Singapore is most definitely what China aspires to become.
I bring up the Wumao tactics because they apply almost verbatim here: the common "criticism of criticism" in Asian countries is to assert that you can't criticize unless you somehow are perfect. Since perfection doesn't exist, all criticism is therefore unwarranted.
Dictatorship is an unideal form of government in general, but sometimes can be the best of other possible evils. One would hope that Signapore could move towards being a real free society much more quickly than it is, but perhaps they have another 50 years to go or so.
>I bring up the Wumao tactics because they apply almost verbatim here: the common "criticism of criticism" in Asian countries is to assert that you can't criticize unless you somehow are perfect. Since perfection doesn't exist, all criticism is therefore unwarranted.
This is some pretty heavy racial stereotyping.
Most of the "defenders" of Singapore here are probably white immigrants. Like me.
I'm not saying you can't criticize unless you're perfect.
It just sounds like that because I'm unfavorably comparing what you (probably) assume to be a Democracy - the United States with Singapore.
Not because I think that Singapore isn't often authoritarian, or that it should be free from criticism, but rather because your claims that it's a dictatorship are pure, unadulterated (and probably racist) bullshit.
You know we can't have any intelligent debate once you accuse someone of being a racist [1]. Since when does a geographic distinction become an ethnic one?
> Most of the "defenders" of Singapore here are probably white immigrants. Like me.
Ah..the old expat pissing contest. I didn't accuse anyone of being a wumao, only that they were using the same "relevance fallacy" techniques. If that hurts, then "ouch," but calling me a racist is just immature.
> It just sounds like that because I'm unfavorably comparing what you (probably) assume to be a Democracy - the United States with Singapore.
No, it sounds like that because you love to eat red herrings. If we are talking about Singapore, keep it there, otherwise you are just committing one fallacy after the other.
Later on, you elaborated on this: "I bring up the Wumao tactics because they apply almost verbatim here: the common "criticism of criticism" in Asian countries is to assert that you can't criticize unless you somehow are perfect."
>but calling me a racist is just immature.
If you hadn't first mentioned that these "argumentative tactics" were being used because the person voicing them was from an Asian country, I wouldn't be raising the possibility.
Hey, its your reputation if you want to drag out the racist whip.
Asia is definitely a place, not a race; many of us who live here are even Caucasians believe it or not. You could start calling me racist if I said "Han people like to argue this way" or "Malay people like to argue this way", but I merely stated that "Criticism in Asian countries is generally handled this way." I didn't specify the race or color of anyone's skin, and (white or otherwise) expat apologists are not uncommon where I live.
Don't worry. You wouldn't be the first white American expat in China to make sweeping prejudicial generalizations about the locals. It's depressingly common.
That's a pretty rude response to a fairly moderate comment.
seanmcdirmid points out that being imperfect doesn't make your criticisms of others invalid. You respond by calling him a bigot and suggesting that he's racist to boot ("all asians may look the same").
As an Asian myself, this is uncalled for. Playing the race card when no such sentiment has been expressed weakens us when real racism occurs.
There is a larger, more worthwhile argument here, one that delves into very core personal values, about the fundamentals of governance. Is a completely orderly, benevolent dictatorship "better" (in however dimensions one defines it) than a less orderly system with more self-determination?
In opening up this argument you'll also run into the age-old struggle between common good and individual freedoms. Does maintaining an orderly, prosperous society justify the silencing, oppression, and imprisonment of a minority who disagree? If so, how far is too far - how small of a minority is okay to oppress, and at what point does it become not-okay?
There are some good arguments to be had here, so let's drop the mud-slinging and get on with it.
He could have used the terms "propaganda" or "astro turfing" instead he used the very ethnically charged (and derogatory) term "wu mao". Which is specifically Chinese, which is specifically NOT Singapore.
You are saying I'm rude for calling a spade a spade. Sorry, but making generalisations about "Asians" (which grouping Singaporeans and Chinese) is racism.
But you are right, it is a side track, and the more interesting discussion does centre around the "Is a good dictatorship better than a bad democracy?" or something of the like.
What you're saying is that anyone who compares anything to the wumao party is incapable of telling the difference between the two. That drawing parallels between it and something else is automatically racist.
I do not see any evidence to suggest that seanmcdirmid can't tell the difference between Singaporean and Chinese. My parsing of the post reads that he's comparing the behavior of Singapore-apologists to that of the wumao party. This seems uncharitable for sure, but racist is a stretch.
Honestly, it seems like you're jumping at shadows here. As an Asian, who cannot speak for any other Asian except myself, who has been subject to a hell of a lot of racism in my life, I simply don't see it here, and I see unsubstantiated accusations of racism as having a chilling effect on the conversation and making reasonable (if somewhat unkind) commentary verboten.
Wu mao = Derogatory terms used to describe anyone who isn't pro democracy or IS pro (chinese) communism. (in the context of china) i.e A P.R.C Government Apologist.
> What you're saying is that anyone who compares anything to the wumao party is incapable of telling the difference between the two. That drawing parallels between it and something else is automatically racist.
No, I'm saying in this instance (not any instance) they are not the same, and trying to imply they are the same, is bigotry. Meaning: Using prejudice to prejudge someones argument without actually addressing the merits of their argument.
You jumped from wu-mao to racist bigotry very quickly.
Wumao simply identifies a government shill/apologist, and I never called anyone a wumao, I just repeated their tactics, which I happen to know.
So if the argument matches the wumao argument, why not call it out? What are people afraid of? To be honest, an apologist for any repressive regime would probably use similar relevance fallacies as a way to defend the undefendable. But I'm just not familiar with those.
So what's wrong with the dictatorship if it is "completely benevolent, non-brutal, and very business-oriented"?
I realize that "all asians may look the same"[1], but Singapore isn't China[2].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party