitaries – 40 in all that the NYT investigated — are being given such preferential treatment is shocking given the magnitude of their crimes.   For example, paramilitary leader Salvatore Mancuso, “who the government said ‘may well be one of the most prolific cocaine traffickers ever prosecuted in a United States District Court,’” has been found by Colombian courts to be “responsible for the death or disappearance of more than 1,000 people.”   Yet, as a result of his cooperation with U.S. authorities Mr. Mancuso “will spend little more than 12 years behind bars in the U.S.”

http://www.ipsnews.net/2003/09/rights-group-outraged-at-colombia-plan-to-amnesty-paramilitaries/

The AUC has also been accused of thousands of assassinations, particularly of union and peasant organisers, but also of judges, prosecutors, and even two presidential candidates. Many of the killings have been shockingly brutal. Kirk cited one case where the paramilitaries, with the apparent cooperation of army units stationed nearby, carried out a massacre in the central village of Mapiripan in 1997. At dawn, they rounded up residents and took them to a slaughterhouse, where they bound and tortured the captives and slit their throats. The first person killed was hung from a meat hook; at least two others were decapitated. More than 30 others were slaughtered. Castano himself claimed responsibility and promised "many more Mapiripans" in the future.

The governing party has links to death squads who assassinate rival presidential candidates. That alone should explain why rebels exist. The normal legal means were basically impossibly risky to take this government down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22False_positives%22_scandal

The "false positives" scandal (Escándalo de los falsos positivos in Spanish) was a series of murders in Colombia, part of the ongoing armed conflict in that country between the government and guerrilla forces of the FARC and the ELN. Members of the military had poor or mentally impaired civilians lured to remote parts of the country with offers of work, killed them, and presented them to authorities as guerrilleros killed in battle, in an effort to inflate body counts and receive promotions or other benefits. As of June 2012, a total of 3,350 such cases have been investigated in all parts of the country and verdicts have been reached in 170 cases. Human rights groups have charged that the judicial cases progressed too slowly.

So who exactly is Hitler in Colombia, when government forces kidnap teenagers, murder them by the thousands, then dress them up as terrorists so that they can get promotions and cash bonuses for winning battles? The head of the entire army was personally implicated in overseeing this shit. With that sort of shit going down, can't you sort of see why people might think it's a good idea to oppose this government?