The limits of tolerance
Getting rid of people. [Photo by Reuters]
By Joe America
Tolerance is our ability to put up with people and events that are outside our normal course of being. It is a different from ‘acceptance’ in that the people and events are not necessarily welcomed into our lives. We might tolerate bad language in a movie, but would not accept it from ourselves or our children.
Some whites tolerate people of color. Many accept them. Some are intolerant.
This blog postures itself as a forum that tolerates open discussion as long as comments do not insult, exceed the bounds of decency, or peddle wares. We accept comments from all angles, political perspectives, personal experiences, or levels of knowledge as beneficial and constructive in the great scheme of open-book discourse.
But once in a while, it is important to examine the lines by which some comments fail to make the grade.
I became intolerant the other day, getting pushed past my level of ability to welcome an idea to the blog. The comment that pushed me over the edge was this:
“You make it sound like drug use is a victimless crime, Joe. But remember, it’s also the governments (sic) job to ensure safety for the rest of its citizens, correct? So the gov’t is taking care of her people, by getting rid of the minority’s (sic) whose “fulfillment” infringes on the majority’s security and quality of life.”
I responded that I found this “getting rid of” idea disgusting.
Let me elaborate.
The comment reflects an intolerance of drug usage, beyond that, intolerance of people who use drugs. And I became absolutely intolerant of the crass, dehumanized thinking that would look at real people – my neighbors – as cold, inanimate objects who are nothing more than characters in an online video game to be dispensed with for the sake of winning some fallacious and cruel political argument, or ending a social/health problem that is troublesome. As if millions of jews really did deserve to die to promote a dictator’s idea of a superior race.
How do I justify subsequent moderation and censorship of the person making this remark? The reasons for moderation, which is the step before blocking, are:
- Personalized and/or insulting argument
- Obscene or indecent language
- Advocacy of products or positions rather than discussion (‘peddling wares’)
- Editor’s discretion to uphold the reputation of the blog
Continuing with violations after being advised of editorial policies, or arguing with the editor about his editorial judgments, are the easiest ways to move from moderation to being banned.
Point 4 is the catch-all that ends debate about any editorial decision, and I rarely deploy it. The most frequent blocking reason is number 3 (essentially trolls), followed by 1 (people who have a weak argument or are lazy or trained in the ways of modern social media discourse, and who go personal).
I think “getting rid of” drug users is an obscene concept. Yes, it is possible to argue that open discussion should allow the comment, and making a moral judgment about it is wrong. But that would suggest the blog ought to allow discussion of ANYTHING. Hmmmm. So I tend to ask, then what is the blog for? To teach and test our ability to rationalize anything? To become Vulcans or robots of no emotional character whatsoever? To accept blog content that is mindless, cruel, vicious, or threatening?
It is not that.
In fact, it strikes me that this is a moral blog. For sure it is. And it is a tolerant blog is BECAUSE it is moral. It SEEKS inclusion and understanding. It demands respect. And, in that way, it is accepting of the widest range of views . . . and the editor is INTOLERANT of those who would confine thinking to obscene, dispassionate, rational arguments that do more than just INSULT people, but call for their removal from earth by unceremonious death with no moral due process required.
This episode has led me to think that peddling amoral ‘wisdom’ is as bad as coming onto the blog to recruit Muslim terrorists. Or to demand the eradication of ‘yellows’.
It is grossly cruel.
So it is not going to happen here.
This blog does not provide an open forum for amoral discussion. It does its best to provide an open forum for moral discussion, where the morality presumes we are tolerant, compassionate, and fair . . . or at least aspire to be.
It is through a measured intolerance that we find our way to tolerance.
The Society of Honor by Joe America 
I agree that there should be a red line to what one can and cannot tolerate. One should start speaking up when the red line is crossed. People who push the envelop about morality should be stopped and told about their insensitivity and immorality. A lot of it is going around now in PH. Some Filipinos are losing their moral compass and becoming tolerant of killings, profanities, misogyny and other morally reprehensible behaviors. The incumbent administration is guilty of leading by bad example. It is sad that some Filipinos seem to applaud their crudeness and some just turn the other cheek.
This came out today: https://www.rappler.com/nation/196883-1986-edsa-people-power-anniversary-filipinos-threat-worse-martial-law
“We are threatened by something worse than Martial Law,” said activist nun Sister Mary John Mananzan. “We are seeing an erosion of our moral fiber as a people.”
Great article. Thank you for the link, Joe.
Sr Mary John has not changed. She is still the Amazonian nun I admired during the Marcos regime. She is one of our Filipino Wonder Women.
“I have never experienced so many intellectually, morally, and behaviorally challenged government officials,” Mananzan said.
Well, I just became aware of her, and I am impressed with her character and directness. If more priests were like her, I would think about joining the Catholic Church.
Maybe we can ask Kuya Will to interview her. It would be wonderful to introduce other people to her brand of no-nonsense morality.
Superb idea. I’ll send him a note.
“If more priests were like her, I would think about joining the Catholic Church.”
Are you serious about this, Joe? 🙂 🙂
In a spiritual part of me. The pragmatic, independent me likely would not allow it. But my respect for the Church would recover from its current position, best characterized as ‘skeptical and dismayed’.
Joe, this is terribly late of me. But thanks for your candid answer.
🙂 You must be on Filipino time . . . like my wife . . . hahaha.
Glaciers and me, Joe. It all started with my Alaska trip. 🙂
🙂 🙂 🙂
I have wondered for some decades WHERE the red line is for Filipinos. I already wondered how the residents of Tanauan, Laguna could re-elect rapist-killer Mayor Sanchez. Raped and killed a UPLB student, killed her boyfriend, well his goons did the killing and kidnapping.
I wondered even more how the child rapist Romeo Jalosjos got re-elected several times in Mindanao. I wondered how people could make jokes calling him Jalosjos-Musmos in reference to the Sesame Street like show Kaluskos-Musmos. Shocking indifference.
The likes of Lorraine Badoy might say Ewww in the EU are heepokreet, there are so many child porn watchers over there. True, there was even a major child prostitution scandal in Belgium involving a certain Marc Dutroux and Belgian politicians 20 years ago. But nobody jokes about these people or re-elects them once known, nobody accepts them as comedians or anything else – in this I refer also to Tito,Vic and Joey with respect to Pepsi Paloma, or to Rodolfo Farinas with respect to Maria Theresa Carlson – his abused wife who killed herself.
The jarring disjoint I feel is even more because I live in Europe, here people who hobnob with known abusers of any sort are considered scum, and it is hard for me to think of a plurality of Filipinos as being scum. No decency whatsoever, just haha Digong is funny?
Because what shocks most Filipinos about especially methheads is there lack of limits. Where is the line crossed where most people become similar to what they fear the most? And how is this lack of limits a genera,l social problem, addicts just one symptom of it?
All true and disheartening. I became acutely aware of the disconnect you are talking about when the Marcoses were let back in the country after their transgressions and it did not stop there, 3 of them were voted as public officials, the big whack came as PRD’s hero burial of Marcos.
Drawing the red line is an individual thing and very subjective. It depends on the character of the person. Character is taught and developed in children by adults and authority figures modeling the desired behavior. Maybe the reason why some Filipinos lack better judgment and character is because they do not have good role models. It is really weird that a person with good character like VP Robredo is less popular than the thuggish PRD.
*******
Isn’t there a red line in society as well?
Most societies would not elect into office someone like Duterte. They would give a collective shudder at the very prospect.
*****
Yes. The society’s red line is the collective power of individual characters. It often manifests in people with the same values coming together to create the red line and through these people’s persistence and determination, the red line is embedded in the culture and becomes part of the the society’s essence. I am listening to you, Edgar. 🙂
*******
1
*****
YOu won’t believe what I went through during the election. I miserably failed to convince my children not to vote for Duterte because of observable behaviours that I find unacceptable for a president. I was the only one who voted for Roxas and I asked myself, did I fail to educate them?
Hi Ireneo, It’s Calauan, Laguna.
The moral fiber of us Filipinos is slowly eroding. I love to reminisce on those times when we were united as one instead of tearing each other apart. Good morning Joeam.
Indeed, and of the greater world, as well. But morning remains good, just the same. 🙂
It started eroding long ago. Thinking of the Wowowee incident where they had a child dance as a macho dancer or something and the child was crying and everybody laughed, laughed..
Or the moral imbecility of smiling cops and schoolchildren having their pictures taken in front of the Hong Kong tourist bus whose passengers were massacred by that cop Mendoza. HK people were angry, rightly so. It was gross disrespect for the memory of the dead and it seems nearly nobody in the Philippines saw it. The jump from that to indifference when bodies are shown in the media wrapped in cardboard is just a small one. What comes next?
As I don’t watch TV much, I didn’t know about the Wowowee thing but I do remember that Hongkong tourist bus. What has become of us, the indifference is so magnified nowadays. And here’s Uson downplaying EDSA and her ugly comments about the nuns who participated in the revolution.
Not only that. She also run a poll asking the question:” Do you think that Edsa ’86 people power was a product of fake news?” Of course her sheeple gave her a favorable result but her behavior was denounced by people from her camp and by the netizens. Her impunity needed to be reigned in and that is what happened. She went beyond the redline and she got burned. Hope this is just the start.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/971568/edsa-fake-news-asec-mocha-uson-chided-for-online-post
True. Here’s my shout out today: “Please don’t belittle what happened in EDSA 1. Perhaps you don’t know anything about it so you call it a fake. Mukhang ikaw ang PEKE, nagkakalat ng PEKENG balita”.
*******
1
*****
Attacks on truth like this requires immediate pushbacks by as many persons in with moral authority as possible. I am glad to see one such from an Ateneo prof :
https://backroompolitics.net/2018/02/26/ateneo-professor-millenials-mocha-uson-not-best-person-educate/
I mentioned some time back in this blog that I observed Marcos revisionism a long time ago when I first visited Philippines. The nonchalance of Filipinos in general towards the danger that this insidious machination surprised me. As the cancer was not nipped in the bud 15 years ago, the problem has grown to the scale of today.
Today, let me sound out another warning. This revisionism programme is taking on a second wave. Expert the injection of foreign expertise into the arena. You are likely to see a renewed impetus. This has been noticeable a few months back. Rappler’s report is timely warning.
A continued cry-baby-reactive approach is not going to help. If the lessons of election 2016 have not been learnt, then the dark forces deserve to win. It takes two to tango. Build your own geek army now.
Of course, the Russians have been at the troll game for much longer than the Chinese. Russian trolls have been around here in Europe at least since the Ukrainian crisis. Their methods are an evolution from Leninist agitprop adapted to modern times. The answer to Communist propaganda in Cold War Europe were the likes of Voice of America. Even before that, America and England dropped not only bombs but pamphlets on Germany. My German grandmother secretly listened to BBC in WW2 to get the right info.
Why I am I going backwards here? Because the democratic resistance may HAVE to do it. There can be a sudden Internet shutdown, mass arrests anytime. How many people who went to the demos last weekend have real-life addresses and phone numbers of buddies in the movement? Do you have protocols to make sure no one is not accounted for / missing? Other electronic means of dissemination, up to paper-based? Cigarette boys as lookouts like we had in our days, before 1986? Knowledge of the footpaths through central Manila?
A secret code to warn people that a dragnet is coming, hide and run? I doubt it is ready. Who is to be sure that the profilers haven’t been around and made their lists using socmed? This is not to be alarmist, no way. But if typhoons are closing in, prepare evac. Just in case.
*******
You are right to be alarmist. What’s stopping these people is ineptitude and not malice.
*****
As I told Edgar just a few minutes ago, thanks again for the life lesson!
We are still learning, after all these years, eh? Hooray for us.
Hooray for us!
3D/2D. We used to live in a 3D world with real people and real objects, today most of us live in a 2D world. Most of our time is spent in front of a flat screen, what we see is not real, it is the 2D representation of reality. 2D is easily considered as less “human”, as a virtual or recreational situation and in video games we dare to shoot and reduce people to red slashes on a wall. People dare to say things they would not dare to say in your face, or if by “accident” they did they could immediately correct seeing your face and smelling your anger.
In this virtual 2D world too, with all its additional communication, we tend to hide in echo-chambers, surround our self with true believers. In the 3D world we can nor click away neighbors, colleagues and church goers with different opinions, there we are condemned to live with diversity.
I can recommend Timothy Snyder with his view on this (and how easy we can be manipulated in the 2D world): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jz8a3LuDlZU
Superb characterization of our world today. For sure, I create an echo chamber of sorts here, on Twitter, and Facebook, and never reach out to follow the Mocha Usons of the world to gain enlightenment from them. Can one gain enlightenment from them? Uplift? Knowledge? Passion for others?
That is the problem. In 2D, sanity is on one side of the line, and insanity the other. I opt for a sane echo chamber, and seek to make it larger by working the edges.
Nice and wise; diamond and dynamite this short piece of yours Joe Am; the comments it generates makes it a dumdum bullet aimed to explode the heart of the dragon.
Time awaits itself to come alive and start ticking again to resuscitate a nation’s heart.
as you said Joe Am, some prose could look like poetry:
Nice and wise; diamond and dynamite
this short piece of yours Joe Am;
the comments it generates makes it
a dumdum bullet aimed
to explode the heart of the dragon.
Time awaits itself to come alive
and start ticking again
to resuscitate a nation’s heart.
I won’t do this repetition again
to waste TSoH precious space.
🙂 🙂 🙂 Space here is 13 gigabytes, of which we use less than 1%.
Every level of abstraction can be a form of “2D”. There is the story of a Belgian journalist in World War 2 who hated the Germans with passion. Yet one day he saw the first German corpse ever on a bridge. “Le pauvre mort” = the poor dead man. He came very anti-war…
Just reading about stuff is abstraction. Or would 1986 have happened if Filipinos had only READ about Ninoy’s death and burial? They SAW the videotape footage of how he was taken off the plane, they HEARD the shots, they saw the body with the bullet wounds.
But too much imagery from action movies and the rest probably numbs people. Probably the reason why people don’t care too much about images like the one Joe has shown above. Personally the first images coming on Philippine media shocked me in their brutality.
What I see, hear, or read in Pinas media today are people and events (not all, of course) in the first dimension (1D). Not in reality but only in the movies one can have 2D, 3D and iMAX.
Now i know why there is a need for a divorce law in the Philippines..
Listening to Acosta now……
Holy…Chr……
would it help if you told those who don’t value the lives of drug users (and readily condemn them to die), to ask them if they will have the same sentiment if THEIR own parents, loved ones were involved in drugs??
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/21/philippines-duterte-son-will-be-killed-if-he-is-involved-in-drugs
The President don’t care….
Yup. He is actually in Macau and HK with Sara and Baste and still mouthing off to perceived enemies:
http://politics.com.ph/pulong-duterte-mocks-pnoy-kris-aquino-for-broken-edsa-promises-maglaro-na-lang-ng-ps4/
There is a difference between a drug addict son and a non drug addict son. The former is expendable, deemed hopeless and a living dead while the latter could be engaged in a productive endeavour.
*******
Expendable
adjective
of relatively little significance, and therefore able to be abandoned or destroyed.
*****
Yes, for sure there is a gap in their thinking caused by the “it can’t happen to me” fallacy, or the old “I can’t project myself into other people’s shoes” inadequacy.
Thanks for visiting and commenting, Ed. Superb point.
It is ‘whataboutism’ camouflaged as “but remember”. The author discredits you with his intro sentence, what follows is an attempt to justify government’s illegal actions. It honors you that you cared to write a blogpost about it. But propaganda does not deserve that amount of attention. You should simply delete it. Be trigger happy!
Bet Duterte Watchdog did’nt read beyond the first paragraph. May I respectfully you change your name to ‘blatherskite’.
I’m pretty sure he/she is referring to the quote in the article, not the article itself. The comment is well-meant.
Yes. Thanks!
I only wanted to respond to the propaganda technique aspect and with it add to the discussion. No need to “respectfully” insult me. You don’t know me. And you would have lost this bet. Peace!
My apologies. I gladly loose the bet. I was too quick to bite.
🙂
I was going to be snarky to him but I clicked his handle and it took me to his Twitter feed. His tweets led me to believe that I misread his post.
Yes, I admit it could be misunderstood. My mistake.
Yes, that would have been a choice. But I have to make sure regular readers understand the principles behind such deletion and all readers reflect on the importance of a moral blog and a moral Philippines. Wednesday’s blog will continue this general thread, because it is the revolution that is needed, not one of politics or guns. One of values.
Thank you for the explanation. I agree that a moral revolution will be needed. But I fear that this process of change will take too long regarding the facts that are created just now by people who are completely immoral. Looking forward to the blogpost.
Recently, I posted in fb ( one with the colored bckground): “A culture of HATE and FOUL language has spread in Pinas and beyond. Cant we know better than this?” Instantly a comment from a friend said: “Fake News”. Was I misunderstood or did I sound like a troll?
Your comment was dismissed? If so, your friend has issues, ignorance or defending an ignorant position. Please join the discussion on Wednesday’s upcoming blog.
Here,
Where the truth of what we know fit in? What we know will have to be axiomatic, hence we vet the truth of what we know. I think.
sonny,
That would be his first book, which I found harder to read, but I think this summation answers your question?
“Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Philosophy of Mathematics is undoubtedly the most unknown and under-appreciated part of his philosophical opus. Indeed, more than half of Wittgenstein’s writings from 1929 through 1944 are devoted to mathematics, a fact that Wittgenstein himself emphasized in 1944 by writing that his “chief contribution has been in the philosophy of mathematics” (Monk 1990: 466).
The core of Wittgenstein’s conception of mathematics is very much set by the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1922; hereafter Tractatus), where his main aim is to work out the language-reality connection by determining what is required for language, or language usage, to be about the world. Wittgenstein answers this question, in part, by asserting that the only genuine propositions that we can use to make assertions about reality are contingent (‘empirical’) propositions, which are true if they agree with reality and false otherwise (4.022, 4.25, 4.062, 2.222).
From this it follows that all other apparent propositions are pseudo-propositions of various types and that all other uses of ‘true’ and ‘truth’ deviate markedly from the truth-by-correspondence (or agreement) that contingent propositions have in relation to reality. Thus, from the Tractatus to at least 1944, Wittgenstein maintains that “mathematical propositions” are not real propositions and that “mathematical truth” is essentially non-referential and purely syntactical in nature. On Wittgenstein’s view, we invent mathematical calculi and we expand mathematics by calculation and proof, and though we learn from a proof that a theorem can be derived from axioms by means of certain rules in a particular way, it is not the case that this proof-path pre-exists our construction of it.”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein-mathematics/
LC, to speak of the philosophy of language, (and to think it too) is slippery. As Wittgenstein points out, there is the referential and the syntactical. Syntax cannot be separated from Math. Referential defines the user “locality” where the Math is used. Science uses only the real component “locale”. Math deals with both real and imaginary components of numbers, i.e. Complex numbers = Real + Imaginary. The philosophy of Math can be used in the real and/or “imaginary locales.” I don’t know if Wittgenstein is thinking along this meaning of Math. Maybe Math & Language subsumes each other?
I think I’m missing something. (our subject is philosophy & truth in language & Math …)
You’re not missing anything, sonny. I’m in the same boat trying to tease all this out. But it’s not just Math, it’s Ethics.
’til now, I’ve just waded thru Philosophical Investigations, now (from your posts) I’m gonna give his Tractatus another go.
But Wittgenstein was an Ethicist above all else, just like Spinoza. In Culture and Value p.29e Wittgenstein writes:
“Rules of life are dressed up in pictures. And these pictures can only serve to describe what we are to do, not justify it. Because they could provide a justification only if they held good in other respects as well. I can say: “Thank these bees for their honey as though they were kind people who have prepared it for you”; that is intelligible and describes how I should like you to conduct yourself. But I cannot say: “Thank them because, look, how kind they are!”–since the next moment they may sting you.“
*******
Just reading that passage, I would think Wittgenstein is saying that we cannot attribute the quality of good or evil to bees.
We can describe what the bees are doing, and that is making honey as though they were being kind.
But they are not really kind. Nor are they really evil. They just are.
And that is the function of language. To describe things as they are, and not to justify. — that is, provide a reason.
*****
Then after bees (honey), ask if it holds for cows too (milk) , aside from kicking I think milk cows tend to be docile in general (hence no stings), edgar.
sonny, you’d be happy to know that Wittgenstein was given a Catholic funeral, I think the church knowing full well he was not religious (his family was Jewish turned Catholic), but he loved the “pictures” represented by Catholic sacraments— which I too appreciated only after watching the Young Pope.
help HELLLPPP. I failed my basic math and could go no further, a former dean of engineering asked me a simple math question and I gave the wrong answer daw. I don’t know if he was only mocking me. The question is: Ten minus four divided by two equals how much (many). Please tell me the correct answer. So I know I am really a math moron.
Sa tagalog sampung holen binawasan mo ng apat kaya natira anim hinati Pinaghiwalay mo yung anim sa dalawang tumpok ano ang natira? Isa lang ba ang sagot or dalawa o tatlo?
*******
10 – 4 / 2 = 8
*****
10-4 = 6/2 = 3?
Depends on where you put the parentheses.
(10 – 4) / 2 = 3
10 – (4 / 2) = 8
I think Edgar is using the sequence a computer would use, with division and multiplication preceding addition and subtraction.
I remember the mnemonic: My Dear Aunt Sally 🙂
My son updated me that is called: Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally.
I felt Jurrasic.
🙂
Popoy, here is one without math: a Detective was asking Pedro the identity of a man caught robbing a bank. Here is what Pedro said:
“Brothers and sisters I have none but that man’s child is the child of my Mother’s only husband.”
What is the relation of Pedro to the man?
My friend a former Dean of Engineering says the answer is 1 following a math rule that says 10 divided by 2 is 5 minus 4 equals one. I have 10 marbles, which I tried separating them into many groups. I ended up still with 10 marbles ready to put back into my right pocket. But my first wrong answer is 3.
The policeman should have cupped the bank robber and haul him to HQ. Then let HQ people interrogate Pedro (waay siyang utol eh). Do you notice the Wakalogtu (always sleeping) posting lots, yes LOTS of thievery and killings caught by CCTV and nothing yes NOTHING , no policeman catching them and jailing them? What appears in the news media are photos taken by photographers accompanying cops for photo ops or the publicity. Mga Wakarang.
Hahaha. Wakalogtu sa pancitan. Cheers, Popoy.
“Mga Wakarang …”
Popoy, I remember the word “wakanga” right about the time “wakarang” was in use. What does it mean?
To the reader who may be curious about the answer and why, and as a matter of closing my post above, here is the answer:
Whether Pedro has brothers or sisters — as siblings or as step-siblings — are superfluous data, not relevant. What is relevant is that Pedro is the son of the Mother who has the Man, as her only husband; so the Man is the Father of Pedro.
*******
Profound. But what is the relevance to the topic of acceptance/tolerance?
*****
It started out and continues to be a discussion/debate about language. I understand for this articular blog, it’s about tolerance & red lines and some therapeutic expressions there of (i’ll wade deeper on the upcoming blog, not risk bothering the therapy going on). In essence, i’ve just won my off moderation status and don’t wanna risk it 😉 (fall for another trap, especially since being banned came up in the article) , but we’ll have to re-visit the language issue here, edgar.
So let us re-visit it here, Lance.
Were you misread, was your language misunderstood?
“sound like drug use is a victimless crime, Joe. But remember, it’s also the governments (sic) job to ensure safety for the rest of its citizens, correct? So the gov’t is taking care of her people, by getting rid of the minority’s (sic) whose “fulfillment” infringes on the majority’s security and quality of life.”
I responded that I found this “getting rid of” idea disgusting.
I’ll await Joe’s input for further, he redacted my name for a reason, karl. But his upcoming blog seems related.
But you know and I know, that this time it is about you, are you denying you said that? No, because you said your name was redacted.
The comment was not deleted, so it is still out there.
You love to ask questions, but you see this as a trap?
It takes one to know one.
Like I said karl, I’ll wait for Joe’s input, he erased me from my quote for a reason (I think he just wanted to examine the quote by and in of itself), I’m assuming his upcoming blog will be a better place to re-visit the actual discussion from which the quote was plucked from. re trap, Joe knows what I’m talking about.
Let us pretend it was not you, was joe’s response, apropos?
Within the quote.
karl, like I said, I’m still technically in the dog-house right now, whether I got the off-moderation for that Marcos statue I don’t know (congratz by the way for winning silver!), but I think it’s healthier for me to assume Joe just wanted to laser focus on that quote sans LCpl_X. Again I’ll await Joe’s input.
OK, thanks.
To see it as a trap denies the legitimacy of the statement being made and overlays suspicious motives, a form of personalized argument. You correctly identify this. Thanks.
Thanks.
Joe, I retract the word ‘trap’ (you’re right it conveys bad intent),
but that was the ‘trap’ i was talking about, had nothing to do with this current blog (but relevant as backgrounder). Essentially, you and edgar goaded me to re-visit the moral, immorality & amorality debate (of which we’ve had plenty, no mystery there as to my stance, only i used the trolley dilemma this time ’round, which I thought was one approach we’ve not covered here yet), then only to be chastised upon doing so (ie. you asked , and i delivered).
But, I apologize for the word ‘trap’ and withdraw it.
Noted.
is this the statue ?
http://www.artificialowl.net/2008/08/remains-of-ferdinand-marcos-concrete.html
*******
Thanks.
I think Joe Am’s nuanced definitions are pretty clear. Basically:
o Tolerate is the allowance of diversity.
o Accept is the assimilation diversity.
Tolerate is purely a mental reaction.
Accept is both an emotive and mental reaction.
In the first paragraph, Joe Am uses the second term in the negative sense — “not accept.” That means he emotionally and intellectually rejects the use of bad language.
Philosophically, what we are talking about here is an ethical issue. As such, the issue might relate more to Buber’s I/Thou modes of existence than to Wittgenstein’s Tractatus.
*****
edgar,
I was not talking about the definitions of tolerance and acceptance (vis-a-vis this particular blog) but the previous discussion from whence my quote was sliced from, ie. I didn’t say that piece in a vacuum , there was a whole discussion/debate that preceded it.
But I’ll look into Buber (i’m not familiar with him). thanks!
*******
Thanks for the clarification.
*****
What context in the original discussion grants license to say it is okay to kill people who are considered dangerous, outside of due process?
It’s not a trap. It is a statement of the values that define a form of obscenity that is beyond the line of acceptance for this blog.
“What context in the original discussion grants license to say it is okay to kill people who are considered dangerous, outside of due process?”
Joe, here…
I used liberally American examples, Joe.
“Getting rid of”, can mean simply https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act to all out annihilation , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#American_Indian_Wars , when you encouraged me to re-visit the morality, immorality, amoral talk I opted for annihilation but before I could make my point (or before edgar could chime in), you cut off the thread.
If you want no more of this type of talk, I’ll respect it. but that’s my side of the story (I kinda feel like Mayongod now).
You are walking back your remark and blame-shifting.
I’m not walking it back, Joe— I would love to pursue it, annihilation as moral that is (this stuff is interesting to me). and I’m not blaming you per se , you have your editorial standards, I just want my side to be clear here. Again, I’ll respect your standards.
Take it to a different forum. Not here.
*******
Not to discuss per Joe Am’s reproof but to relieve LCpl_X of his misery, I submit this chart.
Basically, the chart uses the Five W’s methodology and says that Duterte’s cleansing is UNJUSTIFIED.
Joe Am may delete this post.
*****
The idea that is troublesome to me is that anyone, in 2018, would support mass murder. Especially since people like me, Will, and others who have a public voice are in line to be extinguished if this insanity continues. We are the Jews and I am supposed to allow some intellectually endowed yahoo from America to come to my blog to praise the execution of me and my family? Hey, this is some real serious shit going down here!
Nice chart, by the way.
Joe, first of all you have an American passport, and I think Wil also has a ticket out (didn’t he mention kids living outside the Philippines?).
Most folks here commenting on DU30’s EJKs have a ticket out (or are already out), not sure about karl (though he lives in a safe neighborhood). secondly, EJKs have gone down, you can only kill so many, ie. drug users/abusers will stop, and seller/narco politicians will hide or leave— so it makes sense that it’s plateauing. Of course, the threat of violence as a political dissident (a mantle you’ve voluntarily donned) will always be on the table, it’s the 3rd world after all. Like i said, i’ll comply with your editorial standards, Joe, but to connect what i post to your security is disingenuous at best, IMHO— and unfair.
As for for edgar’s table above, that compares internal vs. external issues (no comparison). A better comparison would be the Indian Removal Act of 1830 to subsequent de-facto mass murders of Indians to the 1900s, where for more than a century (since President Andrew Jackson officialized the US’s war against Indians) the lines blurred between victims and victimizers. That is a more apt comparison. Just as Joe’s has supported current drone wars, similar sentiments were expressed during these Indian wars, edgar. Question: are all mass murders the same?
LCplX, your insensitivity is jaw dropping. I know we had this discussion before. Get some empathy, will you?
*******
1
*****
He’s left the forum. I don’t want him here rationalizing mass murder.
Thanks. The Japanese camps were considered legitimate at the time by government authorities. The imprisonments have since been recognized as racial discrimination and not legitimate. Today we operate in a world where inclusion is a moral value, laws are deemed important to delineate the bounds of proper behavior, but vestiges of racism and discrimination still exist. Indeed, in the Philippines, they are going mainstream, even as to harsh attitudes toward women (‘shoot them in the vagina’). Your comment helps that process gain legitimacy and I won’t allow it here.
The link below is a very interesting read. It asked the question of whether Russia also interfered
and still interfering in PH’s political affairs through an online propaganda campaign. Assange of Wikileaks seems to be involved. A real conundrum.
https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/in-depth/196576-russia-propaganda-influence-interference-philippines
https://www.facebook.com/philipjr.lustre/posts/1821233227908847 – Philipp Jr. Lustre:
RULE OF LOWLIFES, GANGSTERS
NO, we don’t have the rule of the wise or the learned.Neither is it the rule of the monarch, or the majority. What we have are lowlifes and gangsters. These are people of contradictions. They have college education and diploma, but are most uncouth, uncivilized, and unwise. Their moves are characterized by absence of any basis, or any sense of decency. They don’t study; they hardly read . Their works are sloppy and, at best, mediocre. The absence of any standard or yardstick of excellence is most noticeable:
Heading the list is no less than the sick old man of the South. He has a low regard of the people which he rules. He has a low regard of everybody, including himself. He has no sense of history either. his is essentially politics of me, but the low-esteem is most remarkable in the exercise of his political role and duties. he is the lead gangster.
The Senate president is a wimp, who has no mind of his own. He probably hates his father, who has carved a name of his own as a leader from Mindanao. His hatred of his father could be the reason why he want to slay the over-imposing father image by his unmitigated demonstration of utter obedience and obeisance to the sick old man. He is a man who stands for nothing.
The Speaker is an anomaly. A lowlife in everything – in thoughts, in words, and in deeds. As the fourth highest political leader in the country, he has no qualms to exhibit his perverted sense of morality, showing neither shame or circumspection. Just watching him makes a citizen ashamed of being a Filipino. He is another gangsta.
The pro-administration senators are an assortment of misfits and unfits in a legislative body, which was once the shelter of the best and the brightest like Claro Recto, Jose Laurel, Cipriano Primicias, Lorenzo Tanada, Jose Diokno, Benigno Jr., Gerardo Roxas, Jovito Salonga, and many others. Now, we have a crooked dick who is despised by his own colleagues for long hours of monologue, a boxer who has become a national clown, a comedian and plagiarist who is a national joke, a supposed mig jet, which could not fly, a guy from the town of firecrackers, yet he who could explode with some brilliant ideas, and several others.
Lowlifes belonging to political dynasties populate the House. They are just too many to mention.
The propaganda team is most noticeable. The presidential spokesman used to be a topnotch human rights lawyer and international law expert, but he has readily surrendered his decades of hard work to satisfy his consuming political ambition and desire for pelf and power. A communications secretary, who remains clueless of his job until now, and an assistant secretary, whose name has become synonymous with fake news and who thinks that by conducting a poll of trolls and bots, she could revise history.
The cabinet sectaries are equally despicable lowlifes. A foreign affairs secretary who has no qualm to announce to the world that the very country he represents has seven million drug addicts, a much bloated figure that has been scaring tourists from coming over to the country. A tourism secretary who travels with a coterie of hair stylist, manicurist, pedicurist, masseuse, etc. A wig wearing justice secretary who perverts the law by working with civil society groups dominated by shakedown artists and con men, and an attorney general, who doesn’t know his law.
Yes, we have a band of lowlifes ruling our country. A cabal of gangsters who is raping our country. A bang of stickup artists and con men who is bleeding this country dry. They will have their comeuppance one of these days. Retribution will be the first order of the day. 😠😠😠
”A cabal of gangsters who is raping our country. ”
Come on…we just want to ”serve” the country…
Arroyo (without siblings) from this:
1992*
6,730,193.00
2016
434,636,322.52
http://pcij.org/blog/2006/06/16/arroyo-richer-by-p125m-since-assuming-power-in-2001
Click to access saln.networth.31Dec2016.pdf
(nr 11 in the pdf file)
Did someone sneak you a copy of tomorrow’s blog? You have already responded to it. 🙂 Just cut and paste this one tomorrow so it gets into that thread, too.
I can read your blog for tomorrow now already because you don’t use Filipino time…..
🙂
*******
Irineo, thanks. This is dead on target.
*****
TO COMPLET THE PICTURE
Lustre covers all major groups and aptly describes in simple language the groups or the main representatives of the group.
Now, If I may:
* lowlife = despicable person
* gangster = a member of a gang of lowlifes
The Judiciary is not mentioned. The Judiciary is not a gangster group such as the House of Representatives definitely is, but the Judiciary, including the SC, has lowlifes.
10-12 asking CJ to resign if she won’t go on leave?
karl, in a concession to charity and to minimize my error: there may be less than 10-12 “certifiable” lowlifes in that number.
How generous of you.
According to a message to me by one of our regulars,they only got 7.
Taking out the CJ from the number makes 14, then it is roughly 50-50 (give or take 1, say) — meaning the SC has not completely gone to the crocodiles (I changed the idiom in deference to Will’s favorite pet).
*******
Karl, thanks. Hope it’s lucky 7.
If Leonen is among the 7, he cannot see the forest for the trees.
*****
*******
I am assuming the 2 holdbacks are Carpio and Leonen.
That would mean that 3 of PNoy’s appointees — Perlas-Bernabe, Jardeleza, and Caguiao — have gone over to the other side.
o Perlas-Bernabe has recently sided with the majority
o Jardeleza was always iffy. He had a bone to pick against the CJ. He voted for GMA’s release, alongside Perlas-Bernabe.
o Caguiao? Looks like he has wilted.
*****
If this Manila Times article is to be believed, Leonen also went against CJ.
http://www.manilatimes.net/justices-want-sereno-quit/382976/
*******
Karl, thanks. I saw the same rumor on FB. I will wait and see.
*****
Thanks as well.
I guess the pressures not to become outcasts must be huge. Clearly, the minority can not dictate case rulings, so one must choose to bail out on the Chief Justice to stay on the court. For young justices, perhaps there is a pragmatism to wanting the stability of a new Chief Justice. I don’t know. I some time ago gave up on the Court being a legitimate, independent branch that actually comprehends ‘justice’. Watching judges whine before House sycophants was awesome. No big thinkers in the crowd.
10-12 asking CJ to resign?
Offtopic: Websites we should enter into our routers, to block access to them for the protection of our children and grandparents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fake_news_websites#For_Philippine_audiences
Benignzero’s complaint was dismissed.
He’s been reduced to zero. He’ll have to eat marmite from the jar.
“This life, which had been the tomb of his virtue and of his honour, is but a walking shadow; a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
Nice Sakespeare!
A PH federal government patterned after the US government? These people were commissioned by PRD to do the study, no? Will PRD cuss them out?
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/971782/consultative-committee-con-com-duterte-constitution-federal-presidential-government-system-federalism
To make clear to everyone how nasty a turn things are taking – Harry Roque recently:
Or PNPs Jovie Espenido who recently rejoiced that Kerwin Espinosa’s lawyer was killed.
Must be the Limbo Rock administration…
Get a load of this article and the pictures in it. Does this confirm that PDP-Laban wants a one party system in PH? Launching Xi’s book at their anniversary?
https://www.rappler.com/nation/197049-pdp-laban-anniversary-china
*******
I believe it does confirm a One Party state.
The rationale would be — China is a success, isn’t it?
They don’t see the loss of freedoms, the obeisance to the great god of materialism, the subjugation of people and countries — the untold misery.
*****
Yup. How would Filipinos react to that?
*******
I guess the great majority would be unmindful and accepting… as long as they can eke out an existence.
The CCP has a party elite — and already many are joining the ranks of PDP in anticipation of privilege.
The business people will be unmindful as well… as China has created many billionaires. The local Chinese will dominate.
Only a handful of dissidents will speak out. They will be mainly writers, artists, and academicians.
*****
Dissidents will be hunted down and punished like during the Martial Law years. If PH can dig itself out of it, it will take years and years for it prosper. My theory on why there is so much ignorance in PH is not only because of poverty but also because there was a brain drain. Those who could have made good things happen are minuscule in number because the rest are either dead or went overseas.
I think the juxtapositions in these fotos and article begs the question how do we scale (c. edgar) which hegemony should the PH situation emulate if one is thinking Philippine “satelliteship” to either power as part of its own sovereign trajectory. So far the Philippine power baton is in the hands of “a cabal of lowlifes and gangstas.” 😦
I am biased. I think you know which one I will prefer but that is not what the cabal wants. I believe, if Filipinos are asked, they would decline the cabal’s choice.
I wonder if they will.. or will they be lured by a false promise of “Fujian” like progress.
PDP-Laban (Pimentel etc.) went to Fujian and told awesome stories some time ago of how the province is progressing… fools, they think mainland Chinese will treat them as equals.
“a cabal of lowlifes and gangstas.”
c.PiE, you the man, bro! 🙂
This is hot off the press. Looks like Filipinos still do not trust China as much as they do the US.
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/645045/pinoys-trust-us-canada-japan-the-most-sws/story/
I abstracted the picture from the link:
JP, Irineo, I’m trying to collect material about how cruelly the Chinese totalitarian leadership treats the Chinese common tao. If Filipinos are informed of this cruelty, they will take a 180-deg turnabout on Filipino apologists for PRC.
*******
Seems worthy of a blog.
*****
Yes, edgar. So far, material is below critical mass. Will share.
I second the suggestion.
Could someone please try accessing Pinoy Ako Blog? I have been trying to read her latest blog about Aimee Marcos but I am getting a database error. I am hoping it is not under DDoS attack.
Confirmed.
Error establishing a database connection
Thanks, Karl. Still hoping her website is not under attack.
I hope not too.
*******
Confirmed also.
Tried accessing directly and via an FB post.
*****
I love this blog. I go through each of the comments and every comment is educating me. I share Sister Mananzan’s concern of losing our identity as a people, the respect, valuing inclusiveness and the love for fellow Filipinos. All of a sudden, all of these values were thrown out of the window. I wish we just debate and listen to each other and not resort to name calling.
Thank you for reading and commenting, OFW. I’m glad you find the blog meaningful and hope you will continue to read and share your observations.