The illusion of chasing internet credibility
March 2nd, 2009 | 
Author: By Darkness, Guest Columnist
I just have 15 minutes to spare before I gear off for a spot of cycling – so we’ve going dive in straight into the deep end on this one – Question: Is it reasonable to even expect the internet to be credible?
You know what? I have absolutely no idea. Though judging from the way policy makers seem to go on and on like a broken record about the subject of online credibility – they seem to be almost single minded in reminding us that we must be responsible for what we write and present online – its hard to know who believes what these days, but no matter; lets not sweat the small stuff and just go with the flow on this one.
Have you ever considered; what’s really behind this obsession about online credibility? Why should policy makers even feel the overwhelming need to insist that online discourse should be credible?
One clue accounting for this oddly naïve insistence that the internet should conform to some acceptable form and structure stems largely from an acute anxiety on the part of policy makers; the internet may be some sort of mysterious wonder weapon like the ark of the covenant – for one can be weaponized with remarkable ease even by monkeys – and its effects can even be far reaching spewing out digital death rays in every direction with impunity.
It’s easy to buy into this sense of urgency when the internet is hung in the rogues gallery besides Dante’s seventh level of hell; and to some extent; myth even manages to eclipses reason; when one considers how the internet was often touted as the l’enfant terrible that dealt the ruling Barisan Nasional the proverbial kiss of death in the last Malaysian general elections, reducing the Malay elite to a bunch of shambolic mumblers; though I suspect what may have actually tilted the balance in favor of the opposition may also have been good olde fashion slip shod governance, slow mail, sms, petrol vouchers and the ubiquitous underwater sound quality DVD porno – my point is simply this; despite the ongoing preoccupation with the latent powers of the internet, a lot of it still remains the stuff of princesses kissing croaking frogs, alchemy and black magic – how much impact the internet may have on the politics of the day, or to wonder what conditions must first be obtained if they it is to have an impact; still remains a question of endless speculation – and even if the experts disagree on many things; all remain unanimous how the dystopian net may win the day is still a matter of considerable debate.
The hubris of having to deal with an “unknown quantity” is what I suspect to be at the bedrock of anxiety – and this is manifested in why policy makers continue to insist no end the internet should at least have the decency to conform to some semblance of understandable order – the dissertates range from Ah Liu’s recent condemnation of the netizens and how none of us could muster enough heart to avail Ah Seng – to the ongoing game of you-must-behave-yourself-otherwise-I-don’t-fren you strategy that is currently pursued. In every single case the underpinnings are clear: the internet is the nail that sticks out; it must be hammered down!
Its precisely that departmental attitude towards the internet that’s a source of pain to most thinking folk; and its exacerbated recently when the custodians are increasingly speaking a language of panic and treating online credibility not as one of many competing values but as the one value that trumps all others.
The problem is this diffusion of nervous energy is missing one vital ingredient; a genuinely alarmed public. Truth remains most netizens care about credibility mainly in the abstract whenever they blog. I am not saying everyone is terminally ambivalent about coming across as sane, mature and worth reading in cyberspace; only most netizens don’t really see the need to buy into the idea of credibility anymore than people who have real hair need to buy a wig. I’m no exception – and that’s one reason why when I hear toe curling commentaries about how the government should only respond to “credible” voices online – I find that not only does it put my character in a false light but a kind of appropriation of self is even going on; one where I even have to consider self censoring my thoughts should I wish to be taken seriously; but what if I don’t wish to assume that mantle; what if blogging isn’t a way to change the world as it remains a reliable way to preserve something valuable; and that thing being preserve could well be memories of my averagely miserable childhood to perhaps something more important like a critical way of viewing life as it unfolds – I am reminded when people blog; a sort of alchemy is going on in their heads; a man may be Christian, heterosexual, drive a Japanese car, Manchester united supporter, stir his coffee anti clockwise – but which one of these wins over the rest when he decides to hack away at his keyboard? People are complicated; and my feel is it doesn’t pay to expect them to conform to a set of ideals; not if all it does is level the field of possibilities further by forwarding the binary view one is either switched on or off, successful or a failure; scholar or peasant; chosen on or damned, credible or just plain rubbish and not worth engaging – how might that sort of reductionism serve the greater imperative of building a diverse and vibrant net? Well it cannot.
My point is simply this; government may simply have to reconcile themselves with the idea if the goal is build a better net; then instead of trying to funnel the online community into a way of thinking – what they may need to do is to simply let go. I know the idea sounds incredulous and even a trifle dangerous – but that logic isn’t so different from how the big cities of this world manage to consistently winnow the real winners from the losers; for one none of them subscribe to the ideal of zoo keeping as reliable way of seeding the good and driving out the bad.
In fact, the paradox of big cities like New York, Tokyo and Paris isn’t so different from the social landscape that makes up our internet; though its often fingered for its rudeness, its arrogance and along with its moral turpitude – resentment may yet be the highest form of compliment a city can receive; and it precisely because of this mish mash between good and bad as it tries to work its way out – that its serves as lightning rod to attract the brightest and smartest; who even see feral and even brutish city life as the best way to reinvent oneself – only don’t ever buy into the belief for one moment, New York can be New York – Paris can be Paris; if no one ever bothered with the wisdom of tolerating the bad, in the great hope the good would somehow be able to win the day – that is really the linchpin of this essay – the tao of letting things be; instead of thinking you’re Mr Know it all.
It worries me therefore that what seems to be playing out these days (look closely and you will see it) is something that I can only describe as a sorry state of sovietization – the idea as LSL recently lay on in prosaic terms as:
“But even in the Internet, there are places which are more considered, more moderated where people put their names down and identify themselves. And there is a debate which goes on and a give and take, which is not so rambunctious but perhaps more thoughtful. That is another range.” Lee.S.L Feb 2009
Despite my best efforts to find something redeeming about this whole idea – I cannot, only because when one boils down these statements to crud; its not so different from the idea of scrubbing streets clean and making sure all the picket fences are ram-rod straight and everyone can be counted to sip and not slurp their soup – for one it smacks of zoo keeping; one that even suggest if there was ever such city that was ever so sanitized and gutted out to make everything just right for the government to dip its porcelain feet into – it never even once existed in real life except perhaps in the deepest firmament of some fairytale; not even Disneyland despite its zing and panache for the surreal can gut out the human condition these days; when the average internet savvy kid these days knows only too well the evil decepticons has vaporized snow white and as for the seven dwarfs –they’re probably languishing in some virtual salt mines eking out make belief gold for the triads in China – as I said, it doesn’t pay to buy into the illusion of a credible net, not if it comes at the cost of reducing everything to binary logic.
Life doesn’t work that way; never did and never will – and it may be wiser for government to just take the net for what it is, to paraphrase, this is as good as it will ever get.
The perverse effect of this great diffusion of energy to build an online Pyongyang by instill the necessary quotient of credibility online – by behaving as if it’s an urgent matter to understand who though what and to award them good and bad marks for their ideas; may yet yield the opposite result; instead of online engagement which is of a deep spirited kind where issues may be brought to light with the force of reason; what’s likely to be played out is a rendition of more of the same – where despite the best efforts of government to come connect with the online community – all they would have done is recreate the very sameness that once provoked so many to migrate online in search of something that doesn’t cause pain to thinking folk – its suggestive it may even sharpen the already acute sense of estrangement further as one can really only bear so much perfidiously happy faced hear only the good stuff without puking over the cat.
Now you don’t an excuse to say; no one told you; as all that came from a citizen of the internet.
Darkness 2009
Posted in Snippets
19 Responses to “The illusion of chasing internet credibility”
Loading ...
Alex Tan Allan Ooi AWARE Chee Soon Juan Chiam See Tong Claire Lee David Widjaja DBS Dr Allan Ooi Dr Silviu Ionescu Dr Vivian Balakrishnan Foyce Le Xuan highnote5 Hong Lim Park Jack Lin Xinli Jack Neo Jack Neo affair Jack Neo scandal Josie Lau Josie Lau Meng Lee Lee Kuan Yew Lehman brothers Lighthouse Evangelism MAS minibonds Miss Singapore World NTU stabbing PAP Pastor Rony Tan Ris Low Romanian diplomat in hit-and-run Rony Tan S-League silviu ionescu Singapore Singapore 2010 Youth Olympic Games Tan Kin Lian Thio Su Mien Tiger Woods affair Tong Kok Wai Top 8 Vivian Balakrishnan Wendy Chong Y O G Youth Olympic Games
WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck and Luke Morton requires Flash Player 9 or better.
“It worries me therefore that what seems to be playing out these days (look closely and you will see it) is something that I can only describe as a sorry state of sovietization.”
Its already started. If u go over to TOC. You will see them preparing the ground. Cannot do this. Cannot say that. If what to say. Must say this way and say that way and so on and so forth.
Go over there and look for yourself if you dont believe me
May I add that the very blokes who are suppose to lead the people have lost credibility. It is just laughable that these same blokes expect nothing but credibility in the internet.
It will be no different from thieves and robbers demanding honesty from their victims.
TiME TO DISPEL DARKNESS
Hi “Darkness”!
You are another chap who’s barking up the wrong tree again. Or, to use you own words, you are “like a broken record [screeching on] the subject of online credibility.”
You will see the light if you allow youself to read my post “WAH LAU! I HAVE TO EXPLAIN ALL OVER AGAIN!!” at this link:
http://wayangparty.com/?p=4841&cpage=2#comment-3603 (27/2/09 8:13pm)
What is wrong in people like RADM Lui Tuck Yew wanting or “insist[ing] that online discourse should be credible?” Or wanting you to be credible? If you aren’t, why on earth should you be writing in blospheres for us to read? And why your pseudo-name “Darkness”? Who is going to take you seriously then when you could have chosen a better name? Indeed why on earth should we want to live or operate in perpetual darkness? Darkness is only a time for us to cease our activites, to let our over-worked bodies and minds rest from wild imaginations, so that we can function with renewed strength and lucidity when daylight breaks out for the next cycle.
As wayangparty admin people have clearly manifested an allergy to seeing things from a religious perspective that I have been adopting from the goodness of various religions for my many posts, I wonder why did they allow you to rant on religion too, by your attempt to denigrate and desecrate holy stuffs, such as the “ark of the covenant”—to insinuata it for something sinister, which “can be weaponized with remarkable ease even by monkeys – and its effects can even be far reaching spewing out digital death rays in every direction with impunity.”
Obviously, you have pathetic understanding about the “ark of the covenant”. According to my Bible, sinners (like you and me) were not allowed to touch it. But the stinks and swills of putrefying matters internet blogs were feeding and fermenting, on the wild rumours and vile fabrications that netizens like you have been puking from their version of the Seng Han Thong saga—these can hardly be considered holy. You are fortunate that I am a Christian, so I don’t go around calling for jihads against you. But try to write provocative and seditious stuff like that about Islam, and let us see where you can then run to hide, “Darkness”? So an explanation from wayangparty’s admin would certainly be welcomed on this. Why their lop-sidedness? Is this again their upside down way prove their vaunted claims for objectivity and decency?
Please understand that as much as you have your freedom of speech, you should accord RADM Lui Tuck Yew his freedom to do likewise, as behooved his status as SMOS(MICA). He knew what he was talking about, as I had also given him a copy of my 21/8/06 letter to Mr Seng HT about what happened then. So why should he be wrong and deserving your castigation for speaking from facts and truths? But people like you are puking around with your wild imagination and stinks. Why then should people like you attempt to foist this on us as your paragon of the correct behaviour you obviously want us to believe and emulate, huh?
After all, RADM Lui wasn’t calling for any top-down regulations for the activities in blogospheres, the “sovietization” you have alleged. What he was lamenting and essentially hoping for, was for more caring, helpful and sensible people like me to come out and help shed the light, so that “Darkness” can then flee from cyberspace. Then netizens can be left undisturbed to enjoy their debates, with the helpful “give and take” that PM Lee was advocating. So I don’t see why saying this should also be wrong for PM Lee?
By so doing, Singaporeans can help Singaporeans. And that is my unshakeable belief too—WE MUST!If we don’t help ourselves, then who is going to help us, when times of hardships and “Darkness”descend? So pleae try to write coherently your future articles if you really value your crediblity. Try not to envelope us in “Darkness”, that is ever threatening the world in general, and Singapore in particular.
-
{Guest Columnist “Darkness” wrote on 1/3/09: “THE ILLUSION OF CHASING INTERNET CREDIBILITY”
I just have 15 minutes to spare before I gear off for a spot of cycling….Question: Is it reasonable to even expect the internet to be credible?
…judging from the way policy makers seem to go on and on like a broken record about the subject of online credibility – they seem to be almost single minded in reminding us that we must be responsible for what we write and present online – its hard to know who believes what these days, but no matter; lets not sweat the small stuff and just go with the flow on this one.
…..Why should policy makers even feel the overwhelming need to insist that online discourse should be credible? …. the internet may be some sort of mysterious wonder weapon like the ark of the covenant – for one can be weaponized with remarkable ease even by monkeys – and its effects can even be far reaching spewing out digital death rays in every direction with impunity.
……….what I suspect to be at the bedrock of anxiety – and this is manifested in why policy makers continue to insist no end the internet should at least have the decency to conform to some semblance of understandable order – the dissertates range from Ah Liu’s recent condemnation of the netizens and how none of us could muster enough heart to avail Ah Seng – to the ongoing game of you-must-behave-yourself-otherwise-I-don’t-fren you strategy that is currently pursued
…… precisely that departmental attitude towards the internet that’s a source of pain to most thinking folk; and its exacerbated recently when the custodians are increasingly speaking a language of panic and treating online credibility not as one of many competing values but as the one value that trumps all others.
…
It worries me therefore that what seems to be playing out these days (look closely and you will see it) is something that I can only describe as a sorry state of sovietization ––the idea as LSL recently lay on in prosaic terms as:
“But even in the Internet, there are places which are more considered, more moderated where people put their names down and identify themselves. And there is a debate which goes on and a give and take, which is not so rambunctious but perhaps more thoughtful. That is another range.” Lee.S.L Feb 2009}
Corrected post:
TIME TO DISPEL DARKNESS
Hi “Darkness”!
You are another chap who’s barking up the wrong tree again. Or, to use you own words, you are “like a broken record [screeching on] the subject of online credibility.”
You will see the light if you allow youself to read my post “WAH LAU! I HAVE TO EXPLAIN ALL OVER AGAIN!!” at this link:
http://wayangparty.com/?p=4841&cpage=2#comment-3603 (27/2/09 8:13pm)
What is wrong in people like RADM Lui Tuck Yew wanting or “insist[ing] that online discourse should be credible?” Or wanting you to be credible? If you aren’t, why on earth should you be writing in blospheres for us to read? And why your pseudo-name “Darkness”? Who is going to take you seriously then when you could have chosen a better name? Indeed why on earth should we want to live or operate in perpetual darkness? Darkness is only a time for us to cease our activities, to let our over-worked bodies and minds rest from wild imaginations, so that we can function with renewed strength and lucidity when daylight breaks out for the next cycle.
As wayangparty admin people have clearly manifested an allergy to seeing things from a religious perspective that I have been adopting from the goodness of various religions for my many posts, I wonder why did they allow you to rant on religion too, by your attempt to denigrate and desecrate holy stuffs, such as the “ark of the covenant”—to insinuate it for something sinister, which “can be weaponized with remarkable ease even by monkeys – and its effects can even be far reaching spewing out digital death rays in every direction with impunity.”
Obviously, you have pathetic understanding about the “ark of the covenant”. According to my Bible, sinners (like you and me) were not allowed to touch it. But the stinks and swills of putrefying matters internet blogs were feeding and fermenting, on the wild rumours and vile fabrications that netizens like you have been puking from their version of the Seng Han Thong saga—these can hardly be considered holy. You are fortunate that I am a Christian, so I don’t go around calling for jihads against you. But try to write provocative and seditious stuff like that about Islam, and let us see where you can then run to hide, “Darkness”? So an explanation from wayangparty’s admin would certainly be welcomed on this. Why their lop-sidedness? Is this again their upside down way to prove their vaunted claims for objectivity and decency?
Please understand that as much as you have your freedom of speech, you should accord RADM Lui Tuck Yew his freedom to do likewise, as behooved his status as SMOS(MICA). He knew what he was talking about, as I had also given him a copy of my 21/8/06 letter to Mr Seng HT about what happened then. So why should he be wrong and deserving your castigation for speaking from facts and truths? But people like you are puking around with your wild imagination and stinks. Why then should people like you attempt to foist this on us as your paragon of the correct behaviour you obviously want us to believe and emulate, huh?
After all, RADM Lui wasn’t calling for any top-down regulations for the activities in blogospheres, the “sovietization” you have alleged. What he was lamenting and essentially hoping for, was for more caring, helpful and sensible people like me to come out and help shed the light, so that “Darkness” can then flee from cyberspace. Then netizens can be left undisturbed to enjoy their debates, with the helpful “give and take” that PM Lee was advocating. So I don’t see why saying this should also be wrong for PM Lee?
By so doing, Singaporeans can help Singaporeans. And that is my unshakeable belief too—WE MUST! If we don’t help ourselves, then who is going to help us, when times of hardships and “Darkness” descend? So pleae try to write coherently your future articles if you really value your credibility. Try not to envelope us in “Darkness”, that is ever threatening the world in general, and Singapore in particular.
-
{Guest Columnist “Darkness” wrote on 2/3/09: “THE ILLUSION OF CHASING INTERNET CREDIBILITY”
I just have 15 minutes to spare before I gear off for a spot of cycling….Question: Is it reasonable to even expect the internet to be credible?
…judging from the way policy makers seem to go on and on like a broken record about the subject of online credibility – they seem to be almost single minded in reminding us that we must be responsible for what we write and present online – its hard to know who believes what these days, but no matter; lets not sweat the small stuff and just go with the flow on this one.
…..Why should policy makers even feel the overwhelming need to insist that online discourse should be credible? …. the internet may be some sort of mysterious wonder weapon like the ark of the covenant – for one can be weaponized with remarkable ease even by monkeys – and its effects can even be far reaching spewing out digital death rays in every direction with impunity.
……….what I suspect to be at the bedrock of anxiety – and this is manifested in why policy makers continue to insist no end the internet should at least have the decency to conform to some semblance of understandable order – the dissertates range from Ah Liu’s recent condemnation of the netizens and how none of us could muster enough heart to avail Ah Seng – to the ongoing game of you-must-behave-yourself-otherwise-I-don’t-fren you strategy that is currently pursued
…… precisely that departmental attitude towards the internet that’s a source of pain to most thinking folk; and its exacerbated recently when the custodians are increasingly speaking a language of panic and treating online credibility not as one of many competing values but as the one value that trumps all others.
…
It worries me therefore that what seems to be playing out these days (look closely and you will see it) is something that I can only describe as a sorry state of sovietization ––the idea as LSL recently lay on in prosaic terms as:
“But even in the Internet, there are places which are more considered, more moderated where people put their names down and identify themselves. And there is a debate which goes on and a give and take, which is not so rambunctious but perhaps more thoughtful. That is another range.” Lee.S.L Feb 2009}
“It worries me therefore that what seems to be playing out these days (look closely and you will see it) is something that I can only describe as a sorry state of sovietization ––the idea as LSL recently lay on in prosaic terms as:
“But even in the Internet, there are places which are more considered, more moderated where people put their names down and identify themselves. And there is a debate which goes on and a give and take, which is not so rambunctious but perhaps more thoughtful. That is another range.” Lee.S.L Feb 2009}”
I have always been an avid reader of BP as they seem to be the only ones these days who still keep to the classical 3 pages type script. That is why is gives me little pleasure to say, this piece disturbs me for a few reasons.
Firstly, the title suggest good can emerge from venality or something akin to the law of the jungle. That I believe is what the author suggest when he decidedly frames the whole issue in laissez-faire terms. Though how this miracle might come about is never quite explained by the author. But where the author fails is by failing to highlight the obvious. If that were really true, then we wont need either laws or those who may need to enforce them.
Secondly, he draws parallels between calls for a less rambunctious net to the whole idea of sovietization. since we all know he is a clever dillente, we all know he excels in prose and repartee. So this is accomplished without having to really mention how this might even lead to the idea of a controlled and regulated society. All we are told in this essay how this might happen is when he very cleverly inserts the whole idea of a Aldous Huxley’s thesis of a binary world, and viola as if by magic, his argument is completed.
I never thought the BP will read like a fairytale. If this cont for longer, I may have to seriously reconsider reading such tripe. I do hope my post will not be censored. As they have a habit of claiming the comments box is not working and soon we shall all see all the comments drying up for no apparent reason.
This “obsession” with credibility could be a red-herring to distract from other weaknesses. Worthy winners defeat their opponents by proving their own strengths, not by discrediting lesser mortals in their far-from-level playing field.
Can’t we just trust ourselves on this one? We’re on our own out here…why not just do selective reading. We’re probably already doing that?
“What is wrong in people like RADM Lui Tuck Yew wanting or “insist[ing] that online discourse should be credible?””
Credibility of debaters is determined by the audience, not the debaters. RADM Lui Tuck Yew, being in the role of a debater, has no grounds for insisting on his opponents’ credibility, when his own credibility is also scrutinized. Credibility does not come with a name. I has to be built and earned.
randomnessinmind is right. The audience do not need help to decide on what they want to read. Neither do they need anyone to tell them who is credible or not. They will decide for themselves.
The good that would come out from this laissez-faire is that there will be more thinking individuals, necessitated by the need to decide for ourselves, instead of lazy brains expecting to be fed with “credible” delicacies specially picked, washed and shipped from the heavenly places.
YOU’RE RIGHT—WE SHOULD THINK AND AVOID OUR BRAINS GOING LAZY
Hi “shoestring”!
You commented on what I wrote on 2/3/09 at 2:25 PM in my post “WAH LAU, I HAVE TO EXPLAIN ALL OVER AGAIN!”
I got the facts and figures, because I involved myself in the matter through my letter of 21/8/06 to help both the old cabby Koo Tong Huat and MP Seng Han Thong (who was punched by cabby Koo). The criminal case number was PS 1138/2006, and the District Judge was Miss Valerie Kheam.
That day 30/10/06 in her Court 5, DJ Valerie allowed the criminal prosecution to be withdrawn as nice man Mr Seng Han Thong was encouraged by me to forgive him. Cabby Koo then thanked MP Seng for forgiving him.
Th matter had nothing to do with the PAP leaders manipulating the matter to make themsleves look good. It had everything to do with MP Seng trying to do his best as an MP.
When the second incident happened again, TNP reporter Ms Vivien Chan went up to cabby Koo and interviewed him. He told Ms Chan he had soince become MP Seng’s good friend, and would turn up for MP Seng’s community event in the YCK CC.
Now, I had also given RADM Lui these facts through a copy of my 21/8/06 letter to Mr Seng HT when he became my Moulmein MP. So RADM Lui knew what he was talking about. He would be failing in his duty if he kept quiet, as many of you wanted him to keep quiet. Well, if you have your right to speak, does RADM Lui not have his right to speak too?
After all, he wasn’t telling us that he would want to bring more regulations to control internet activities. He was just lamenting the lack of self-policing in internet, and essentially wanted more kind-hearted, helpful and sensible people like me (and you) to come out in force to help others, such as by shedding light and explaining matters for others to understand.
I helped out because I always believe that Singaporeans MUST HELP Singaporeans. If we do not help ourselves, who do you think will help us, “shoestring”? So you are wrong to write that “The audience do not need help to decide on what they want to read.”
Now, if all of us play our part to help each other whenever we could, then we can continue to enjoy our freedom to speak freely and debate with each other, without the need for more government regulations to be brought in. Never mind if we make mistakes with what we say or write.
But when our errors are pointed out to us, we should be honest with ourselves, accept/admit our errors, and make the necessary corrections, and move on. We must not be “lazy” as you correctly said, and mindlessly swallow whatever we heard from other people.
So I would urge you not to be “lazy”. Meet me in Toa Payoh HDB HUB for my lunch treat then, and I will pass you a copy of that 21/8/06 letter I wrote to MP Seng. I will explain more and you can understand better that what RADM Lui said and wished for in Parliament was correct. Will this be a reasonable suggestion to you, sir?
{”shoestring” wrote on Wed, 4th Mar 2009 1:36 pm:
Oh Tham Eng said:- “What is wrong in people like RADM Lui Tuck Yew wanting or “insist[ing] that online discourse should be credible?” ”
Credibility of debaters is determined by the audience, not the debaters. RADM Lui Tuck Yew …[he] has no grounds for insisting on his opponents’ credibility, when his own credibility is also scrutinized. Credibility does not come with a name. I has to be built and earned……The audience do not need help to decide on what they want to read. Neither do they need anyone to tell them who is credible or not. They will decide for themselves……instead of lazy brains expecting to be fed with “credible” delicacies specially picked, washed and shipped from the heavenly places.}
Now now….no need to be agitated or all fired up to prove your point.
We’re just saying we judge on our own what we’ve seen or heard. We never said we don’t believe you, nor did we say we wanted only credible sources.
It’s only natural to assume by netizens that what RADM Lui said was insensitive. Because I myself also felt it was a big joke when he made that statement. He referred to the internet then as a whole to moderate themselves, and obviously, by doing that…many figured he’d wanted people watching over the internet. I, seriously, was really laughing very hard when that happened, since he was dealing himself a blow from the netizens, and seriously speaking he could’ve phrased it better.
By only focusing on the bad part of the online community he enraged the polite ones, probably people like me(and shoestring). It was made into a big joke in many places, including here. If what you said was true, it was just an honest mistake, but nobody cares anymore for worst things had happened, and attentions diverted.
Bringing it up again may make a few believe you, I do, for one, only because I don’t care either ways. But I see no point in raising your voice, or CAPS over it.
Well, don’t take my comment too seriously now, I’m not trying to prove you wrong, but just telling you that we probably don’t care. It’s not such a big deal anyways.
Thank you, Admin, for restoring my full name. I am deeply grateful.
Please let your Brotherhood writers know that I meant no ill-will towards any of them in my previous post, though I was also trying to pun on the moniker of one of them, “Darkness” even as I was trying to share my thoughts. That is what we would call meaningful debates, where all of us will turn out to be winners, right, admin?
Let us also never forget to always remain on our learning curve. Then if anything happens to any of us, we can all rally to help out. SINGAPOERANS MUST ALWAYS HELP OUT SINGAPOREANS!
Lastly, the correction for my post on 4th Mar 2009 10:17 pm I put up in response to “shoestring’s”.
Should be “…what I wrote on 2/3/09 at 2:25 PM in my post “TIME TO DISPEL DARKNESS!”, not “….what I wrote on 2/3/09 at 2:25 PM in my post “WAH LAU, I HAVE TO EXPLAIN ALL OVER AGAIN!”
Oh Tham Eng,
I am honored that you took the time to pen such a long post in response to my one paragraph. What I wrote is a generic reply to your question:
“What is wrong in people like RADM Lui Tuck Yew wanting or “insist[ing] that online discourse should be credible?”
It is metaphor to illustrate that he, and people like him, is in the same position as the netizens he spoke about – as someone trying to convince an audience of his case, just like a debater whose credibility is up to the audience to decide.
His role is to convince, not insist that the debate be conducted according to his rules. He cannot declare himself credible (he may or may not be) and choose his opponents according to his criteria.
I do not care what he thinks is credible or who he chooses. I will judge for myself and decide who is credible and who is a waste of time. And debates/discourse where one party engages only those he thinks are credible are a waste of time to me.
Good afternoon,
Yes. I think shoestring has spoken wisely on the topic of the rules of engagement. The problem with assigning the appelation of credibility is it may NOT be such a credible process after all.
As one of the tools that is frequently used by those who have a bent to impose their will at every turn and cost is by undermining the credibility of their opponents by every possible means and this includes confecting endless lies to simply marginalizing them by labelling them as the lunatic fringe.
This ranges from the direct to oblique i.e declaring him mentally unsound to perhaps casting doubt on his capabilities by revealing strategic information of a type that undermines his character.
If everyone engaged in fair and square debate according the rules of the level playing field then Ah Tham would be spot on; but as it is, I’ve go with shoestring on this one ONLY bc some people employ gutter tactics and that simply deserves equal treatment of sorts.
Its a rule of thumb; never bring a knife to a gun fight.
Well said Shoestring. Btw nice to see you here again. Sorry about your comments in dotseng. Darkness sends his warmest reg. Couldnt post them up, as we are currently experiencing technical problems with the comment box.
SD (Internet liaison officer of the brotherhood)
HOW CAN YOU BE SO TERRIBLY UPSIDE DOWN, “SHOESTRING”?
Hi shoestring”, you are again barking up the wrong tree. RADM Lui got the facts from me long before MP Seng was assaulted the second time. And I want you to get the facts right from me too. Then we can have credible and meaningful debates.
You can’t be writing nonsense and debating incoherently, without wanting to know what you are writing and advocating about, and expect people in the audience to accept your inanities, do you? Didn’t you say we must be thinking more, “instead of [just using our] lazy brains …to be fed” with falsities or misinformation that you are trying so hard to feed on yourself? How ironic you are! sir! Swill you have been feeding on vis-a-vis the Seng HT saga, if I may say so! Definitely, such swills cannot be from your “heavenly places”.
Anyway, nowhere was RADM Lui insisting on his own rule of engagement in debates. What he wanted was that good and intelligent people like you and me should debate on facts and truths (such as what I had long given to him). So please stop changing your position when you are found to be talking and arguing so incoherently. Isn’t it stupid that I should agree with what you want us to avoid doing in your “credible” debate—avoid using our “lazy brains”—and you do not have any faith in what you are advocating us to avoid doing. How can you be so upside down, sir?
Blame me, if you want, for feeding RADM Lui with the facts and truths in the Seng HT’s saga, long before the second tragedy happened, and for my kindness in wanting to help that poor cabby Koo out of trouble in the first instance; not on RADM Lui, will you, sir?
Lastly, I agree with you, it “is a waste of time” trying to argue/debate with those who love not the facts or truths, Mr “shoestring”!
{”shoestring” wrote on Thu, 5th Mar 2009 1:08 pm: Oh Tham Eng,
I am honored that you took the time to pen such a long post in response to my one paragraph…..“What is wrong in people like RADM Lui Tuck Yew wanting or “insist[ing] that online discourse should be credible?”…. a debater’s credibility is up to the audience to decide.
His role is to convince, not insist that the debate be conducted according to his rules…..[not] declare himself credible….I do not care what he thinks is credible or who he chooses. I will judge for myself and decide who is credible and who is a waste of time. And debates/discourse where one party engages only those he thinks are credible are a waste of time to me.}
SD, Darkness and the others.
I am not a PAP stooge, but I do believe sometimes the reaction of netizens do very little to endear our govt. They dont inspire much confidence. As for you SD, I agree with you some what, when you say violence begets violence. But if what you say is true then we shall never be able to find common ground.
There has to be some give and take.
INCREDIBLE HOW SOME PEOPLE REVEL IN UPSIDE-DOWN THINKING, BUT INSIST ON WALKING RIGHT-SIDE UP!
Hi “randomnessinmind”, hard to make sense out of what you were trying to say in your post. You said you wanted to “judge [based] on [your] own [judgment of] what [you] had seen or heard [as true and credible/reliable]“; and in the same breath, you said you “did [not] want only credible sources” of information to base your judgment, which you want others to believe is credible anyway.
But if you DO NOT “want ONLY credible sources” of information, then how can you come to a “credible” judgment that we all can agree with you as correct or credible? Take this analogy: If there is no light in a big room (perfect darkness), how then can you expect any person to walk through it without stumbling over objects in it, or bumping badly into its walls? Even a blind man must have a “credible” cane to feel and probe his way around. He can’t be walking around without any “credible” aid! Maybe you would love to show us how you can do it!
If I had not gone in to help that poor old cabby Koo in August 2006, then of course what all of you people said would make good sense and be acceptable. But since I was involved (I wish there were more people who had written to help too), then I automatically became a qualified arbiter of the whole matter of what was credible or not; truth or falsity; sound or spurious.
And if you said you “don’t care either way…as it was not such a big deal anyways”, then why do you bother to write your post here to advocate to us as correct your “credible” judgment that RADM Lui was wrong—because he “was insensitive” (for speaking from facts), which made you “laughing very hard” at his silliness since “he was dealing himself a blow”?
And you have also preferred to shy away from my question: Why do you think you have your constitutional right to speak your mind off, but RADM Lui should always remain as quiet as a mouse out of a reverential fear of upsetting stern netizens like you?
As for SD, liaison officer of the Brotherhood, it is pointless for one to engage in a debate with you based on just your imagination and the things you had heard wrongly or were wrong; not on facts and truths that I know of (since I had involved myself in the matter). And yet you posted that you objected to people “confecting endless lies” when all that you wanted us to believe as truths are nothing but your imagination, speculations and your incoherence.
Do not forget that the second tragic incident was perpetrated by another old man who had been going up to MP Seng a few times before to complain about evil spirits haunting his house and disturbing him. If only MP Seng had known that he had also to function as an exorcist, maybe he could come in more prepared by taking a course in exorcism to confront Lucifer and his agents.
Even then, not all cases of mental disturbances are due to activities of evil spirits; many are manifestations of serious mental illness or degradation. That was why Cockroach Ong had a history of being warded in IMH and of seeking in-and-out treatments by the psychiatrists there.
If you want us to believe that Cockroach Ong was “[not] mentally unsound”, you may want to post evidence of your professional qualification in psychiatry to convince us that you were right. Then again, how could we trust your telepathic/remote diagnosis to be correct, and IMH psychiatrists’ many clinical findings from close quarters were wrong?
-
{”randomnessinmind” wrote on Thu, 5th Mar 2009 11:53 am: …. We’re just saying we judge on our own what we’ve seen or heard. We never said…..nor did we say we wanted only credible sources. [WHHAAAT?]
It’s only natural to assume by netizens that what RADM Lui said was insensitive….I….felt it was a big joke when he [said that]…He referred to the internet…..to moderate themselves,….I….was really laughing very hard when that happened, since he was dealing himself a blow from the netizens, and seriously speaking he could’ve phrased it better…..he enraged the polite ones…people like me(and shoestring)…..If what you said was true, it was just an honest mistake, but nobody cares anymore for worst things had happened, …..I don’t care either ways…..It’s not such a big deal anyways….}
-
{”Singaporedaddy” wrote on Thu, 5th Mar 2009 2:39 pm: …..The problem with assigning the appelation of credibility is it may NOT be such a credible process after all. …As one of the tools that is frequently used by those who have a bent to impose their will at every turn and cost is by undermining the credibility of their opponents by every possible means and this includes confecting endless lies to simply marginalizing them by labelling them as the lunatic fringe….[by] declaring him mentally unsound to perhaps casting doubt on his capabilities….
If everyone engaged in fair and square debate according the rules of the level playing field then Ah Tham would be spot on; but as it is, I’ve go with shoestring on this one ONLY bc some people employ gutter tactics and that simply deserves equal treatment of sorts….SD (Internet liaison officer of the brotherhood) }
Good evening lazybones Thu, 5th Mar 2009 4:26 pm
(1) “I do believe sometimes the reaction of netizens do very little to endear our govt. They dont inspire much confidence.”
You need to more specific. I cant comment on this statement without prejudicing the case of either netizens and govt.
(2) “violence begets violence. But if what you say is true then we shall never be able to find common ground.”
You can look at this in many ways; but I prefer to see it as just another way of continuing politics. Just bc there is NO common ground doesnt mean progress cannot be made; it can, but a different set of rules need to be in place thats all – could be detente; or you stay here and I stay there; but I think, at the inner core of this proposition there is a need to leverage on the idea of balance of power, if it is to work.
For example, one thing good abt wayangparty is it counters TOC and vice-versa. They made not always see eye to eye on certain points of principles. There may not even be any common ground. But no one denies even if we take this simple model of conflict; its still able to produce a reliable good for most readers.
Now contrast this with a single track hegemony; where instead of a bipolar blog world; you have something that is basically the evil power of only one; be in the form of a single blog of wayang or toc – then how might that be able to produce good, despite the presence of common ground?
Something to think abt
Thanks
SD
Hi Singaporedaddy,
Thanks for the warm welcome, and no worries I do not expect my comments at Ms Dotty’s site to be published.
Regards to Darkness and the rest of the boys too. Keep up the sterling good work!
Good lord I never said I was credible. And to answer your question, I never rebuked RADM for speaking out his mind. All I did was told you guys here I was laughing when he made his point. Because “I” thought it(his point) was silly. Whatever I said was of my own accord and he’s alright to be pissed at me if he sees it. I STILL DON’T CARE. I never wanted the RADM to keep his mouth shut, he could say whatever he want, and IT WON’T AFFECT ME!
And if you’re going to tell me off for saying I don’t care and yet still be here at the same time. Then you don’t seem to know why I’m posting here instead of creating my own blog, voicing out my thoughts and creating petitions and all. To you, it seems that mere comments can agitate you to scorn and rebuke at people of a different mindset.
Also…just to make it clear…again. Look…I DON’T care if you find me credible or not, you have no reason to agree with me. When I said “We never said…..nor did we say we wanted only credible sources.” I was just trying to emphasize the fact I will believe whatever I want to, even if it’s not credible to others.
And finally….I don’t, and really don’t, want to engage in a heated debate with you over something I deem meaningless. I’m lazy, and don’t feel like thinking up response to every comment you make. But still, I thank you for your time, and I assure you, seriously, I assure you, I don’t make sense not only to you, and I’m probably missing an Irony center in my brain. So feel free to ignore me when you want to. It could be better for all of us.