Mack, Back The Hell Up
I mean, really. Just back the hell up.
I don’t disagree with what he says, no, at least the core message—what goodman did was wrong, he shouldn’t be abusing freedom of speech the way he is, if you shit on someone else’s lawn you deserve at very least a tight slap and at the very most legal proceedings.
But the minute he started bringing up Nazis my wank sense started… tingling…!
Mack, here’s what I think you did wrong:
You Broke Godwin’s Law.
Actually, you didn’t; your argument instead matched the observation that is postulated in Godwin’s Law. But that’s not as catchy as saying that you broke it.
Not that you’re not supposed to, mind you—but remember what Godwin’s Law is supposed to do:
[Godwin’s Law]’s memetic function is not to end discussions (or even to classify them as “old”), but to make participants in a discussion more aware of whether a comparison to Nazis or Hitler is appropriate, or is simply a rhetorical overreach.
Your argument was a rhetorical over-reach. The Nazi’s murdered 6 million Jews. Racists in our country have not yet killed anything close to that number. Neither are they in power the way the Nazis were, and neither did they dominate the nations the Aryans did.
The Nazis are semiotic poison. Unless the groups that are being compared to them bear more than just a passing resemblence to Nazis and Naziism, or are as virulent as the Nazis, avoid using them in comparisons.
You Went For the Groin.
Seriously. While ad-hominem attacks are generally de rigueur in situations like this, implying that goodman’s arguments are the results of insanity diminishes the whole edifice of people who do have a grieviance, however imagined, against Malays.
I’m Malay, with Chinese, Javanese and Indian blood in my veins. I can’t claim to be as rojak as you, but you do know that non-Malays have a legitimate grieviance.
And, to top it off, you called him a pathological liar. That’s wank material there.
posted by T-Boy at 5:43 PM
17 comments, with :
Your link to Mack's links back here.
Noted. And fixed. Thanks!
Not so bad an over-reach what? Good Man's basic sentiment is pretty much one of ethnic superiority. Easily firestarts to ethnic cleansing. Enter Hitler comparison.
Notwithstanding, I'd say the use was more for dramatic effect. Much like the weeping. What to do, there are lots of people who respond to the cellos-and-thunder style of writing.
What I found strange was the many comments at Peter's that focussed collective indignation on Good Man's hogging of other people's blogs as a soapbox. Suggestions to instal comment filters etc, huffing about how GM should have created his own blog and rant there instead.
So much for being concerned about the publication of racist statements, wherever/whatever the source.
It's spectacularly mind-boggling that despite Peter's apparent concern about the racist statements (to the extent of making a police report), he continues to publish the comment by leaving it on that particular post.
Funny how bloggers love to link everything back to blogs and blogging.
Ahh, but it is—we're talking about someone who started the Holocaust and a War that devastated a whole continent, and comparing that to a tinpot racist who couldn't even bother to find his own plot of Inter-land to soapbox in.
While the difference between the tinpot racist and Hitler is time, content of message and what each comparant achieved in his life, oh! what a world of a difference that is.
Oh, and bloggers definitely are a bunch of introspective fucks who get tetchy when people start violating their personal space.
Think of it this way—when you start wearing nothing but microskirts and really, really, really tiny tube tops, you really start protecting what little flesh you haven't exposed to the public.
YOu know what's really scary - that bloggers actually think they can claim a piece of the INternet and make it theirs.
What they don't realise is that the Internet grows at such a fast pace - that posters like GM and the like, fall away at the roadside becos most of the time their comments WILL be ignored.
A feeling of indignation - will follow - when their comments are read - but hey - who knows GM might have had a bad turn in life. HIS EXPERIENCES molded him. Should we blame him and tell him to act like the rest of us?
That wouldn't be right. Everyoné's opinions should be out here on the Internet - it's their right. Whether or not it should be taken seriously? - i've yet to see someone actually committing a crime and saying 'i did it cos i read GM's comments'.
YOu know what's really scary - that bloggers actually think they can claim a piece of the INternet and make it theirs.
But that's what's so attractive about blogging—you can and do make a piece of the Internet yours, even if all it amounts to is probably two dozen or so posts and little else.
A feeling of indignation - will follow - when their comments are read - but hey - who knows GM might have had a bad turn in life. HIS EXPERIENCES molded him. Should we blame him and tell him to act like the rest of us?
Well, sure, the poster of offensive comment may have had a terrible, terrible childhood, and you know, it would have shaped his personality and opinions in such a way, and completely explain why he thinks what he thinks and says what he says.
It doesn't mean though that just because of all of that I can't point my finger at him and make a judgement like, “Your ideas suck, and suck in a really bad way”, much less so removing or altering his comment on what constitutes as my property, however nebulous that concept may be.
After all, my experiences have made me the person I am, and motivates my actions in a way that I perceive to be completely reasonable. Plus, it's on my property. Whose right should triumph?
How many police reports do you need to make a case against one individual for the same 'offence'?
How many reports does it take to make a public statement about bloggers being seriously socially responsibile citizens? Before we become ULTRA?
How many times can you repeat that seditious message in your own blog before you commit sedition yourself?
How many times should you allow yourself to post the same thing with little or substantial change in material/content before you appear to be a)recycling old news b) blatantly exploiting a topic for personal publicity and attention?
How many does it take to turn prosecution into persecution?
I'm only asking mainly cos this seems a real weighty matter and I ain't no lawyer.
T-Boy said...
But that's what's so attractive about blogging—you can and do
make a piece of the Internet yours, even if all it amounts to is
probably two dozen or so posts and little else.
It doesn't mean though that just because of all of that I can't point my finger at him and make a judgement like, “Your ideas suck, and suck in a really bad way”, much less so removing or altering his comment on what constitutes as my property, however nebulous that concept may be.
Removing/altering a poster's comments doesn't make them go away. You can judge them all you want - but i prefer to keep posters like this in OPEN view- rather than have them go offline and underground. By no means, i am not defending the poster's actions, rather it seems to me that Malaysians (already living under the fear of ISA) do not mind using the cops and ISA/seditions act to their own purpose.
Isn't this what it is about after all? Just becos someone posts something truly awful, that bloggers are wetting their pants cos someone might rat/inform on them for having someone else's comments on their site? We live so much in fear these days, we don't know anything else anymore.
If you see the public forums for example - when Katrina occurred, certain posters said New Orleans deserved it because of this and that- the amount of outrage that poured in after that - sent a clear message that posters like that ARE a minority. That not everyone has a mean streak. The admin of those public forums did not censor those comments (afaik).
Additionally, in the end we are saying to those posters that just because we/you disagree with them, they do not have the right to voice out their opinion. That everyone should agree with one another - if that is what it boils down to, then maybe that is how Malaysians are today. :(
As for ownership, online chatters/bloggers and the like should know that spamming,hacking and the like are all out there.
percolator: Those are good points!
Unfortunately I'm not at all interested in answering them. I haven't really thought about or elucidated my feelings about bloggers posting police reports due to seditious remarks.
Anonymous: Do you realize that up until very recently, I did not allow non-Blogger posters to put up comments?
You may not know this, but if Jeff and Mack are a school of blogging, I am of a completely different school—a less successful or popular one, an older one, but a different school nonetheless.
Jeff and Mack focus on blogs as a focus of freedom of thought and independence from government-sponsored media. I focus on the aspect of freedom of blogger expression.
I don't at all agree that comments in blogs shouldn't be censored—blogs aren't forums, which are designed for dialogue.
The space within a blog is restricted, hell yes, and total freedom is in the power of the blog creator(s), and no one else, and I think that's the way it should be.
The freedom starts once you leave the boundaries of any individual blog. The spaces in between blogs, in terms of inter-blog interaction, are free.
Check my disclaimer. Nowhere in there do I guarantee that your point of view shall be represented, only mine. I am in control of my blog.
You all are my guests, and, implied by the name of my blog, I have no idea why you're here.
I'm here because you disagreed with Mack's comments on GM. Apparently i was wrong.
Perhaps it's better you go back to removing the comment box.
Jeff n Mack focus on freedom of thought/indep from gov sponsored media, only if everyone looks at it from their point of view. Nothing else.
Tariq, it looks like i've overstayed my welcome. Good luck - and remember not to let fear get the better of you and bloggers alike.
Anonymous: Well, so there you go. You're here because I disagreed with Mack's comment.
Overstaying your welcome? Removing the comment box? Pschh. Who are you to say what I can or cannot do? ;)
My welcome is mine to withdraw and extend. So don't be jumping on conclusions. :)
If I don't like you, I'll tell you. And I haven't had a problem with what you said at all. If I sounded testy, well, it's Monday, and I'm at work.
What's not to be testy about?
oh the hilarity of how this freedom of speech thing is being bandied about by laymen.
i've just been threatened with legal action for "slander" and "breach of privacy" because i called someone on being sensationalist.
meh.
Ho ho ho ho! If being sensationalistic was a crime, then prison shall be full of newspaper editors!
Hoh hoh hoh! Disclaimer the author disavows all responsibility for any bruised nancy egos dramatic weeping whimpering like a little girl moaning about how no one understands you Avril Lavigne lyrics to all bloggers newspaper authors human beings in general and carbon and otherwise based life-forms and objects in the universe.
Your ideological perspective are far wider and pragmatic then many self-claimed social responsible pundits.
Tho' I disagreed with Goodman and his rhetorics which I believe is biased tho' not baseless, it is paranoid to believe that they are non-existent and untrue. What transpired in Goodman's view is the bruteness and inconsiderate language used which is without regards to sentiments and the existence of a plural.
I do believe that being critical and brunt towards a social issue is not harmful within the perspective of social integration and the development of a thesis for future studies towards the development of a just and fair society for all.
But it must be done in a forum that is conducive for such contextual discussion and that the forum participants are those that consist of think-tanks empowered or enabled to direct or design the system which will bring benefits to the people at large.
Unfortunately, Goodman choses blogs that are personal in nature, and are self-directed forum where these blog-owners are unrelated, un-empowered, and unconnected to be able to drive the thesis into the appropriate think-tank within the system managers.
At such, the blog-owners, fearing for their own safety and security choses to pin-down Goodman to mitigate against the risk that may take place. The paranoia is not without basis as jeff ooi was pressured to detach and disassociate himself to safe his skin for a good reason. Such paranoia had caused phobic repercussions to various others, like mack and pete.
What was done by them to Goodman was personal in nature to mitigate their self-risk. I have no comment on that.
But I believe your point is far salient and more open-minded. But you got to be less personal with others in your critical discourse.
Good work!
I'm one month late in tis comment -- still, better late than never is my creed.
The 'hole matter was blown up by those Bloggers going to the Police -- we already have little trust in the Police (hey, remember the I.S.A. is hanging over our heads everytime we publish!), why then look to them for action for one innocuous unknown quantity called Goodman? Easily fixed by pressing the mouse (or Cat?) on "DELETE" function, isn't it? OR Have some brains gone dysfunctional?
I think it's better that we spent time lodging a report when UMNO Youth chief wielded the "keris" to show ketuanan Melayu -- WTFs! I'm still thinking about doing it -- is there a lawyer here who's similarly inclined? (before time bar runs in!)
Blogsworld is far from the Upright Moral Guardian of Da Neighbours' Front Yard, so let's minimise any Manifesto to give the authorities, or our neighbours, more ropes to hang ourselves!
I: i
S: say
A: amen.
Maverick: Goodman's comments may have their basis and all, fine. And it's not as if they don't get voiced out, sure.
Again, it's a matter of personal autonomy. I don't care what your point of view is, really, or how you choose to bring up the issue.
But I am in control here, as far as it is possible. That's all I cared about in this whole issue.
desiderata: For me, it was a matter of personal autonomy. Sure, the whole… episode did make me nervous, and I did wonder if we were handing the authorities rope to hang ourselves in.
But did I think Mack and Peter had the right to do what they wanted to their comments? Even to the point of giving users' IP addresses to the authorities?
Yes, I do. It's their area of control. They're spot on within their rights to do so. I don't want anyone messing with that right, or invoking “freedom of speech” as the reason to defecate on what amounts to my personal property.
But do I think it's ill-advised? I don't know.
I am looking forward to your posts.
Post a Comment
<< Home