richard_smith237

No disagreement from me there.... I see stuff like that... It doesn't really bother me, but I'm not spending my money there that all... On threads like this I'll voice an opinion for the purpose of discussion as I find the varying inputs *interesting, those that completely disagree or make firmer points than I have. (*once the trolling idiots are on ignore and not being catered to)....

I think this is a valid point... But when a natural disaster strikes with devastating consequenses no country handles it well... (even localised events such as Grenfell Tower fire in London etc). Japan has an excellent system: A couple of years ago, We'd arrived in Tokyo... We'd used Data Roaming, and were not even on a local cell 'call' netowork, just data. Within a few hours an Emergency Alert Alarmed on our phones and Watch (Apple Watch) - Earth Quake Warning - within seconds the building was shaking. Last year it was announced that Thailand was adopting an emergency warning system.... Like Many announcements here, there is no follow up - Yesterday was the perfect situation to see such an emergency alert in action... (all the need to do is copy the Japanese and have a centralised system that alerts to all networks). This can be used for Tsnumani Alerts, for high Pollution Alerts etc... so much potential. https://aseannow.com/topic/1321682-thailand-trials-first-mobile-phone-emergency-alert-system/ https://aseannow.com/topic/1331505-true-corporation’s-emergency-alert-system-unveiled/

These figures are not very encouraging; it is possible that we may obtain a magnitude increase of +1. Very slim... for that to occur the earthquake in Mandalay would have to reach a 9.0 (Richter) which his exponentially more powerful than the last quake. Recently history shows the largest quakes along the Sagaing Fault. - March 28, 2025: magnitude of 7.7 Mw - January 1990: magnitude of 7.0 Mw - February 1912: magnitude of 7.9 Mw Thus a 9.0 Mw quake and resulting ~1.0 ML increase in intensity in Bangkok is extremely unlikely / Geologically improbable.

Then as I pointed out earlier - in that case 'its ok for the seller to sell T-shirt of a deceased loved one with a profanity'.... its within the Thai Law, but clearly that would be morally reprehensible. The subjected is far more nuanced that simplifying it to... Its within the law, its just a T-shirt etc... I think there is a line in the sand that shifts within a grey area, over time, from region to region... clearly there are extremes, and I'm sure someone 'responsible and considerate' would like to remain on the respectable side of this line. This shop seller is either naively and perhaps even innocently ignorant, or just doesn't care - as others have pointed out, thats entirely their prerogative - but its also understandable that in such situations others may become insulted.

If a 7.7 magnitude earthquake in Mandalay resulted in a 4.5 ML local magnitude in Bangkok, then a 9.0 magnitude earthquake in Mandalay would approximately result in a 5.8 ML local magnitude in Bangkok. A 9.0 magnitude earthquake would release about 90.5 times more energy than the 7.7 magnitude earthquake, significantly increasing the shaking felt even at the same distance. A 7.0 ML magnitude in Bangkok is ultimately, geological improbable, arguably impossible.

Adding racism and bigotry to the silliness.... you're outdoing yourself ! The Myanmar earthquake (magnitude 7.7 Mw) was felt in several parts of China, particularly in Yunnan Province and neighbouring areas. Inferred localised intensities evaluated by the reported perceived shaking and damage reported were as follows: Ruili and Mangshi (near the border): Local intensity: Approximately 5.0 to 5.5 ML equivalent This intensity correlates with "moderate" to "rather strong" shaking. Kunming (capital of Yunnan, ~500 km from the epicentre): Local intensity: Around 4.0 to 4.5 ML equivalent.This would be "light" shaking, where windows rattle and people indoors clearly feel the tremor. Distant areas (Sichuan, Guizhou, Guangxi): Local intensity: Roughly 3.0 to 3.5 ML equivalent. This would be "weak" shaking, noticeable mainly to people indoors, without damage. There were no major building collapses, some small homes and mall garages reported collapsed, some reports of major buildings suffering structural damage. All those surviving high rises were clearly built by non-Chinese, eh ???

Trying to double down with dim comments I see...

Yes, because all buildings in Bangkok collapsed, right... just like Tofu !!!... Grade A1 for dim comment of the day !!!!

It depends how the waves travel, the type of wave, and intensity each individual type, and direction of the movement. Body Waves (move through the inside of the Earth) P-Waves (Primary Waves), these are fastest type of seismic wave and move in a push-pull (compressional) motion, like a slinky. These are the first to be detected by seismographs. S-Waves (Secondary Waves), slower than P-waves, move in a side-to-side (shear) motion, perpendicular to the direction of wave travel. These cause more damage than P-waves because of their stronger movement. Surface Waves (move along the surface of the Earth) Love Waves, which move the ground side-to-side, like a snake, only travel along the surface. Usually cause a lot of damage to buildings. Rayleigh Waves, which move the ground in a rolling, elliptical motion (like ocean waves). Slowest of all seismic waves, and cause both up-and-down and side-to-side shaking. Depending upon how the quake occurred impacts the type of wave and even the direction of dissipation of energy. Thus: its possible the initial 7.7 Mw quake released a greater intensity of shear waves than the secondary 6.4 Mw aftershock. The magnitude of the 7.7Mw quake was estimated to be between 4-5 Mw in Bangkok (I've not seen any official figures) due to the dissipating of energy through the bed rock, which was then amplified by the 'basin effect' of Bangkoks 'bowl' lakebed setting.... effectively like shaking a bowl of jelly. Thus in layman's terms the quake in Bangkok was a 4-5 Mw Magnitude wobble, where as in area's such as Pattaya and throughout the Korat Plateau the energy of the all waves would have dissipated with no soft formations to amplify the energy.

I’ll admit, I’m something of a fence-sitter on this one. I don’t believe anyone should be demanding that a shop owner stop selling certain items — that’s ultimately a matter for the authorities to decide, not random individuals. At the same time, I completely understand why some people might take offence at such items. Offence is subjective, and in many cases, it's entirely understandable. That said, I also reject the idea that foreigners somehow have no right to voice an opinion. I believe everyone has the right to express their view, provided it's done respectfully and with consideration. This whole discussion is far more multifaceted than some make it out to be. Unfortunately, many approach it with a narrow, binary mindset - you’re either for it or against it, full stop. These kinds of discussions become especially difficult when they’re dominated by the most extreme and often the loudest voices. The nuance gets lost, and we end up debating dumbed down and over simplified absolutes on a lower intellectual level that doesn't really handle the truer issues at hand instead of working through the complexity.

I think many if not most such policies may include a 'force majeure' clause... That said - I think many buildings also have a 'sinking fund' which is (often related to condominiums, apartments, or housing estates) and is collected from co-owners or residents to cover major repairs, replacements, or upgrades of common property or infrastructure in the future. I don't think the 'sinking fund' covers structural damage, but may cover necessary repairs to cosmetic damage (thats as I understand it - I could be mistaken).

Your argument is made up of two facets 1) Workers wearing PPE 2) Buildings meeting structural code We all see workers not meeting the basic PPE standards walking out of constructing sides past 'Safety First' signs.... and many draw the parralell that a shortcuthere leads to a shortcut in the construction itself.... But... I think there are additional facets here - structural integrity and finishing. There can be no shortcuts with structural integrity the industry simply cannot get away wit this - if there were we'd see buildings falling all the time..... this is not the case. But, we do see an abundance of cosmetic flaws down to shoddy workmanship in even the best and most expensive of buildings - Thailand is not alone in this, its prevalent in the west too.

I would argue that it largely depends on how the subject is approached. I’ve personally given restaurant owners respectful feedback when I felt their food wasn't up to standard - is that not simply voicing an opinion about how they run their business? In fact, clever business owners depend on honest feedback to improve. So, I see nothing wrong with offering respectful feedback - it’s part of any healthy exchange. Of course, as you rightly pointed out, there is a big difference between offering feedback and outright telling people what to do, or, to use your stronger example, “telling Thais trying to earn a living what items they should or should not sell.” That would indeed be crossing a line. But then I have to ask - would it be any different if a Thai person did the same? Why would a Thai have any more right than a foreigner to tell another Thai - a stranger - what they should or shouldn’t be selling in their shop? Would that not also be overstepping? This is precisely why I don’t think nationality is the deciding factor here. It comes down to how something is said, not who is saying it.

@alex8912 @richard_smith237 Who is the fool now? YOU.... who ridiculed Thailands building standards... the fact that so many buildings held is testament to the building standards. You can't compare to Japan becasue Japan is on a Major tectonic plate boundary, Thailand is not, just like London, Paris, Madrid etc, the building codes and requirements are different. Thailand is doing exactly the right thing... they're inspecting the buildings. I'm sure more will / maybe found to be structurally unsound - as will some roads etc - but the vast majority will not. None of that makes your sweeping generalisation that Thailands building standards are substandard - your comment was still bigoted. Had this same magnitude of Earthquate struck London, Paris or Madrid etc (4-5 Mw) some of those buildings too would have suffered structural damage. BUT... the imagery on the internet at the moment is of 'superficial' damage, tiles etc.... not ultrasonic images of primary structural components of buildings.

+1 from me — I agree with your points (mostly). The very fact that we can have these kinds of discussions is, in itself, a testament to the freedoms we enjoy. And I wouldn’t trade those freedoms for anything. In my view, someone should absolutely have the right to sell such symbolic images if they wish — but equally, others should have the right to peacefully voice their objection. That’s the healthy balance of free expression. That said, this particular individual acted like a bit of a pr!ck, if I’m honest. I can't help but wonder - had he calmly and respectfully explained to the shop owner that these T-shirts are considered offensive by many, might she have been more open to the conversation? Perhaps the problem wasn't just the symbol on the shirt, but the attitude the Westerner brought into the discussion. It’s entirely possible that he approached it poorly from the outset, upsetting the shop owner before the conversation even began. Having an opinion and voicing it respectfully should not be contingent on holding a Thai passport - nor should it be in any country. I completely disagree with the perspective held by some that "we are guests in this country and have no rights to an opinion" - I find such sentiment rather stupid.

But it's Thailand. What happens in home countries is irrelevant. It’s difficult to ignore this, especially when Thailand so actively markets itself as a global destination. If Thailand aspires to be part of the global community, then surely it carries a responsibility to act with a sense of decency and consideration towards other cultures - just as we should all strive to do. Basic mutual respect should be the foundation of any society that wishes to engage with the world at large. Agreed - many of us aren’t personally offended by such symbolism (I certainly am not), but that doesn’t mean we’re blind to the fact that others might find it offensive. As you’ve pointed out, one of the reasons I (we) enjoy being here is precisely because there is generally less confrontation over minor social faux pas. Many small slips that would spark conflict in the West are simply shrugged off here, thanks to a more relaxed temperament and a capacity to let the small things go. That’s exactly why I take issue with the individual confronting the shop owner in this particular story. Yet, for the sake of honest discussion, I also fully understand why some would take offence - and I recognise that openly pushing such symbols often stems from ignorance. It’s the same kind of ignorance as selling socks emblazoned with a Thai flag or panties featuring an image of Buddha in a Western market. In many cases, it may simply be a lack of awareness - ignorance without malice. But once someone knows, and continues regardless, it crosses into insensitivity.

Valid points, I completely agree... If we were to see a T-shirt that says "Moh is a Pedo" - I think it perfectly normal for anyone to understand that this is offensive and its down the personal responsibility of both the printer (designer) and shop owner to avoid such deliberately controversial indecency.

Valid points - nevertheless both are provocative, and when worn by some (i.e forum members who suggest they will go out and buy such shirts) would be deliberately provocative. Again, valid, yet it continues to highlight a degree of insensitivity when anyone wishes to wear such items - even to the point of being deliberately provocative. Those wearing such items or displaying such symbolism can only be dismissed as simple minded idiots. Being elated over someone wearing a hitler T-shirt in Thailand would tend to show a significantly juvinile mindset. Indeed... If there wasn't a market for them, they wouldn't print such T-shirts. Fortunately, we don't see many, because the vast majority of people are not ignorant and culturally insensitive fools.

I don't personally care what people choose to wear - but I fully understand that others might. However, if you wish to introduce the subject of mental illness into this discussion, then it seems you are more interested in scoring points through baseless accusations than actually engaging with the substance of the debate. Moreover, you’ve failed to grasp the fundamental premise of my argument. Instead, you have once again resorted to deflection by accusing me of shaming Thai people, which was never the point. This, frankly, only serves to highlight that you are not intellectually equipped for this discussion and would rather take potshots than engage seriously. I could just as easily point out the flaws in your comprehension of the points I have raised - but I won’t. In the spirit of meaningful discussion, I’ll simply encourage you to read my points again and make a genuine effort to understand them. At its core, this is a conversation about freedom of speech, and more importantly, the necessity of basic decency for that freedom to flourish. My argument stems from that of promoting basic decency on a general level where as yours is from justifying the popularisation of Hitler Imagery specifically within thailand. I wish to make a broader point: this is not just about Westerners being offended in Thailand. It’s part of a much broader conversation about basic decency that crosses cultures and boundaries.

I agree - but don't you think it's more of a sliding spectrum? Somewhere along that spectrum lies a healthy and reasonable balance of decency. Many argue that the West has gone too far in certain respects, and to be honest, I find myself agreeing with many of those arguments. In this particular case, while I’m not personally offended - I think only a fool would willingly buy such a T-shirt - I do understand why others may take offence at the symbolism involved. Equally, I can fully appreciate how Thais, and indeed people from other cultures, might be offended by the careless popularisation of symbols that they find culturally offensive. The key point here is that this is not just about Westerners being offended in Thailand. It’s part of a much broader conversation about basic decency - as I mentioned earlier. "The boundary between decency and indecency often shifts within the fog of subjectivity. Yet, there are cases where certain imagery strays so far beyond that line that it may be argued it is simply never acceptable"

I could equally go back to an extreme example I used earlier... Its not important to everyone else... but, anyone with decency knows this would be offensive. The lines between basic decency and 'woke' (same mold and mildew that has developed in the west) are being blurred - but it shouldn't. Basic decency has never changed - our tolerance for the lack of it seems to be being eroded, thats all. Are we becoming more tolerant, or just less considerate ?

I agree.... freedom of expression and freedom of speech is one of the most important facets of modern civilisation - Yet, do we not individually hold a responsibility towards the values of freedom of expression and freedom of speech ?..... and part of that responsibility is surely not to be deliberately offensive. In this case, the shop maybe naively ignorant of the symbolism of such imagery, though, more realistically, I doubt the owner cares - and therein lies the discussion and debate.

"Decency" is a malleable and flexible concept. Once person's "decency" is another person's stupidity. Much like morality is dependent on perspective. To the snake eating the mouse it's just dinner, to the mouse it's cold blooded murder. The problem arises when some people feel their interpretation of "decency" or morality has an absolute value. Those days are gone. Perhaps they believe those days are behind them - yet the very fact that this debate continues suggests otherwise. Your argument on morality feels somewhat shallow, as it hinges on a cross-species principle. By the same logic, one could justify humans eating steak, chicken, or any other animal product. The foundation of the argument seems to miss the crux of the issue. That said, I do agree with your point regarding those who treat their sense of decency or morality as universal truths. They are not. Concepts of decency and morality exist on a spectrum, shaped by location, nationality, culture - even by time itself. Much of the tension lies in this grey area, yet it is important to recognise that extremes do exist. There are actions and symbols that are, by most reasonable standards, unequivocally indecent. Consider, for example, the symbol of Hitler. In Thailand, due to differing historical and cultural contexts, such imagery may not carry the same visceral weight as it does in France, Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, and other countries scarred directly by his legacy. However, the world has grown small. Social media has shrunk it further still. What might once have been an isolated local misstep - selling a Hitler-themed T-shirt, for instance - now has global reach and, with it, the potential to cause Thailand embarrassment on the world stage. The boundary between decency and indecency often shifts within the fog of subjectivity. Yet, there are cases where certain imagery strays so far beyond that line that it may be argued it is simply never acceptable.

Foreigners have no right whatsoever to be telling locals what they can or cannot sell. Extreme arrogance. You are missing the point by resorting to baseless accusations instead of attempting to grasp the simple matter of basic decency. The usual lines - “We are guests in this country,” “foreigners have no right,” or “if you don’t like it, go home” - are not legitimate arguments. They are cheap jabs, often made by those more interested in scoring points than engaging in thoughtful discussion. None of these claims justify what is clearly wrong - this couple is selling T-shirts that can reasonably be seen as offensive. This has absolutely nothing to do with nationality and everything to do with fundamental human decency. She is surely aware of what Hitler did - and if, by some miracle, she wasn't, she most certainly is now - yet I suspect the offensive T-shirts remain on sale regardless. Consider this as a simple parallel: Would it be acceptable for her to sell a T-shirt depicting a deceased loved one of yours, accompanied by offensive or mocking words? Of course not. While this may be an extreme comparison, it illustrates an important truth - what one person dismisses as trivial can cause deep offence to others. And this is precisely why freedom of expression must always carry with it a measure of responsibility - the responsibility not to be deliberately offensive simply because you can. When I open up some of the posts made by 'ignored posters' its patently clear that there are those who would take active steps to deliberately be offensive - thus proving why they are on ignore in the first place, their content has no place in decent discussion. I reject the argument that foreigners have no right to voice concerns. In fact, I would say that no private individual, regardless of nationality, has the unilateral right to dictate what can or cannot be sold. That responsibility lies with the relevant authorities - those tasked with upholding decency and common standards within society. If policed correctly, i.e. if the Police here were not so apathetic and lazy, this may be seen as causing public offence, disturbance, or even perceived as inciting hate, authorities could act on that if they so wished - they don't because they are lazy. But, there is precedence of the such actions where ignorant insensitivity has led to the need to react with a decent response and a apology. In 2011, students in Chiang Mai held a Nazi-themed sports day parade (yes, really). When photos went viral internationally, it caused a scandal and formal apologies were issued by the school and Thai officials. Just because we've seen a few random market stalls selling this stuff, do not think it's actually accepted - it's more tolerated due to misunderstanding, not approval.

They're a threat to common decency - something you appear not to care about.