Call-out culture: Poison or nectar for social activism in Thailand?

[snoop1130]

(Photo by Camilo Jimenez)

 

Calling people out has become popular among Thai social-media users in recent times, and now they are pressuring local celebrities and stars to take a stance – usually on political issues. 

 

“Call-out culture” has been around for many years in other countries, though people usually get called out over social issues like racism, sexual harassment, prejudice, or the pandemic, rather than politics.

 

This act is a form of “public shaming”, aimed at ostracising and/or educating the offender.

 

Full Story: https://www.thaipbsworld.com/call-out-culture-poison-or-nectar-for-social-activism-in-thailand/

 

-- © Copyright Thai PBS 2021-07-27

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow ASEAN NOW on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[spidermike007]

The people that need to be called out now are the cabinet ministerers, the PM, the police brass, and all the fake crony senators. They all need to be shamed to no end.

 

Whatever can be done to stop this slide into oblivion and retrograde behavior, should be done. 

Edited July 28, 2021 by spidermike007

[mtls2005]

Nectar.

 

All part of transparency.

 

Holding people with a public presence accountable is the only way forward.

 

The public "makes" 

16 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

celebrities and stars

 

so they can demand more than just a skin-whitening commercial, pop song or lakorn from them.

 

Ignoring the massive social, political and legal issues only perpetuates them.

 

The first step is to acknowledge you have a problem, or three.

 

 

[poskat]

"now they are pressuring local celebrities and stars to take a stance – usually on political issues. "

 

why should anyone give a rat's azz about what some vapid celeb thinks about any topic.

 

and why would a celeb want to be public with their opinions, taking a stand on most issues just loses their fans who have a different opinion.

 

when Micheal Jordan was asked why he didnt comment on political or social issues, he replied "becuase republicans buy sneakers too"

[Rampant Rabbit]

The  people  that need  calling out are the people  baying for  calling out, plebs.

[Doctor Tom]

The age of social media, Woke-ness, the cancel culture, trolls; it will all be the ruin of humankind. Of course Forums add to the sum of this misery.  

[mtls2005]

13 minutes ago, poskat said:

when Micheal Jordan was asked why he didnt comment on political or social issues, he replied "becuase republicans buy sneakers too"

Jordan went on to say that he has never seen himself as a role model.

 

"I don't think that statement needs to be corrected because I said it in jest on a bus with Horace Grant and Scottie Pippen," Jordan said. "It was thrown off the cuff. My mother asked to do a PSA for Harvey Gantt, and I said, 'Look, Mom, I'm not speaking out of pocket about someone that I don't know. But I will send a contribution to support him.' Which is what I did.

 

 

From "The Last Dance"

 

 

 

 

 

Pretty much sums up the status quo for Thailand.

 

 

 

 

 

[mtls2005]

3 minutes ago, Doctor Tom said:

it will all be the ruin of humankind.

 

The same has been said about pretty much any new thing.

 

Cavemen probably said this about "fire". 

 

Or five minutes after the wheel was invented

 

 

 

[bendejo]

20 minutes ago, poskat said:

when Micheal Jordan was asked why he didnt comment on political or social issues, he replied "becuase republicans buy sneakers too"

50+ years ago someone asked Colonel Sanders (yes, he was real) if he liked Black people.  He replied "they eats chicken, don't they?"

But I'm sure if it was said today someone would find something offensive about it.

The one that gets my head spinning is cultural appropriation.

 

 

[mtls2005]

6 minutes ago, bendejo said:

50+ years ago someone asked Colonel Sanders (yes, he was real) if he liked Black people.  He replied "they eats chicken, don't they?

Gotta call you out on this. Can you provide some sort of basis for this, other than a meme?

 

Yes, we all know Col. Sanders was a real person. ????

 

 

7 minutes ago, bendejo said:

But I'm sure if it was said today someone would find something offensive about it.

Yes. Because it is offensive,, on at least two levels.

[robblok]

Im not sure, I mean business is business and private is private. You can call them out but its up to them if they want to respond. Some people just don't want to be dragged in politics because its better to stay neutral and have a large following then to pick a side and slash your potential followers in half.

 

Now if a celebrity star takes a stance then you can attack him / her on it boycot and all. But what is wrong with them wanting to stay out of it. I sure as hell don't care what my clients do privately. Never ask them about their religion or political leaning. Its business and as long we both do what is agreed to what would i care or they care about my views and their views.

 

I certainly understand them wanting to stay out of it because only trouble can come from it especially in Thailand.

 

 

Edited July 28, 2021 by robblok

[mtls2005]

20 minutes ago, robblok said:

You can call them out but its up to them if they want to respond.

 

Yes. Someone who "gets it".

 

This isn't about "forcing" celebrities to take a position. 

 

"Forcing" people to do some-, any- ,every- thing is the regime's MO.

 

"Demanding" is a right of the public. It's free-speech. The celebrity can choose to ignore, deflect, or take a position.  All of this is reasonable.

 

Celebrities can feel free to paraphrase 23 or the Col, and say, "Yes, poor people in Thailand buy cake too."

 

 

 

 

[internationalism]

people are forbidden to protest on the streets and are met with gas, water cannons and bullets, so they do it online.

That includes celebrities. 

Nobody pressed them to take stance against the government. They do express a popular mood.

Going after them with prosecution has the opposite effect.

That's why the technology minister had to back off and soon police will retreat as well

 

Edited July 28, 2021 by internationalism

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

Yes. Someone who "gets it".

 

This isn't about "forcing" celebrities to take a position. 

 

"Forcing" people to do some-, any- ,every- thing is the regime's MO.

 

"Demanding" is a right of the public. It's free-speech. The celebrity can choose to ignore, deflect, or take a position.  All of this is reasonable.

 

Celebrities can feel free to paraphrase 23 or the Col, and say, "Yes, poor people in Thailand buy cake too."

 

 

 

 

As long as they are not forced I have no problem with asking the question to celebrities. For some people its important. But I judge a singer on its vocal qualities not its political leaning. 

 

I have a friend who has religious idea's i totally dont like (im in general against religion) but we just ignore religion and see where we match.

 

But that is up to everyone to decide celebrities and their followers. So call them out and if they don't respond do whatever and if they respond do whatever. I mean its up to the celebrity and his / hef followers. 

[mtls2005]

12 minutes ago, robblok said:

As long as they are not forced

 

No one has mentioned "forcing" except those making a strawman's argument.

 

Obviously the government forces it's people into submission/compliance nearly from birth, but that's evidently OK.

 

As internationalism so adroitly points out, the public (other than minionettes, dinosaurs, ultra-nationalists) is completely suppressed. You gotta give them outlets for expression, or you've lost the plot. Demanding that celebrities take a stand, or decline to do so, is one of their few forms of expression remaining, which will probably be suppressed by enforcement of CCA soon. What's next? Target practice?

 

 

[robblok]

Just now, mtls2005 said:

 

No one has mentioned "forcing" except those making a strawman's argument.

 

Obviously the government forces it's people into submission/compliance nearly from birth, but that's evidently OK.

 

As internationalism so adroitly points out, the public (other than minionettes, dinosaurs, ultra-nationalists) is completely suppressed. You gotta give them outlets for expression, or you've lost the plot. Demanding that celebrities take a stand, or decline to do so, is one of their few forms of expression remaining, which will probably be suppressed by enforcement of CCA soon. What's next? Target practice?

 

 

I totally agree that the current government is far to strict and not open to any criticism. Just plain stupid that will make it far worse if the bomb ever bursts. 

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, mtls2005 said:

Yes. Because it is offensive,, on at least two levels.

Didn't offend me on any level, I eat chicken too!

The misses brought a KFC bucket home for me 3x last week.

(Bit too much really, takes me about 3 days to eat a bucket)

Edited July 28, 2021 by BritManToo

[HaoleBoy]

Some have asked, why "pressure" celebrities / stars to take a stance.  They can be requested, but that should be the extent.

 

What these celebrities / stars can do if they choose is to open the discussion past the borders of Thailand in some cases, not all.  International Thai celebrities, such as the film director Apichatpong Weerasethakul did at the Cannes Film Festival, can bring foreign press and awareness to the corruption and the political problems here in Thailand.  Junta governments are scared of international press highlighting their inhumane tactics.  

 

[Neeranam]

1 hour ago, bendejo said:

50+ years ago someone asked Colonel Sanders (yes, he was real) if he liked Black people.  He replied "they eats chicken, don't they?"

But I'm sure if it was said today someone would find something offensive about it.

The one that gets my head spinning is cultural appropriation.

 

 

The world has gone mad.  

So Sanders didn't like black people, it's not a crime, is it?

These days, the world is not a better place when we can't say what we like or dislike, without being attacked. One thing I like about Thailand is that people can call a spade a spade, like last month, an old Thai man told my wife that he didn't like farang! 

 

[OneMoreFarang]

Personally I think that is a bad trend. Because mostly we see only part of what happened. And sometimes there are just accusations. Too many people think a person is guilty even if there is little or no evidence.

 

I think it's good to know what is happening and listen and watch. But we should be careful with making up our minds who is guilty and should be shamed.

 

Last but not least I think we should also think about our expectations. I.e. many people blame politicians all over the world for whatever they did about Covid, lockdowns, vaccinations, etc. Some politicians are blamed because they didn't order lockdown fast enough or hard enough. Other are blamed for too hard or too fast lockdowns. Is there any politician in this word who did it all perfect for everybody? I don't think so. But obviously there are lots of politicians in the opposition who claim in the hindsight that they would have done everything better. Really?

 

 

[mtls2005]

34 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

These days, the world is not a better place when we can't say what we like or dislike, without being attacked.

What a strange silly defensive, but indefensible, view. That you need to get all hysterical use the word "attack" is telling.

 

Rarely (not never, BTW, "hate speech" for example) have I seen the right to free speech with a qualifier on the effects/implications of said free speech. You have free speech and so do those who disagree with you. If you can't take the heat keep your trap closed.

 

 

I'm imagining James Madison thinking, yeah this free speech thing is a good idea but what about someone who has a different opinion. OK, we'll abridge his rights.

 

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

 

 

Edited July 28, 2021 by mtls2005

[Neeranam]

14 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

What a strange silly defensive, but indefensible, view. That you need to get all hysterical use the word "attack" is telling.

Firstly, how is my reply a defensive?

Secondly, what makes you think I am 'all hysterical?

Thirdly, what does using the word 'attack' tell?

Finally, who the **** is James Madison?

[Neeranam]

Quote

Legal experts agree that the Constitution guarantees every citizen the basic right to express their opinion.

Interesting, as I tried telling someone recently, the Thai Constitution does not pertain to foreigners. 

[PETERTHEEATER]

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Didn't offend me on any level, I eat chicken too!

The misses brought a KFC bucket home for me 3x last week.

(Bit too much really, takes me about 3 days to eat a bucket)

Then eat the chicken.....

[bendejo]

16 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

Gotta call you out on this. Can you provide some sort of basis for this, other than a meme?

Get someone to teach you how to do a web search, then you will have as much ability as me.