atans1

Media Literacy Council doesn’t think words matter?

In Political governance on 03/12/2015 at 10:18 am

Words don’t have have consequences, they seem to say.

Followig the shootings at a Colorado abortion clinic, Planned Parenthood (the operator of the clinic) executive vice president Dawn Laguens said, “One of the lessons of this awful tragedy is that words matter, and hateful rhetoric fuels violence. It’s not enough to denounce the tragedy without also denouncing the poisonous rhetoric that fuelled it.”

She was referring to the rhetoric of the opponents of Planned Paewnthood which includes all the Republican presidential contenders. The candidates have been condemning Planned Parenthood’s activities, some using the language that we associate with Calvin Cheng but without the claim of talking difficult philosophical issues to justify their comments.  Someone of Facebook comparing Trump’s comments with Calvin’s comments on killing ISIS. “But this one not pretending to advise public on media literacy and etiquette.”

Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee, more bltnt ande more partisan,called the Colorado shootings “an act of terrorism”, “Those running for president and those of us in leadership roles in our country’s major political parties have an obligation to denounce these attacks and clearly say that violence and intimidation in the pursuit of ideology are not acceptable in America.”

That “words matter, and hateful rhetoric fuels violence” is something that Calvin Cheng, a member of the Media Literacy Council, and his protector the chairman of the Media Literacy Council, Professor Tan Cheng Han) seem to have forgotten. Despite them being tasked by the PAP administration to advise S’poreans on media literacy and etiquette.

Worse they also ignore what the High Court judge in the Amos Tee case said This is not freedom of speech, this is a licence to hate, to humiliate others and to totally disregard their feelings or beliefs by using words to inflict unseen wounds”. It seems like … throwing stones at his neighbour’s flat to force the neighbour to notice him, (and) come out to quarrel.”

But let’s look on the bright side. My Facebook Avater commented:

And as Calvin Cheng and the chair of the Media literacy Council show even calling for the killing babies can be justified as not amounting to “hate speech”. //The internet has (by accident, not design) has fostered a culture in which anybody can pretend to be who they like, or give no details at all: “Nobody knows you’re a dog” as a New Yorker cartoon put it. // Calvin Cheng and Prof Tan have dropped all pretence of trying to show that they are intelligent men worthy of respect. ))))

Someone commenting on FB about this post of mine that the books of Maugham, Foster and Wilde (all greater writers) may be removed from the shelves of NLB because they are gat, said.

We clearly have a rightwing segment in society but in light of twits such as Calvin Cheng, do we have a far right loony fringe? This may not matter since the fringe is well, the fringe but one should be reminded that people like Calvin Cheng makes a beef about being part of the establishment.

Now, then ask yourself; who is more dangerous to the nation? The 30% who desire pluralism or the right wing loonies who among other things would rather Singapore violate stuff like the Geneva Convention.

I commented in reply  V.V Good points abouy people like CC claiming to be part of the establishment. And that 30% not so dangerous. Going by the way chair of MLC defends CC, we can only wonder if the real establishment shares the views of CC.

As I always tell my dogs that if they misbehave in public, they reflect badly on me. But then Calvin is no ‘dog”, he’s more of a TRE cyber-rat.

 

 

Advertisements
  1. Don’t be surprised, but quite a number of elites & PAPies share CC’s ideas. Just that they got enuf EQ not to make fools & targets of themselves. They go with the flow of societal norms and what they can get away with. E.g. nuclear families are ok, having more than 2 kids is ok. They are now trying to seed the idea that euthanasia will be ok as well.

    • Waz so wrong about these ideas? Sounds about right. )))

      • hahaha, well it wasn’t PC back in the 1960s and 1970s. By late 70s nuclear families were the norm and ok. By mid-1980s Sinkies were encouraged to have more kids — but only the right Sinkies, not those poor uneducated ones. I remember a SAF colonel lamenting to me back in 1985 that their projections showed shortage of meat for the meat grinder by 1995.
        As for euthanasia, most Sinkies still against it. But I will bet that more oldies than those <50 actually are in conditional favour for it. PAP tested water with the Gollum daughter telling yet another fucking story about lky in ST. And publishing positive letters in forum.

  2. […] – Thoughts of a Cynical Investor: Media Literacy Council doesn’t think words matter? […]

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: