BangkokReady

I thought "millionaire tycoon" was the main qualification for PM anyway...

But when they try to make out that Thailand is a geographical location, a nationality and pretty much a race, then say that X item is "Thai" and any links to any other place or people is false, they are kind of misappropriating that cultural/traditional practice/object. Thailand might be a melting pot of the surrounding ethnicities and cultures who passed through, settled or influenced the people that would eventually call Thailand their natural home, but that isn't how they like to present their history and culture.

When you go into a store? You expect to earn the cashier's respect? You probably imagine that as you leave the 7/11 the cashier says to themselves "damn, he's one of the good farangs, he has earnt my deepest respect". I guess this is your brain on Thai apologism. You don't know the first thing about it. Are you seriously suggesting that the OP must have behaved in a negative way during their short visit to the store and this meant the Thai cashier was deciding to give the change to the girlfriend because the foreigner had failed to earn their respect while the Thai girlfriend had? Take a moment and just think about what kind of a crazy story your mind is concocting just to make it so that the Thai person is in the right. And perhaps think about why it is doing that.

You get to say "as a Thai" on Thai Visa Forum and pretend having it makes you better than everyone else. What more could you want?

Oh yes. "Thai bashers." Or to use their full title "anyone who says anything even slightly negative about Thailand or Thai people, no matter how true". ????

Or who might like to be treated with a little respect...

So why is English so widely spoken in North Vietnam?

While I do think that foreign influence explains why these countries are a lot warmer to the idea of foreigners being in their country, and are aware of the benefit that they can provide, I don't think it quite holds true for English ability in Vietnam. Obviously attitude to foreigners is going to be part of it, but if you mean it is like the Philippines where English is like a second language, I think the fact that the North were very anti-foreigner, literally drove the Americans out of the South, were ideologically anti-West/anti-capitalist in the time following, yet still have a good level of English and desire to improve disagrees. I think it's more an issue of "Thai Supremacy" which is fairly pervasive in Thailand. There is more than a hint of a "Why should we speak some foreign language? Why should we listen to foreigners? We are Thais!" kind of attitude. It's a shame because I think this holds Thailand back in many ways. Not least the progressive ideals that some of the youth seem to want to adopt. It has some advantages also, of course.

To be fair, most tourists won't experience the real Thailand like expats do. Disillusionment can take months or even years.

Hasn't Thailand had a decades long head start? I don't think better is quite accurate. More they have been open to tourism for a lot longer.

I think the cutting part is the hardest bit. The lying still I think is easier.

I'm not sure what point you're making. Do you think this is in some way contrary to what I said?

And, to add insult to injury, they're resentful of the foreign teacher for making them feel bad and like Thai teachers more, even though they do less for them.

It's more about Thai culture. If students in Thai schools actually had proper lessons in what they are learning, were properly assessed, and weren't simply allowed to copy and cheat their way through schools without being able to fail, I'm sure that Thais would be far better educated. The problem lies in the fake and corrupt elements of Thai culture, as these permeate everything.

It's basically their business model. I believe a claim handler's primary job is to find a way to avoid paying.

You're welcome to think it's nuts. But that doesn't give anyone the right to attack someone.

I think if someone is trying to take your gun, kicking or hitting you in the head with a skateboard, or pointing a gun at you, it's reasonable to assume that death or great bodily harm is on the cards.

Same to you then.

You're welcome to hold that opinion, just as long as you don't use that opinion as justification for someone to be attacked.

I'm afraid I don't have time to go through the entire Rittenhouse trial. I'm pretty sure the prosecution claimed things happened which footage and testimony refuted. If you don't believe, I have no problem with that. ????‍♂️ I encourage you to look into the trial a little more though, if you genuinely believe that what the prosecution presented was true, and the judge and jury conspired to let Rittenhouse off without proper evidence (or whatever you think happened).

It doesn't really matter if it's "OK" or not. You can't attack someone for doing something you simply "don't like". That's the important bit.

Well, the prosecution said a lot of things that weren't true and were refuted by the evidence presented by the defence. I wouldn't take "the prosecution claimed X" as any kind of evidence, personally. It's better if you can present the evidence and be able to honestly say "this shows X", or even let the evidence speak for itself, which I believe most of the footage of Rittenhouse being attacked and defending himself did.

Sure, if he hadn't been there he would not have had to kill anyone. But that doesn't make it his fault. The people that chose to attack him did not have to. They weren't in any danger and Rittenhouse wasn't posing a threat to anyone. There were simply some very bad people there who saw Rittenhouse as being someone they wanted to harm. Not because he threatened them, or they were in any danger, but because they were bad people and they saw him as the enemy. That isn't his fault and he had a right to defend himself.

Regardless of your opinion on it being morally wrong or wrong "common sense" wise, it wasn't legally wrong and it didn't give anyone the right to try to kill him.

It really shouldn't be. Saying "someone said it so it must have happened, even though a court of law refused to believe them" is terrible in terms of proving something or providing evidence. The prosecutor was pretty much giving their opinion of what the evidence showed, and it wasn't believed. I don't think the court believed that and neither do I. The evidence supported Rittenhouse's version of events. He wasn't doing anything wrong when he was targeted by violent protesters. He had no choice but to defend himself and he did so legally.