Get Real Post Bans Joe America

A blog article by Arche on Get Real Post (“GRP”) suggested that President Aquino is dangerous because he is a part of a family that has had too much fame for too long. You can read the entire thread here: Get Real Post Article. Joe America engaged in the discussion and was, as a result, permanently banned from Get Real Post.

Joe Am’s remarks, and two from GRP editor benigno, are presented below without the context of what others have said so that you can easily scan JoeAm’s comments and gain an understanding of exactly why these remarks were too much for Get Real Posteditors to bear. I’ll append a few comments on the other side of these excerpts.
_______________
Joe America on April 25, 2012 at 12:07 pm
“Here, we have the very manifestations of the Dark Ages, only it’s not mainly about bloodshed, and more about intellectual bankruptcy.”
The one thing I don’t get is how President Aquino is any different than any other Philippine President. They are all both power pawns and power-brokers. Indeed, power is a currency of daily Philippine life from the shop keeper who holds that we should be honored that he is willing to sell us his goods, to the snarling government minions behind any agency desk. Gloria Arroyo played power games well. I wan’t here during prior administrations, but assume Estrada was thrown out for playing some kind of power game. And Cory Aquino was at the mercy of many powerful forces.
On what basis would you expect President Aquino to be any different? He is what the social system generates.

It would seem better to me to attack the system that builds the values. The rote education that fails to inspire aspiration and positive values. The lousy courts that do not make it a land of laws, but a land of favors. The Church that promotes dark-age values while avoiding any responsibility for the outcomes of its promotions.


I fear you are whacking the itch, not the disease.



Joe America on April 25, 2012 at 2:15 pm
And scratching feels soooo good, eh? I somehow think hammering the education system of the Philippines into world class order would get more done. Kinda like a good dose of antibiotics.
Joe America on April 25, 2012 at 8:31 pm
I still fail to see how his family is any different from the Magsaysay or Gordon or Arroyo or Ampatuan families. They all have a local pseudo-religious following. The Gordons ARE Olongapo, passing the reins of power from father to son to wife. President Aquino just happens to be in the top job. This “clanness” is a hallmark of Philippine social structure, as near as I can tell. Where power and favors are the currency to keep a lock on things. Barangay level is no different. Cities. Governorships. Presidency. Same. Until you break the values, you see the same over and over again. Power and favor and a warped democracy with lots of angers and dysfunction.
Joe America on April 25, 2012 at 8:36 pm
Added thought. You also see the Marcos family and Arroyo family in the background, positioning their offspring for the top job if they can figure out how to work it. Not to mention the “Son of Estrada”. Aquino is just there now. Four more years and out. What’s the big deal? You truly expect a raid on the Constitution by Aquino to remain in power?


Joe America on April 26, 2012 at 4:28 pm
Arche, yes, I suppose that could be read as putting words in your mouth, or misrepresentation, although I did not intend it that way. Just a challenge, trying to figure out exactly what it is that you want. What action you are expecting of me or other readers. I’m sincerely trying to figure out why President Aquino is seen as such a pernicious, dangerous character when I see him as just another regular Filipino power-family kind of guy, where family has meaning akin to mafia family. He seems not out of the ordinary to me, either to skill or skullduggery. Filipinos seem to fall into two camps, love or hate, and none fall into the camp of “dislike but respect for he represents me and my countrymen who believe in democracy with a passion”.
You expect the yellow hordes to go away or suddenly get smarter? President Aquino is roundly criticized and mocked, so I don’t see him as being in any protected bubble. And history will be the judge of his overall contribution to the Philippines. Not those who adore him or those who criticize him.
I still don’t get why he should be punished because his mother was adored. I’m supposed to hate any Kennedy in the U.S. because JFK was adored? So just color me dense and we can move on I suppose.
[Joe Am note: I was prepared to end the conversation here. I didn’t mind if Arche considered me “dense”. We could agree to disagree.]
Joe America on April 26, 2012 at 7:23 pm
Arche, I appreciate the time you took to respond. I agree that I try to extend beyond what you have said to make my own points, not parrot back what you have said. I think your article was thought provoking and thorough. If the thinking provoked my thoughts in directions you didn’t intend, I don’t know what to do about it. That’s where the thoughts went.
Dialogue is just that. Questions and answers in search of understanding. You seem to be believing what dude is saying, that I am a malevolent soul trolling away. I’m not. I have beliefs, of course, and they shade my commentary and questions. But I am after understanding, not pinning your hide to the wall.
Joe America on April 26, 2012 at 10:07 pm
“. . . I was your only opponent.”
That is what I don’t grasp. That you consider me an opponent for seeking understanding or clarification. I mean if I can’t ask a question without you taking it as a challenge to your personal self esteem how do you or I ever LEARN anything, one from the other?
And you try to define the rules for me as to what I am allowed to say. I’m trying your patience. I’m not supposed to bring others into the conversation. I can’t use the logic I use.
Why don’t you just write my fricking messages for me?
Good God.
Joe America on April 26, 2012 at 10:11 pm
I don’t consider you an opponent. I consider you a good writer whose message I did not, and still do not, comprehend. Why do you consider me an opponent?
Joe America on April 26, 2012 at 10:50 pm
I do not oppose you. I don’t understand, ergo I asked some questions and made some statements to share with you my “take” on the matter. I don’t understand how the Aquino family is any different from the Arroyos or the Estradas or the Marcoses or the Magsaysays or the Gordons or so many others who have inroads to power. Opinion: If the Philippines is in the dark ages (which in some ways it is), it has more to do with the culture of power than some evil associated with Aquino’s popularity. I tend to look for what to do about it, and I say let Aquino serve his term so democracy remains stable in the Philippines, and put some heat on the Department of Education to develop a curriculum that at least brings young people home from the dark ages.
Joe America on April 27, 2012 at 7:16 am
Christ almighty, I go get a good night’s sleep and everyone from the parallellass to the Heavy Hypocrite decide to thump away.
Still, no one has answered the question, how does the Aquino family differ from any other power-based family in the Philippines. That is the gist of the article. The popularity of his clan is somehow pernicious and a threat. It seems to me the Philippine power-based, favor-trading society is the root problem, not President Aquino, specifically. He’s just a normal (benignly quirky) Filipino.
benigno, poor choice of words on my part. When I said “let him serve out his term” I should have said be less strident in ridiculing the President of the Philippines (ala banana repubic), and more patient with the democratic process. It’s my old “patriotic” bent which evidently few others share. I also agree consistency is not my strong point at times, just as my neck occasionally twitches without any instruction from my brain. My score of President Aquino is 6.5 on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being high. It is down from last year’s 7.5.
arche, you were the one who got “hurt”, whining about misrepresentation and my putting words in your mouth and dealing with the form of my words rather than latching onto the point. I mean, what kind of onion are you?
parallellass and the rest of the flies buzzing around the place. Get a life.


Joe America on April 27, 2012 at 7:31 am
benigno, and if I seek the “comfort” of my own blog site, why the hell to I visit here and try to hold above-board conversations in this cess-pool of agenda and personal attack? If anything, I am a masochist. More accurately, I am simply going about the business of learning, crafting some skill in working with words, and growing, personally.
Joe America on April 27, 2012 at 1:03 pm
Arche, nah, you figure it out for yourself if you have good information or bad, if you draw good conclusions or bad. You can listen to your band of merry men or read and think, makes no difference to me.
Joe America on April 27, 2012 at 2:53 pm
Well, you fundamentally make too much sense to earn an article in my blog. You have to be devious and deceitful and hypocritical to warrant time and attention there. You don’t measure up to those standards. You have earned commendations there for being among GRP’s good new writers.
Catch you next article.
benign0 on April 27, 2012 at 11:55 pm
Hey I’ve got an idea, Mr Joe America. How about we run an online experiment that goes like this:
(1) I put all comments of yours subsequent to this in the Spam queue.
(2) You go off and get up on your soapbox elsewhere (say, somebody else’s blog, like yours maybe) and announce to the world how the Admins of GR Post don’t practice “free speech” here.
(3) We both sit back for the next couple of weeks (or years) and see if:
(3.a) anyone out there actually cares about what you have to say about our Admin practices here; and,
(3.b) anyone of the regular commentors here in GR Post actually miss your presence and clamor for a reinstatement of your comments.
I think the above little experiment will be good for a few laughs.
What do you think?
======
Some small print for you to take note of before you reply:
– “Yes” or “No” will be acceptable responses to the above proposal
– A “Yes” answer will put the above proposed experiment in effect immediately (the period over which it will be effective will be revealed after said experiment takes effect).
– A “No” answer will, effective immediately, subject any further comments you will make to criteria that will be applied in a decision to retain or mark your comments as Spam once in effect. This criteria is applicable only to YOU and subject to arbitrary modification by GR Post admins based entirely on our whim.
– Any other response to this comment (beyond the recommended Yes or No) will be interpreted as a “Yes” (and the proposed experiment subsequently put into effect).
For reference, this is the same set ofspecial terms currently applicable to the commentor known as “GabbyD”. Referhere for reference.
Joe America on April 28, 2012 at 8:30 am
Mr. Editor, Sir,
Perhaps I missed my mark again. I was trying to compliment Arche after our batting of heads because I think he is a superb writer. Satire does not do well in a compliment, I guess, because even great minds miss it. I conclude I missed the mark (my fault) when I intended well by it, and it gets me your rather desperate and insulting threat.
You need no other response from me, as you have the authority to do what you wish. I only suggest you read all of my commentary and weigh its constructive intent, and not manage me on the basis of one remark you don’t like.
benign0 on April 28, 2012 at 8:50 am 
Read the last item in the small print. See you around.
________________
It is worth noting that the method of imposing the ban of Joe Am is not simply to delete his submissions, or block him as a  contributor. It is to put him in the spam cue, which assigns a black mark to him that rides with him when he tries to comment on other blog sites. It is a particularly nasty way to enforce a ban.  Rather like blacklisting, one writer to another.
What really went on in this debate? You can jump to the blog thread and see that it is not a matter of civility, because Joe Am waded through intense personal insult to make his comments.
By speaking out, being persistent and not submitting to intimidation, Joe Am failed to respect the “prerogative of power” enjoyed by GRP’s editor and the site’s thuggish enforcers. So the GRP editor “picked up his gun” in the best Filipino tradition and shot the guy who just would not behave. 
“That’ll silence the bastard!”
A common remedy in the Philippines.
 GRP editors pretend to occupy a higher viewing platform than “ordinary” Filipinos. But GRP is but a dark-minded clan, the Ampatuans of the blog community, stuffed with self-righteous importance. Led by a self-proclaimed innovative thinker who operates with old-school values, arrogant, intimidating and vengeful. It is a closed society of like thinkers, people largely lacking the grace to be courteous. Unkind people who think that rude is cool, smart-ass is macho, and being in a gang means you are popular.
Can you imagine what the Philippines would be like if everyone were like the Get Real community?
Joe
Comments
43 Responses to “Get Real Post Bans Joe America”
  1. andrew lim says:

    Joe, You got their goat. My take:1. You have been so masipag in putting out your (mostly) contrary views, and it has tired them out. Sometimes I get the impression there are more of your views than those who support them. 🙂 2. In other sites, what gets you banned is foul language, arrogance, insults or name calling. But not valid arguments. 3. I've stated my views on this group in my previous posts here. I find it to be a self-loathing and self-bashing group perhaps largely due to their personal circumstances (victims of racial abuse, broken families, absentee parents leading to misinformed opinions) rather than arrogant and self righteous. 3. I actually find them pathetic, since they have very little or nothing to live for. Everything should be hated in their world. It's only the hatred of everything that unites them, nothing else.

  2. Andrew. Yes, I tired them (him, benigno, out). We were on two levels. They were mainly critiquing my character without stating clearly how the Aquino family is more nefarious than any other family. What am I supposed to do if I don't grasp the point? Roll over and go away?Pathetic is a good word, applied here.

  3. GabbyD says:

    hey, we can form a club! 🙂 people who dont buy B0's BS.hopefully, this erases any kind of "admiration" you have about the man. his arguments are either obvious or (plainly) illogical, or unfounded on any fact, or contradictory, or (and here is the worst) fueled by a strange misogyny. when you remind him he's got nothing, he bans you. i wish he were just obvious. alas…

  4. GabbyD says:

    i agree with u andrew. 100%.

  5. Yes, my couple of years of defending him certainly gained no credits did it? Our club is the people who don't buy the BS, and we get medals for having been banned. My admiration for BO has plummeted to zero, as I don't admire people who are vindictive jerks at heart.

  6. GabbyD says:

    "arbitrary modification by GR Post admins based entirely on our whim."yey! obviously, they arent interested in any kind of discussion under these terms…

  7. Added thought. Misogyny. Nice word for values that are not. (I had to look it up, heh.)

  8. I think the whole point of the Terms of Service was to allow him to change his standard to hypocrite, in formal legal terms. Remember how he marched out of FV screaming "censorship"? Now he publishes legal gibberish that says, bottom line, "I have no standards except what I want to do, and you have no rights. Period".

  9. Anonymous says:

    You should seek to understand too as much as you seek to be understood. I find you well meaning and sincere but you also are a jerk sometimes. People disagree. Do not force people to agree with your views and do not force yourself to agree with them if you don't. State your views as clearly and forcefully, then let it be, jeez.In any case, I asked benignO to reinstate you. ricelander

  10. Anonymous says:

    Joe, if you weren't trying to make Arche, look bad, consciously or not, during that last exchange, I don't think benign0 would have "banned" you, and I wouldn't have been on your case either. One thing I can never understand is that you're a normally rational guy when it comes to most topics of discussion. It's only when PNoy and his presidency that's the topic when you turn into Mr. Hyde, or the Hulk, whichever floats your boat. You're not born Filipino, and you see differently, not wrongly, compared to the rest of us. It's a good thing; keep it that way. Ricelander above said it well: don't be a jerk, and don't force other people to agree with you if you don't with them.Friendly advice: don't get swayed by people like GabbyD, who until now is still struggling to justify his stupidity and lack of expansion of cognitive faculties. He's an all-too eager yes man, as you may have noticed, but he has not learned to ask the right questions if he doesn't agree with a writer. His concerns are often Lilliputian.GabbyD, just so you don't assume I'm not talking to you while I'm talking about you, get your brain out of your ass and grow some balls.Amir al Bahr

  11. Anonymous says:

    Friendlier advice: Tell benign0 that if he wants a constant stream of praises, then he shouldn't open his blog to the public. He should restrict its accessibility to his friends – that will earn him comments that are always in his favor.

  12. Anonymous says:

    You should post this comment at GRP, not here. Joe never resorted to fear, intimidation or banning just to do away with people who don't agree with him.

  13. ricelander. I appreciate your appeal. I agree I can be a jerk sometimes. In this case, given what came my way, I think I was just pushy. And I offered to let it go early in the discussion. I had been making contributions regularly on the various threads, so why benigno blew me out of the water on this one, I have no idea.

  14. Anonymous says:

    What do you expect from someone whose idea of a discussion is to get louder than you and, if that doesn’t convince you, try using personal attacks as rebuttals?

  15. Amir al Bahr, you know, you say the same thing that Arche was saying, that I was an opponent, misrepresenting him and putting words in his mouth. I did not FEEL like I was an opponent to Arche the man, just his idea that the Aquino family is somehow more dangerous than any other "name" family. But he, you, and benigno obviously thought I was after Arche personally.To me, getting personal is what I have to deal with on the site, being called a liar, phony, an a**hole, and definitely having my occasional argument on behalf of the President of Philippines twisted into some kind of yellow-tard idolatry.I think Arche is a superb writer. He has good ideas and expresses them extraordinarily well. I think if he took that observation to heart, which I have made in several instances, then any argument I offered would be taken as non-personal. It may be as simple as Filipino vs. American argument style. Arche is way Filipino, I am way American.Still, I don't know why benigno had to deep six me. The conversation wasn't THAT out of hand.And why does he allow commenters to be blatantly insulted by the morality police there (parallelaxe, dude, trosp)? He only has sensitivities for those who are on his side? GabbyD is GabbyD. I don't mind.

  16. Arche says:

    You have a cozy website, Mr. Joe America. ^^I do not claim to possess knowledge regarding Sir benign0's actions, because I honestly do not. However, I am here to explain, in the best of my abilities, my stand, in hopes of ending this slight misunderstanding for good. Here we go. First, about the "opponent" thing; it was nothing but a word. I offered the technical (dictionary) definition. My calling you an opponent has nothing to do with the misrepresentation part which I shall discuss later. The only reason I called you an "opponent" is for formality; because we have a slight disagreement on something. Anyway, I have apologized if I have offended you in any way, but that's all there is to it. Quoting my previous statement:"Well, forgive me if you have somewhat been “hurt” by my word usage. But I never gave it much attention. My only point of interest is to settle the points we have little problems with. I do not intend to ANTAGONIZE you in any way, although, as it turns out, you still see me as antagonistic. Feel free to correct me, though."Next, the misrepresentation part. I have not conclusively accused you of deliberately misrepresenting me; I have been very careful and meticulous with my word usage. Nonetheless, I must point out that that is where I logically arrive at. If you would recall, never have I implied in my article that PNoy must be punished because of his mother's legacy. I never implied that PNoy supporters can change rapidly and suddenly. And even if I scrutinize my own arguments, I just can't see how you arrived to such questions, which is why I requested the following:"I am not ordering you what to say. I am telling you what not to say, as far as logic is concerned. Haven’t I told you that I welcome dissenting opinions? However, I happily accept them, only when they are founded on a logical basis. In other words, when you actually explain to me how you arrived at your conclusions, which, unfortunately, you did not."I also take issue how you state that I suggested that Noynoy himself is dangerous, in virtue of my article. I have been specific; I am referring to the entire Aquino-Cojuangco clan, not Noynoy alone. That is all. ^^Finally, as to what sets his family apart, here was my answer which was, for some reason, ignored."Did people love or adore the political dynasties you mentioned in your posts in the course of their terms? Yes, these dynasties incurred the wrath of the people in their conquest for power. Meanwhile, the Aquino-Cojuangco clan… how long did it take for people to start realizing their wrongs? Not to mention not everyone knows of it yet. This is my major point. What sets Noynoy and his lot apart from other dynasties is that they more or less won the hearts of the people for so long. Even now, Ninoy and Cory remain untouchable, because they are paragons of democracy… supposedly. Was this answer sufficient? ^^"The same answer was repeated by GRP visitor "dude," albeit more concise:"That is easy. The Aquinos pretend to be good and saintly whereas the others do not pretend to be anything they are not. This makes them better than the Aquinos."- Arche

  17. Arche says:

    I guess that's about it. Let me clarify the following:1. I have never taken you negatively in any way. Ever. I have honestly addressed your questions to the best of my abilities. I have honestly worded my requests. This is why I have expressed my wonder why I was called "butt-hurt" and an "onion"… by you. By extension, this is why several suspected that you are after me, personally. Oh, and never have I been imposing on you. I only ask that you explain to me how you have arrived to your conclusions. After all, having to answer questions whose ideas your article did not intend to impart, with hardly any reason, can really try one's patience. "Arche, I appreciate the time you took to respond. I agree that I try to extend beyond what you have said to make my own points, not parrot back what you have said.""arche, you were the one who got “hurt”, whining about misrepresentation and my putting words in your mouth and dealing with the form of my words rather than latching onto the point. I mean, what kind of onion are you?""And you try to define the rules for me as to what I am allowed to say. I’m trying your patience. I’m not supposed to bring others into the conversation. I can’t use the logic I use.Why don’t you just write my fricking messages for me?"Just to substantiate my sentiments. That's all. 2. I do not hold grudges. I only desire that we come to a full understanding. For the sake of a good, clean, conversation, I believe it is only rational to want this.3. I am not inviting anyone here to a debate. I am only here to clarify things. Thank you for your understanding.Oh, before I depart… I am curious as to what you mean by our conversation being a Filipino VS American argument style? I just want to know, as I believe argumentative skill transcends any nationality.Again, I am not qualified to answer on behalf of Sir benign0, or on behalf of the GRP visitors. My only purpose for coming here is to settle lingering doubts.I guess this is all I have to say. Have a good day, Mr. Joe America. – Arche

  18. Arche, thanks for visiting and explaining. I will let your comments stand as they are, without re-entering the debate. You have explained yourself well, and I take what you say constructively.My comment about Filipino vs American, I agree with your view that debate SHOULD transcend nationality. But I can't figure out why I did not feel I was arguing with you personally, but others observe that I was, and that I was trying to diminish you. I thought I was arguing the issue. I suppose I need to go back and look at my comments in context when I am in a more "objective" or reflective mood.Anyway, I appreciate your visit to my cozy site, and the good intent of your comments.Joe

  19. If I got "snippy" on a couple of of remarks, consider that I was not responding just to you, but was wincing from less than graceful remarks from others.

  20. Arche says:

    No problem, Mr. Joe America. I also thank you for your accommodation and understanding."But I can't figure out why I did not feel I was arguing with you personally, but others observe that I was, and that I was trying to diminish you. I thought I was arguing the issue. I suppose I need to go back and look at my comments in context when I am in a more "objective" or reflective mood.""If I got "snippy" on a couple of of remarks, consider that I was not responding just to you, but was wincing from less than graceful remarks from others."Well, at least we have the Internet. We have all the time we need to calm ourselves before posting, should the need present itself. That's one really good thing about cyberspace! :DAnyway, I gotta go now. See you around. ^^

  21. Yeah, articles I think first and then write. Comments in threads, I write first and think later.A dangerous practice.

  22. GabbyD says:

    1) i'm a yes man? i was banned because i wasnt a yes man.2)the right questions? great! if i'm asking the wrong questions, please join the conversation and say WHY they are wrong. if I am stupid, SAY/EXPLAIN why. when i was still commenting, i'd ask people to just make arguments. people didnt. i never called people anything. i even refrained from characterizing their motivations. i only said something is "right" or "had evidence".if you don't thats cannot be a discussion, by definition.3) GabbyD is GabbyD? hmmm… hardly a ringing endorsement 🙂

  23. Joe,I don't understand. They called you a troll and threw you out of GRP and then they follow you to your blog and engage with you. WTF?Now here's something else that I do not understandArche wrote: "Did people love or adore the political dynasties you mentioned in your posts in the course of their terms? Yes, these dynasties incurred the wrath of the people in their conquest for power. Meanwhile, the Aquino-Cojuangco clan… how long did it take for people to start realizing their wrongs? Not to mention not everyone knows of it yet. This is my major point. What sets Noynoy and his lot apart from other dynasties is that they more or less won the hearts of the people for so long. Even now, Ninoy and Cory remain untouchable, because they are paragons of democracy… supposedly. Was this answer sufficient? ^^"1. Shouldn't Arche have prefaced the answer to his question – "Did people love or adore the political dynasties you mentioned in your posts in the course of their terms?" – with a "Yes in the beginning of their terms they were adored and loved but then they incurred ….etc. etc." ? 2. Arche wrote further: "Meanwhile, the Aquino-Cojuangco clan… how long did it take for people to start realizing their wrongs? Not to mention not everyone knows of it yet." i. Isn't it a bit premature to use "DID" when the question is actually "how long WILL it take…" because "Ninoy and Cory remain untouchable" ? ii. And what is the "IT" in "not everyone knows of it yet"? Fer crissakes are critics being gagged, has there not been enough criticism in tri-media, social networks, and blogs for everyone to have heard of "IT"? Is arche frustrated that all those people who have been barraged with reports of "IT" have not reacted in the way that he hoped they would? 3. As to arche's major point: "This is my major point. What sets Noynoy and his lot apart from other dynasties is that they more or less won the hearts of the people for so long. " Well yes, to their credit Noynoy and his lot have done just that. And what's wrong with achieving that, isn't democracy about winning and keeping the hearts of the people for as long as possible? Besides you don't win hearts by being undemocratic. You can win grudging obedience through tyranny but you cannot win hearts. Is arche faulting Noynoy or the people or both for the romance? Is he also criticizing democracy?4. "Even now, Ninoy and Cory remain untouchable, because they are paragons of democracy… supposedly" To many Filipinos, Ninoy and Cory ARE the paragons of democracy, that's why they remain untouchable. "SUPPOSEDLY" is arche's conclusion, one that is shared by an underwhelming minority who believe in the "IT" being peddled by Aquino bashers.

  24. PART TWO.II. Arche added: "The same answer was repeated by GRP visitor "dude," albeit more concise: 'That is easy. The Aquinos pretend to be good and saintly whereas the others do not pretend to be anything they are not. This makes them better than the Aquinos.'" 1. The first part of dude's sentence -"The Aquinos pretend to be good and saintly…" – is an interesting proposition because he has not offered any facts to support his contention that the Aquino's are pretending to be what they are not. Thus, dude is simply expressing his perception/opinion.Since we are dealing with mere perception and not facts then the perception of the overwhelming majority becomes the reality that arche and dude have to live with. And, as far as the majority of Filipinos are concerned, the reality is the Aquino's are not pretending to be good and saintly, they ARE good and saintly. That's why they remain untouchable!2. The second part of dude's sentence – "whereas the others do not pretend to be anything they are not. This makes them better than the Aquinos" – brings up the question: Did "the others" admit to the allegations against them or did they protest their innocence? a. If they admitted that they were a bunch of power hungry politicians as arche characterized them -"Yes, these dynasties incurred the wrath of the people in their conquest for power" – then how does that qualify them to be included in the "good-better-best" spectrum? Shouldn't they belong to the "bad-worse-worst" spectrum? b. If they protested their innocence despite what arche wrote regarding why they incurred the people's wrath then aren't they guilty of pretending to be what they are not? Dude and arche can't have it both ways. 3. Finally, to admit, for example, that one is an asshole does not make one better or less of an asshole. As a matter of fact it reveals that one is not only resigned to being an asshole but he is also telling you to get used to it. And that makes him an even bigger asshole.On the other hand, an asshole who pretends not to be an asshole can be called a hypocritical asshole which is high up there in the spectrum of assholes because of the added quality of hypocrisy. However there is a redeeming value to hypocrisy. One who pretends not to be an asshole shows not only an ability to discern good from bad but also a desire to turn one's life around, to be among the good as opposed to being one of the assholes.So I don't get dude's point and why arche endorses it.Basically, the GRP crowd has never gotten over the fact that the people did not vote for their candidate in 2010 and now they want Aquino to fail so they can be proven right, so they can crow "I told you so".

  25. Attila says:

    "…trying to diminish you." I think it is a Filipino thing. Their unique sensitivity. Funny and strange to me!

  26. Arche says:

    My, my. This was just as I feared. ^^How can I make it clear that I only intended to settle a misunderstanding? How is this equal to engaging? Oh dear, I'm not here to start a fight… Also, I am not a webmaster. I am not the one who banned Mr. Joe America. So why question my presence here? ^^And I must say this; very astute nitpicking of my sentence construction. Anyway, while I am tempted to retaliate and defend my stance (and I can) against this, erm, critique, I have respect for Mr. Joe America's intellectual property, and so I shall abstain from starting a needless debate here. After all, I have made it clear that it is not my intention to incite a debate in the first place.Mr. manuelbuencamino, I do not know what beef you have with GRP, but this has nothing to do with that. After all, I am but a new contributor. Until then. ^^

  27. AJ says:

    I think it's a defense mechanism; question those who question you.Strangely, I don't feel this that much, except when the question is coupled with an unprovoked insult, which is very common in the Filipino blogosphere, almost as common as grammar nazis who have nothing better to do (I actually encountered a Filipino trying to tell an American to relearn his native language; syntactical vs contextual at its finest, but I'm getting off topic).I think this is due to misplaced ownership, we own the idea so much it becomes part of our being; "its my opinion so it cannot be wrong, otherwise, my whole being is wrong". Comes with trying to save face.Also, we really love being told we're right.

  28. AJ says:

    Hey Joe, I've read the whole exchange, I think you've written nothing wrong until the "onion" part, I don't think its that offensive but I think B0 got ticked (weird since it wasn't directed at him).Arche seems to be a nice dude with good ideas, I think I'll be reading his posts once in a while.Good luck and I hope those trolls you mentioned don't follow you here.

  29. AJ, yes, my "onion" comment was a cheap shot. I had worked myself into quite a snit by that time, and took it. I herein retract it, as I agree Arche is upstanding with good ideas, expressed well. If the trolls follow me here, I'll leave them to you or MB or even GabbyD. I've taken up the fine art of ignoring the insignificant.

  30. MB, along with Arche, who was kind enough to visit here and explain himself, I'll refrain from re-opening the debate here. Indeed, I may do a blog on the matter later when the dust has settled. Can too much popularity be a bad thing? I'll take up your perspectives, as well as Arche's.

  31. GabbyD. If I argue for you, I get put into a box. If I argue against you, I get put in a box. You have to construct your own box, not have me do it. I was essentially saying I don't buy into Amir's judgment. He doesn't speak for you, either. Put another way, if you believe in yourself, my comment is the best endorsement you can possibly receive.

  32. GabbyD says:

    i dont understand "put in a box". all i meant was "GabbyD is GabbyD" makes it sound like you are (merely) putting up with me — that you agree with him, but you can put up with me.(i.e. Gabby is late again…. hay naku, GabbyD is just being himself…)if that is correct, then thats fine. i dont mind if that is ur opinion. but u say now that you dont agree with him. thats fine too. but it leaves me a bit confused, as i dont understand what you originally meant! 🙂

  33. You are asking me to do what I refrained from doing in my one-line comment. Evaluate GabbyD. It is not something I need to do, as you represent yourself. There is no need for me to try to represent you. That is the box. Representing someone else. It is impossible.

  34. Anonymous says:

    See, we can all be passionate about our ideas. But at the end of the day, listen to John Lennon: "All we need is love, all we need is love, love. Love is all we need…" hehehe.-ricelander

  35. Anonymous says:

    Post that at GRP. People here are civilized.

  36. Anon, you know, I've never had to ban anybody. Interesting, eh? Only deleted one comment in two years.

  37. GabbyD says:

    just to react to what MB said, which is very interesting:"Well yes, to their credit Noynoy and his lot have done just that. And what's wrong with achieving that, isn't democracy about winning and keeping the hearts of the people for as long as possible? Besides you don't win hearts by being undemocratic. "so, for MB, democracy is about winning hearts?arche wrote a rejoinder, explaining his theory of voting:you can win hearts OR (when they conflict) you can win minds.politicians should try to win minds ALL THE TIME. mind trumps heart. if a politician courts the heart (esp when there is "conflict"), that is evidence of that politician being bad.voters should always focus on minds.this actually explains alot of the issue. to arche: noynoy is (a nobrainer), bad from an intellectual perspective (i.e. HL issue, etc). the ONLY was that people voted for him is that people must blindly love him (noynoy) to have voted for him.___________________________________so MB, joe: in noy noy's case, did the heart and mind conflict? generally, when they DO conflict, how should u resolve it?this issue is so general, its clear that our personal life philosophy guides our actions here. on my end, i'd be zen and say: when we act, mind and heart should act as one 🙂

  38. Gabby,Here's a political reality. People vote with their hearts more than they do with their minds. A politician who wants to win the mind of voters would find it easier by appealing to their hearts. A politician who ignores that reality is not going to get elected and so whatever good he may be will never be known.

  39. GabbyD says:

    indeed! again, here is where fundamental life philosophies/personality types differ.assume you are right (arche would likely agree as it supports his heart vs mind argument).do we stand by and let it happen? shouldnt we try to make it about the mind?this "status quo/reality" you speak of — is there nothing we can do, assuming the status quo is bad?

  40. GabbyD says:

    also, on my end, i think we should be careful when we use the hearts and minds. it requires a sophisticated theory of psychology (a version of a dueling selves, we dont "agree" with ourselves), which can be prone to oversimplification.for instance, if I dont agree with your reasoning, i can say you are "lead by your heart" to be "soft minded".

  41. Anonymous says:

    Joe Said: "It maybe as simple as Filipino and American argument style. Archie is way Filipino. I am way American." While Archie believes that argumentative skills transcend nationality. I tend to agree too. Since Joe and Archie agreed that "debate should transcends nationality," I am a fil-am who use to live and worked in USA for thirty years, so I want to ask how my argument would be percieved? A Filipino style or American style. I am just curious since I believe my point of view is usually different from most Filipinos born and raised and grow up in the Philippines. I think my point is Joe is arguing like an American and Archie as a home grown Filipino. To illustrate nationality or perhaps a cultural issue I would like to present a true and real case about a Grandfather who immigrated to USA. He was in the elevator and got in trouble and sued by the parent of a little cute boy for sexual abuse. The old man had performed a sepo-sepo ritual commonly practice in the Philippines for a clean fun. The judge dismissed the case on the basis of cultural difference. Have fun with sepo-sepo Joe. Its Jack

  42. Jack, ha, no sepo-sepo for me, thanks.Yes, I think we were arguing from our cultural roots, too. But Arche's point is correct in terms of what we ought to aspire toward, and that is some kind of (unattainable perhaps) intellectual purity. I also tend to think your perspective is the best. Defined by no one but yourself, based on a wide range of experience.Good of you to stop by and comment.Joe

  43. LG says:

    GRP was overmatched! Ha ha ha. P.S. Just read the post!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s