‘Progressive’ new party takes a step forward

[throwaw1984]

9 minutes ago, Denim said:

Indeed ,forgotten by some posters.

 

But Throwaway , our new ' concerned citizen ' thinks :

 

Quite frankly I'd rather have the current system stay in place for a little longer than see blood in the streets again.

 

Well , I am sure everyone , even the familiar protagonists , would agree with that. However, it conveniently ignores the fact that it was the current regime and it's ever faithful lackeys that were the direct cause of there being blood on the streets in the first place, a necessary excuse for them to ' save the country '.

 

It has always been the yellow shirts who start taking to the streets if their horse ( poodle more correctly ) loses at the polls.  Finding this intolerable , the red camp reacts .....and presto you have conflict where there should be none if everyone would abide by the results of elections.

 

I stand by my words. I don't want to see blood in the streets ever again, no matter for what idealistic goal. That doesn't mean I endorse Prayut and his ilk in any way shape or form.

 

I don't know what the solution is to the political situation in Thailand. Quite frankly I believe there is none, at least not short term.

 

However I know for a fact that having another Billionaire stoking up class resentment for his own benefit could  be downright disastrous and lead to something much worse than what we have now.

 

 

 

 

 

[stephen tracy]

8 hours ago, Bundooman said:

I agree entirely. This sounds interesting and the people he has gathered together also appear to be impressive with their ideals and are very likely to hit a note of accord with the young, the fed up and the intelligent, educated Thais who maybe feel they don't have a voice otherwise.

I'm listening too because I am interested. Just because he comes from a rich family, doesn't mean he is corrupt. This guy is also well educated, articulate and specific in what he wants for Thailand and appears to encompass many western ideas. He is certainly the best choice of all the others, so far!

At the very least, he deserves to be heard.

I agree with you, and I'm listening too. But they are not "western ideas", they are modern ideas. I have a problem with that expression after living in the Middle East for too long. It was used there by religious conservatives to put a negative slant on any proposal to address social backwardness.

[stephen tracy]

5 hours ago, throwaw1984 said:

We would all love to see a real democracy in Thailand but the Future Forward party is not the solution. Let me explain why:

If you think this is a genuine grassroots movement I have bridge in Miami to sell to you. The Future Forward party reeks of a globalist, Soros (or similar NGOs) backed operation with the intention to destabilize and ultimately conquer Thailand with their ideology. They've done their divide and conquer spiel countless times in other countries, think Arab Spring, think Eastern European color revolutions, think Euromaidan. See how well these countries are doing now?

 

The Future Forward party has more red flags than a Chinese military parade:

 

• The fact the this is being hyped up by the media and especially the social media is huge one. That's how all the other "revolutions" I mentioned have started. This is their most potent attack vector since Thai people are avid consumers of social media. Facebook, Twitter, etc have been caught countless times putting their finger on the scale when it comes to political discourse.
• Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit looks like Thaksin 2.0 mixed with Justin Trudeau. Connections (and  corruptions scandals) with the Thaksin clan are starting to emerge, keep an eye on the news. Oh and the "young, handsome, charismatic, independent leader, who just wants to move his country forward" shtick is getting old, remember Obama?
• Once the Future Forward party picks up steam, it will focus mainly on post-modernist (Neo-Marxist) identity politics. The party cofounders listed here are mostly social justice warrior type activists (one of them has the typical pink dyed hair for Christ's sake). Notice how there are no experts in economics, foreign policy, diplomacy, etc (you know, stuff that matters) in this group? It's all just rights this, activism that. 

 

The world is being increasingly split in two factions. On one side you have a reemergence of nationalism, represented by the likes of Trump, Putin, Brexit, the Catalonian independence movement, Eastern European leaders and many others (and yes, Prayut). One the other side you see a doubling down on the globalist agenda (open borders, socialist policies) in countries like Germany, Sweden, Canada, etc.

 

I know some of you actually like the globalist agenda, which is fine, I won't be able to change your mind. You will probably dismiss me as a right-winger right out of the gate.

 

I can say that I'm neither left nor right. I'm a libertarian who wants to see small government, free markets, a non interventionist foreign policy (no more wars) and a stop of uncontrolled immigration from the 3rd world. I'm very much concerned with the reemergence of populist-style nationalism. I fear the pendulum might swing too much the other way.

 

This post is indented for all those who don't follow geopolitics very closely (and who can blame them, it's exhausting). It's intended for those who are fed up with the current system in Thailand (and rightfully so), but who might get blinded by some nice sounding buzzwords propagated by the Future Forward party and their enablers in the media.

 

Tread carefully my friends. God bless the Kingdom of Thailand.

 

At this point, I think people are so fed up they will take anything over the Junta.  Any party that doesn't make freedom of expression a criminal offense is an improvement. There are also currently no experts in economics, foreign policy, diplomacy etc in the current "government" (nor are there any in the current US administration as far as I can see) but experts can be brought on board, this is currently a nascent movement. They maybe for the moment - as you put it - "mostly social justice warrior type activists", but what is wrong with that? And what is wrong with pink hair? Prayuth dyes his hair, and as for Trump's... well, I'm not sure what to say about that.  Having said all that, I did read your post with interest.

[stephen tracy]

40 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

Come on el, as you've done before your just scaremongering, the event you mention, decades back, did include some nasty violence.

 

The NCPO have many faults, but has the NCPO actually killed anybody? Have they threatened violence against the public? NO.

 

 

I think handing out lengthy jail terms for expressing an opinion, whether verbally or pressing 'like' on FB, is a form of violence.  I think holding society hostage is a form of violence. I think turning a blind eye and issuing denials when army cadets get beaten to death on the orders of their COs is a form of violence. But I don't wish to get into a philosophical debate.

[throwaw1984]

Just now, stephen tracy said:

At this point, I think people are so fed up they will take anything over the Junta.  Any party that doesn't make freedom of expression a criminal offense is an improvement. There are also currently no experts in economics, foreign policy, diplomacy etc in the current "government" (nor are there any in the current US administration as far as I can see) but experts can be brought on board, this is currently a nascent movement. They maybe for the moment - as you put it - "mostly social justice warrior type activists", but what is wrong with that? And what is wrong with pink hair? Prayuth dyes his hair, and as for Trump's... well, I'm not sure what to say about that.  Having said all that, I did read your post with interest.

 

The pink hair comment was tongue in cheek. There's a trend among social justice types to dye their hair pink or blue. Couldn't care less what color someone's hair is.

 

I completely understand why you are open to trying something new. And in principle I would agree. Upsetting the apple cart sort of thing.

The problem with the Forward Future party is that it's neither new nor is it the right solution.

 

We've already had a newcomer Billionaire (and his sister) seemingly trying to upset the established order, help the poor, modernize Thailand, etc which ended in Bangkok resembling a war zone.  And surprise and surprise, it turns out the new guy, his family and his partisans have deep connections to the Thaksin clan (and more connections will be revealed over time, trust me on that).

 

Playing identity politics game and stoking the flames of class resentment is a bad idea. It led to over a 100 million dead people in the 20th century. The rhetoric used in the press releases of the Future Forward party and the biographies of the party members speak volumes. This guy will be marketed as Thailand's Justin Trudeau. Screenshot this post. You will see the headlines soon enough.

 

 

 

 

[JAG]

42 minutes ago, stephen tracy said:

At this point, I think people are so fed up they will take anything over the Junta.  Any party that doesn't make freedom of expression a criminal offense is an improvement. There are also currently no experts in economics, foreign policy, diplomacy etc in the current "government" (nor are there any in the current US administration as far as I can see) but experts can be brought on board, this is currently a nascent movement. They maybe for the moment - as you put it - "mostly social justice warrior type activists", but what is wrong with that? And what is wrong with pink hair? Prayuth dyes his hair, and as for Trump's... well, I'm not sure what to say about that.  Having said all that, I did read your post with interest.

So did I. Funniest thing I've read all week!

[JAG]

Well, when they are banned, or possibly have their registration rejected, my money (were it allowed) would be on the reason being because of the presence of the"Nitirat/Article 112" chaps - or at least that will be the excuse...

Edited March 16, 2018 by JAG

[baboon]

14 minutes ago, throwaw1984 said:

 

The pink hair comment was tongue in cheek. There's a trend among social justice types to dye their hair pink or blue. Couldn't care less what color someone's hair is.

Obviously you do or you wouldn't have mentioned it in conjunction with "social justice types". Twice. Or are you just flinging mud to see what sticks? What is so objectionable to you about a just society, anyway?

 

By the way, what led to over 100 million people dead in the 20th Century was the likes of you flinging labels around and persuading morons that it was quite OK to dehumanise minorities they didn't like - Jews, gays, kulaks, etc. Go and have a look in the mirror before you start pointing the finger at others.

[throwaw1984]

1 hour ago, baboon said:

Obviously you do or you wouldn't have mentioned it in conjunction with "social justice types". Twice.

 

I don't understand the objection here. If I see a 2m tall guy in a basketball jersey, spinning a basketball on his index finger, I'm going to assume that he's most likely a basketball player. If I see a political activist with neon colored hair in a "progressive" party, I'm going to assume she's most likely a social justice warrior. I've just used this fact to further cement my claim in a humorous way, that the Forward Future party is in fact a social justice based party. Is this debate going to be about a hair color joke? Really?

 

Should I object to your North Korea flag avatar? I guess (I hope) you're using it ironically and/or in a humorous manner.

 

Quote

Or are you just flinging mud to see what sticks?

Accusing me of mud flinging is not an argument. It's the grown up equivalent of "But you're stinky doo doo head!"

 

Quote

What is so objectionable to you about a just society, anyway?

Social justice is one of these words that sound nice, which makes arguing against it difficult if you don't understand the context in which these words are being uttered.

 

My question back at you: How do you define a just society? I worry that your definition of a just society might clash with my definition of a free society.

 

 

Quote

By the way, what led to over 100 million people dead in the 20th Century was the likes of you flinging labels around and persuading morons that it was quite OK to dehumanise minorities they didn't like

 

Aaaah here we go, took you quite a long time to get there. Funny when I as a Jew get accused of being a Nazi or Stalinist.

 

Where did I dehumanize a minority? Please tell me in which post? Was it my post about the lower IQ of Middle Eastern populations? I've just based this on scientific research that is available online. If you have data that contradicts mine, please share it. I'm genuinely curious.

 

Quote

- Jews, gays, kulaks, etc. Go and have a look in the mirror before you start pointing the finger at others.

 

 

Kulaks were a minority? I mean technically speaking, you are right, but by that definition the ruling class of Thailand would be a minority also. Aren't you dehumanizing them by calling the evil and corrupt?

(The last part is obviously sarcasm. I use humor to illustrate how silly and illogical the identity politics game can get)

 

 

[baboon]

11 minutes ago, throwaw1984 said:

 

I don't understand the objection here. If I see a 2m tall guy in a basketball jersey, spinning a basketball on his index finger, I'm going to assume that he's most likely a basketball player. If I see a political activist with neon colored hair in a "progressive" party, I'm going to assume she's most likely a social justice warrior. I've just used this fact to further cement my claim in a humorous way, that the Forward Future party is in fact a social justice based party. Is this debate going to be about a hair color joke? Really?

 

Should I object to your North Korea flag avatar? I guess (I hope) you're using it ironically and/or in a humorous manner.

 

Accusing me of mud flinging is not an argument. It's the grown up equivalent of "But you're stinky doo doo head!"

 

Social justice is one of these words that sound nice, which makes arguing against it difficult if you don't understand the context in which these words are being uttered.

 

My question back at you: How do you define a just society? I worry that your definition of a just society might clash with my definition of a free society.

 

 

 

Aaaah here we go, took you quite a long time to get there. Funny when I as a Jew get accused of being a Nazi or Stalinist.

 

Where did I dehumanize a minority? Please tell me in which post? Was it my post about the lower IQ of Middle Eastern populations? I've just based this on scientific research that is available online. If you have data that contradicts mine, please share it. I'm genuinely curious.

 

 

Kulaks were a minority? I mean technically speaking, you are right, but by that definition the ruling class of Thailand would be a minority also. Aren't you dehumanizing them by calling the evil and corrupt?

(The last part is obviously sarcasm. I use humor to illustrate how silly and illogical the identity politics game can get)

 

 

1. No objection. An observation. 

2. Object to my avatar all you want.

3. Accusing you of mud flinging is not an argument, true. But I didn't. 

4. 'Social justice' is two words, not one.

5. I did not accuse you of being a Nazi or a Stalinist. 

6. I did not accuse you of dehumanizing minorities. I said "the likes of you flinging labels around and persuading morons that it was quite OK to dehumanise minorities they didn't like".

 

Try reading what I write in context. If you disagree, that's fine. If you want to call me a knob that's fine too, but do not misrepresent what I say in order to provide yourself a springboard for your own point of view.

[throwaw1984]

20 minutes ago, baboon said:

1. No objection. An observation. 

2. Object to my avatar all you want.

3. Accusing you of mud flinging is not an argument, true. But I didn't. 

4. 'Social justice' is two words, not one.

5. I did not accuse you of being a Nazi or a Stalinist. 

6. I did not accuse you of dehumanizing minorities. I said "the likes of you flinging labels around and persuading morons that it was quite OK to dehumanise minorities they didn't like".

 

Try reading what I write in context. If you disagree, that's fine. If you want to call me a knob that's fine too, but do not misrepresent what I say in order to provide yourself a springboard for your own point of view.

 

Alright I see we are entering into the splitting hairs and arguing semantics phase of the debate here. Your statements were pretty clear in my opinion. Does it matter if you say that I'm a Nazi or if you say that I'm doing what Nazis did? Sounds like the same thing too me. Both is pretty abhorrent. You're using a cheap ad hominem attack.

 

Even if I would say "Yes I'm a Nazi, heil Hitler" you still need to argue against my statements and my facts and not against my persona. That's how debates work.

 

May I pause at this moment and ask you, have you ever learned how to debate?

 

Let me give you an example: I practice kickboxing and I'm somewhat good at it. If I would step into a ring with a guy who has never practiced martial arts before, never threw a punch, I would smoke him in seconds. (I'm not bragging or trying to be an internet tough guy, it's just an example. Bear with me). It wouldn't matter how big, strong or fit the guy is. If he lacks the technique and experience, he's toast.

 

Same thing goes for debates. You might be smarter than me. You might be rhetorically more gifted (English is not my first language). You might have better arguments, better facts, done more research, etc. But if you don't know how to debate and make your case in proper way, I'm afraid we are wasting each others time.

 

I don't fight inexperienced boxers in the gym and I won't do the same thing here. It's boring and there's nothing to be gained. With that I'm out. Have a nice evening sir.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 16, 2018 by throwaw1984

[baboon]

28 minutes ago, throwaw1984 said:

 

Alright I see we are entering into the splitting hairs and arguing semantics phase of the debate here. Your statements were pretty clear in my opinion. Does it matter if you say that I'm a Nazi or if you say that I'm doing what Nazis did? Sounds like the same thing too me. Both is pretty abhorrent. You're using a cheap ad hominem attack.

 

Even if I would say "Yes I'm a Nazi, heil Hitler" you still need to argue against my statements and my facts and not against my persona. That's how debates work.

 

May I pause at this moment and ask you, have you ever learned how to debate?

 

Let me give you an example: I practice kickboxing and I'm somewhat good at it. If I would step into a ring with a guy who has never practiced martial arts before, never threw a punch, I would smoke him in seconds. (I'm not bragging or trying to be an internet tough guy, it's just an example. Bear with me). It wouldn't matter how big, strong or fit the guy is. If he lacks the technique and experience, he's toast.

 

Same thing goes for debates. You might be smarter than me. You might be rhetorically more gifted (English is not my first language). You might have better arguments, better facts, done more research, etc. But if you don't know how to debate and make your case in proper way, I'm afraid we are wasting each others time.

 

I don't fight inexperienced boxers in the gym and I won't do the same thing here. It's boring and there's nothing to be gained. With that I'm out. Have a nice evening sir.

 

 

 

 

 

Nope, I don't suppose it does matter if I called you a Nazi or accuse you of doing what the Nazis did. However I did neither. It is your good self who keeps bringing up the Nazis.

 

Did I ever learn to debate? No. I was not even aware it was a requirement to contribute to this fine website. I simply post what I think and others are free to agree with me or not. 

 

As for the rest of your post, let us leave it up to the reader to decide for his or herself which one of us has given a better account of ourselves and hopefully offer their own input. "The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress" and all that...

 

[sead]

On 2018-03-16 at 6:51 AM, throwaw1984 said:

We would all love to see a real democracy in Thailand but the Future Forward party is not the solution. Let me explain why:

If you think this is a genuine grassroots movement I have bridge in Miami to sell to you. The Future Forward party reeks of a globalist, Soros (or similar NGOs) backed operation with the intention to destabilize and ultimately conquer Thailand with their ideology. They've done their divide and conquer spiel countless times in other countries, think Arab Spring, think Eastern European color revolutions, think Euromaidan. See how well these countries are doing now?

 

The Future Forward party has more red flags than a Chinese military parade:

 

• The fact the this is being hyped up by the media and especially the social media is huge one. That's how all the other "revolutions" I mentioned have started. This is their most potent attack vector since Thai people are avid consumers of social media. Facebook, Twitter, etc have been caught countless times putting their finger on the scale when it comes to political discourse.
• Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit looks like Thaksin 2.0 mixed with Justin Trudeau. Connections (and  corruptions scandals) with the Thaksin clan are starting to emerge, keep an eye on the news. Oh and the "young, handsome, charismatic, independent leader, who just wants to move his country forward" shtick is getting old, remember Obama?
• Once the Future Forward party picks up steam, it will focus mainly on post-modernist (Neo-Marxist) identity politics. The party cofounders listed here are mostly social justice warrior type activists (one of them has the typical pink dyed hair for Christ's sake). Notice how there are no experts in economics, foreign policy, diplomacy, etc (you know, stuff that matters) in this group? It's all just rights this, activism that. 

 

The world is being increasingly split in two factions. On one side you have a reemergence of nationalism, represented by the likes of Trump, Putin, Brexit, the Catalonian independence movement, Eastern European leaders and many others (and yes, Prayut). One the other side you see a doubling down on the globalist agenda (open borders, socialist policies) in countries like Germany, Sweden, Canada, etc.

 

I know some of you actually like the globalist agenda, which is fine, I won't be able to change your mind. You will probably dismiss me as a right-winger right out of the gate.

 

I can say that I'm neither left nor right. I'm a libertarian who wants to see small government, free markets, a non interventionist foreign policy (no more wars) and a stop of uncontrolled immigration from the 3rd world. I'm very much concerned with the reemergence of populist-style nationalism. I fear the pendulum might swing too much the other way.

 

This post is indented for all those who don't follow geopolitics very closely (and who can blame them, it's exhausting). It's intended for those who are fed up with the current system in Thailand (and rightfully so), but who might get blinded by some nice sounding buzzwords propagated by the Future Forward party and their enablers in the media.

 

Tread carefully my friends. God bless the Kingdom of Thailand.

 

Little bit overthinking ?