Thread: The politics behind Thailand's floods

Perhaps they are, perhaps they aren't but the point is that because you're in a state of almost total ignorance, you're not in a position to make any judgements.

Originally Posted by Moonraker

Betty You are making a fool of yourself.

You don't think the words in an article are relevant, we know that; you like pictures.

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

2) In an article that is about Akeyuth's comments and 'a lack of reaction from feminists over this incident' (as you have stated), do you think it is normal to highlight:
Akeyuth = 28 times.
Thaksin = 6 times.
Yinluck = 31 times.

Keyword count. Not relevant? Has no impact on the article? Doesn't in any way inform the reader as to the article's direction?

Originally Posted by Dan

Perhaps they are, perhaps they aren't but the point is that because you're in a state of almost total ignorance, you're not in a position to make any judgements.

If any political party is using this disaster as a means for self advancement, then they are a bunch of kunts.

Wow, I found it so very easy to make that judgement. Was I wrong?

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

Sorry Hazz, you do make intelligent remarks, but they are not consistent with the accepted literature in this area. Critical Stylists by Lesley Jeffries is a relevant read (I did a review of it in the last Silpakorn Journal), and there's an entire chapter given to the use of quotations to ideologically manipulate the reader.

Fair enough. Its not my specialist area and I can only comment from my own experience in reading the article.

And I will free admit that for various reasons, I won't bother going into, I have a rather unusual reading technique which has more in common with speed reading than normal reading. It works very well for me with what I find myself reading professionally, but makes it almost impossible to read a novel.

I will initially speed read the article several times ignoring any supporting evidence to derive and understand of the authors argument and conclusion, then I will go back and re reading the article complete with the backup evidence with a view of verifying that the authors opinions and conclusions are supported by the evidence they present. Obviously at this stage I am looking at the quotes having already been prompted to be looking for evidence that bangkok's feminists are being partizan and that Akeyuth is a misogynist.

May be this is why I do not see the quotes as a subtle attack on the PM, the quotes do successfully back up the argument that bangkok's feminists are rather letting the side down. I cannot judge for myself that people with a more normal reading technique might read the quotes without the contextual prompting and pay far more attention on the attacks on the PM contained within the quotes.

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

Originally Posted by Moonraker

Betty You are making a fool of yourself.

You don't think the words in an article are relevant, we know that; you like pictures.

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

2) In an article that is about Akeyuth's comments and 'a lack of reaction from feminists over this incident' (as you have stated), do you think it is normal to highlight:
Akeyuth = 28 times.
Thaksin = 6 times.
Yinluck = 31 times.

Keyword count. Not relevant? Has no impact on the article? Doesn't in any way inform the reader as to the articles direction?

Jesus H Christ

It's an article about Akeyuth's comments and you find it unusual Akeyuth's name is mentioned? The article was about attacks on Yingluck and you find it surprising Yingluck's name is mentioned?

What do you expect them to say? Person A and person B

If any political party is using this disaster as a means for self advancement, then they are a bunch of kunts.

Wow, I found it so very easy to make that judgement. Was I wrong?

Do you not think that the barriers to making intelligent comments on current affairs are slightly higher than looking at pictures in the newspaper? "They're a bunch of kunts". Really, get a grip. Are you 10 years old?

Originally Posted by Dan

If any political party is using this disaster as a means for self advancement, then they are a bunch of kunts.

Wow, I found it so very easy to make that judgement. Was I wrong?

Do you not think that the barriers to making intelligent comments on current affairs are slightly higher than looking at pictures in the newspaper? "They're a bunch of kunts". Really, get a grip. Are you 10 years old?

So, are you saying they are not a bunch of kunts?

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

^ it's quite informative that he didn't need much context related to your pictures, Dan; just the pictures were enough to convince him... This is why it's so important to encourage future generations to think critically and develop their own opinions (whatever they may be...).

Are you having trouble with the word IF?

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

^^ so you agree that the article is about Yinluck, please let SD know. Thank you.

I clearly stated it is about the ATTACKS ON Yingluck, which it is.

^^ The Democrats? I despise them but not because they're putting on blue shirts and handing out rice. I don't think that this is any kind of issue to get worked up over. I didn't think that when I saw the red boats and I don't think that now I've seen blue boats.The stuff from the palace is different but that's not something which I can go into.

So Betty.

Have you got your head around the concept of why an article about attacks on Yingluck would have the name Yingluck within it yet?

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

^ no, that was not the section. The section was:

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

"As I was about to lose all hope, a long-awaited opinion finally came on 10 November from the feminist journalist whom I have admired for many years, Sanitsuda Ekachai of the Bangkok Post: "Despite having a big team of babysitters handpicked by her fugitive brother, her inability even to read a scripted speech correctly had made her a laughing stock. Her management of the current flood disaster is simply disastrous.Criticise her poor performance if you will. That is what democracy is about."

The author says she is an admirer of this columnist then quotes her anti-Y rant at length; a rant that has nothing to do with the subject of the article... Can you see yet? Do you think that including such a rant, the author CHOOSING to include such a rant directed the the PM, is needed, adds to the topic?

I will repeat the very easy question from above (that you didn't answer) then add one more; they're both very easy:

1)

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

In an article that is about, as you claim, 'a lack of reaction from feminists over this incident', do you think it is normal (or lacking political bias and manipulative ideology) to bring in quotes time after time after time that highlight Y in a bad light?

2) In an article that is about Akeyuth's comments and 'a lack of reaction from feminists over this incident' (as you have stated), do you think it is normal to highlight:

Akeyuth = 28 times.
Thaksin = 6 times.
Yinluck = 31 times.

Yinluck, as can be seen from various methods (this simply but highly effective method counts the number of times the names are used), is the focus of this article.

Let's ask a third, easy question:

3) If you read a football report, and football was mentioned 28 times, while Rugby Union was mentioned 31 times and Rugby League 6 times (both Rugby's ALWAYS mentioned in a bad light), then would you say the piece was about football or rugby? Woudl you say that the author was using the 'football' article to whinge and complain, to attack, Rugby? Most people would...

BB, you failed to include the next two paragraphs in your quote, which it the entire point of the article.

Criticise her poor performance if you will. That is what democracy is about. But what came from Mr. Akeyuth is not criticism. It is misogyny. It is ethnic prejudice. It is arrogance from the city centre against other regions. It is ugly chauvinism that must not be tolerated.

You don’t need to be a fan of PM Yingluck to feel indignant. You only need to believe that gender and ethnic prejudice is wrong… That is why I thought Mr. Akeyuth’s hate speech would be a good chance to unite women of all political colours to condemn it. How wrong I was.

The Siam Voices article was a condemnation of the feminist that because of their politics, failed to go after the author of an ugly facebook post. She makes the point that it should transcend politics.

Your failure to see that and your denunciation of the article as an anti-Thaksin propaganda piece is just another example of what the Siam Voices article was complaining about.
TH

Originally Posted by Floridathunderstorm

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

Originally Posted by Moonraker

^^^

Buggered if I could find any photos, they are there though.

Did find an acknowledgment from FROC it happen though:

"They have the right to do so," Mr Wim said. On the allegation that some trucks loaded with flood relief bags bore campaign banners for certain MPs, Mr Wim said Froc would prove the allegation was true and warned MPs not to repeat such inappropriate conduct.

Bangkok Post : Froc comes under fire for supply fiasco

This is pure propaganda, Moonraker.

Headline, sub-headline and first sentence:

***
Command accused of 'favouring red shirts'

The Flood Relief Operations Command (Froc) has admitted to mismanaging donated commodities but promised yesterday it had improved the operation.

Froc has been severely criticised over its allegedly ineffective and scandalous distribution of flood relief bags.

***

The title just highlights redshirts as a political move - that's clear.

The first line is a lie. FROC did not 'admit to mismanaging donated commodities' at any point in the article. In the article, the FROC spokesman explained that the red shirts donated goods, and they asked to hand out those donated goods. The FROC spokesman stated 'they had the right to do so', there was no admission of wrongdoing, it is a total lie.

Words such as 'severely criticised' are very dramatic, but it's a dem MP who criticised them... In fact the quoted words from the dem MP were: 'It's not fair. So I have returned those bags. I'd be better to buy relief supplies with my own money.' That is the sole quote, but Bkk Post changed it to: 'severely criticised over its allegedly ineffective and scandalous distribution of relief supplies.'

Do you see how large the gap is from the actual words and then BkkPosts allegations???

From: 'it's not fair' to 'severely criticised', 'ineffective and scandalous' - utter lies.

The whole story is total lies, fabrication and falsities. I call that propaganda. In the UK, US, European, Australia, etc, the paper would be prosecuted for such an article.

Please reread the article again, bearing in mind what I have said. This is a very good example of how the Bkk Post lie, misinform and propagandarize.

As far as the point of the red shirts distributing goods that they collected themselves: 1) they distributed these relief supplies to everyone; 2) I have seen multiple examples of supplies (boats) with signs such as Democrat party, PTT (food bags) and MP's names of all parties upon relief supplies too. Do I think that's okay? Well, Thailand is a patriarcal society from the very top down, it is completely normal for donations to have signs such as: King's Project, Queens project, Banharn, Thai Air, etc - that's Thai society, so putting my values onto Thai culture is meaningless. If these donations had been government relief packages then they shouldn't be handed out by any political pressure group, but they weren't, these donations were red shirt donations that were delivered by red shirters - totally normal and accepted behaviour here.

Read the article again. Read the headlines and the claimed 'accusations' by the Bkk Post, you will find they are total lies. That's why you must read the details of all articles with a critical eye.

I only wish they would prosecute the US news media for lying, propaganda, and outright fabrications. However, that is never the case. For years the US news media has been totally leftist and totally biased. It's such a joke that most Americans don't read what they say anymore. Many organizations have brought these facts to light time and time again. But the news media continues on its merry way unashamed that they are whores for left. I don't think that this was what George Washington envisioned for his country. I also don't think that the leftist Bangkok Post is what most Thais envisioned as a representative news source in their country.

Of course. It seems few people are aware that the U.S. Bill of Rights served as a guide for Marx and Lenin, right? That notorious leftist Rupert Murdoch gives us a brilliant vision of the world as he would run it.

Originally Posted by Moonraker

So Betty. Have you got your head around the concept of why an article about attacks on Yingluck would have the name Yingluck within it yet?

Not too good at semantics, are you mate...

Is the article about attacks on Yinluck; the focus being on the attacker and people's reaction to the attack - they would be the repeated terms and keywords, which they are not, in this article.

or

Is the article about Yinluck; the focus being on Yinluck (in this case ALWAYS in a very negative light) - where she would be and is the repeated term/keyword.

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

Originally Posted by Moonraker

So Betty. Have you got your head around the concept of why an article about attacks on Yingluck would have the name Yingluck within it yet?

Not too good at semantics, are you mate...

Is the article about attacks on Yinluck; the focus being on the attacker and people's reaction to the attack - they would be the repeated terms and keywords, which they are not, in this article.

You mean asides from

Akeyuth

Originally Posted by Thaihome

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

^ no, that was not the section. The section was:

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

"As I was about to lose all hope, a long-awaited opinion finally came on 10 November from the feminist journalist whom I have admired for many years, Sanitsuda Ekachai of the Bangkok Post: "Despite having a big team of babysitters handpicked by her fugitive brother, her inability even to read a scripted speech correctly had made her a laughing stock. Her management of the current flood disaster is simply disastrous.Criticise her poor performance if you will. That is what democracy is about."

The author says she is an admirer of this columnist then quotes her anti-Y rant at length; a rant that has nothing to do with the subject of the article... Can you see yet? Do you think that including such a rant, the author CHOOSING to include such a rant directed the the PM, is needed, adds to the topic?

I will repeat the very easy question from above (that you didn't answer) then add one more; they're both very easy:

1)

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

In an article that is about, as you claim, 'a lack of reaction from feminists over this incident', do you think it is normal (or lacking political bias and manipulative ideology) to bring in quotes time after time after time that highlight Y in a bad light?

2) In an article that is about Akeyuth's comments and 'a lack of reaction from feminists over this incident' (as you have stated), do you think it is normal to highlight:

Akeyuth = 28 times.
Thaksin = 6 times.
Yinluck = 31 times.

Yinluck, as can be seen from various methods (this simply but highly effective method counts the number of times the names are used), is the focus of this article.

Let's ask a third, easy question:

3) If you read a football report, and football was mentioned 28 times, while Rugby Union was mentioned 31 times and Rugby League 6 times (both Rugby's ALWAYS mentioned in a bad light), then would you say the piece was about football or rugby? Woudl you say that the author was using the 'football' article to whinge and complain, to attack, Rugby? Most people would...

BB, you failed to include the next two paragraphs in your quote, which it the entire point of the article.

Criticise her poor performance if you will. That is what democracy is about. But what came from Mr. Akeyuth is not criticism. It is misogyny. It is ethnic prejudice. It is arrogance from the city centre against other regions. It is ugly chauvinism that must not be tolerated.

You don’t need to be a fan of PM Yingluck to feel indignant. You only need to believe that gender and ethnic prejudice is wrong… That is why I thought Mr. Akeyuth’s hate speech would be a good chance to unite women of all political colours to condemn it. How wrong I was.

The Siam Voices article was a condemnation of the feminist that because of their politics, failed to go after the author of an ugly facebook post. She makes the point that it should transcend politics.

Your failure to see that and your denunciation of the article as an anti-Thaksin propaganda piece is just another example of what the Siam Voices article was complaining about.
TH

He seems to do it all the time and thinks people don't notice.

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

Why do you think the author chose to add in the anti-Yinluck quotes, time after time, with no balance, no pro-Yinluck quotes? They do not help to make her point; if they did then the author may have wanted to point that out once or possible twice, but to add Yinluck attcks time after time in her quoted examples is meaningful; for you to overlook that fact is shameful.

Thanks BB, what a great start to the week.

^ & ^^

Persistence is an admirable quality; being persistently stupid, is not...

BB

There doesn't appear to be anybody else with you on this thing, surely that must tell you something?

I don't know if you can see it and are trying desperately to avoid admitting to a mistake, or if you genuinely just can't see it.

Either way, it's ever so amusing.

^ I know, the world is flat...

BTW, what I am saying is very standard techniques used all over the world; maybe not by the likes of yourself or SD or yellow fanatics in denial like TH...

I agree with you that trying to communicate with etch-a-sketch artists like you, and explicate articles to colour-by-numbers artists such as SD, is rather futile, most intelligent posters on here have long since given up...

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

^ I know, the world is flat...

BTW, what I am saying is very standard techniques used all over the world; maybe not by the likes of yourself or SD or yellow fanatics in denial like TH...

But what about the likes of Hazz, whom earlier in this very thread, you were calling on for support in the education of the ignorant? He doesn't seem to agree with you either Betty.

^^^ I agree with BB that it's an aspect to the article but I'm not sure I'd be quite as strong. And I wouldn't want to make too many assumptions about the author's reasons for using so many negative descriptions without knowing a bit more.

Originally Posted by hazz

^To summarise The governor of bangkok is not a team player

Sounds like a good campaign slogan for next year

A tad to neat and tidy, the team player bit.

keep in mind, somebody heavily involved with the dear Governor, giving him much bravado.

Originally Posted by The Nation

PM's tears not helping us: poll - The Nation PM's tears not helping us: poll

Lets face it, this PM has been a disgrace in every sense of the word.

There is not a redeeming quality about her - none, zilch, zippo,

How the hell she won a landslide election is beyond me.

Thank God the Nation keeps us aware of these things.

BTW, Who has blond hair, blue eyes, big tits and lives in the south of France?

Answer: Salman Rushdie