Thailand Mourns Loss of Carabao Rock Legend Ko Carabao

[brianthainess]

18 minutes ago, proton said:

You might not be able to view the latest one- government complain- about a song!

 

 

Yes it was/is amazing how the Government tried to stop the truth getting out what was happening  then. 

[kwilco]

3 hours ago, proton said:

 

Opposition to what? Aed was one of the establishment, not fighting against it. He called Prayuth his brother!

I think there is a pattern that people go through when they get old....sadly he was not immune

[kwilco]

Just now, kwilco said:

I think there is a pattern that people go through when they get old....sadly he was not immune..v. Elvis etc 

 

[NanLaew]

On 9/7/2024 at 10:12 AM, ignore it said:

Big RIP.

 

I'll go and raise a bottle in remembrance.

Is it OK if I BYOB?

 

RIP

 

[proton]

11 minutes ago, kwilco said:

I think there is a pattern that people go through when they get old....sadly he was not immune

 

Not sure age had much to do with it,

6 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Is it OK if I BYOB?

 

RIP

 

 

He was always middle class from a well off family and never really spoke on behalf of poorer Thais. Did he ever speak up or write a song about the Thammasat Uni massacre or other protests? The IPA beer he does is the best, lager is only 4.9%

[kwilco]

1 hour ago, proton said:

 

Not sure age had much to do with it,

 

He was always middle class from a well off family and never really spoke on behalf of poorer Thais. Did he ever speak up or write a song about the Thammasat Uni massacre or other protests? The IPA beer he does is the best, lager is only 4.9%

Political and Social Impact (1988-1996)

Throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s, Carabao became increasingly associated with political activism. They were known for supporting workers' rights, environmental causes, and rural communities. Their music also became a platform for criticizing corruption, inequality, and social injustice in Thai society.

Albums like "Welcome to Thailand" (1990) and "Thap Lang" (1992) continued to explore political and social issues. Songs like "Ngor Pah" criticized government policies and social inequalities, while "Mae Sai" addressed drug addiction, a rising problem in Thailand at the time.

Carabao’s association with political movements reached its peak during the early 1990s, particularly around the 1992 Black May Uprising, a pro-democracy movement that saw thousands of people protesting against military rule. While not officially aligned with any political party, Carabao’s songs during this period reflected a call for democracy and social reform.

[proton]

1 hour ago, kwilco said:

Political and Social Impact (1988-1996)

Throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s, Carabao became increasingly associated with political activism. They were known for supporting workers' rights, environmental causes, and rural communities. Their music also became a platform for criticizing corruption, inequality, and social injustice in Thai society.

Albums like "Welcome to Thailand" (1990) and "Thap Lang" (1992) continued to explore political and social issues. Songs like "Ngor Pah" criticized government policies and social inequalities, while "Mae Sai" addressed drug addiction, a rising problem in Thailand at the time.

Carabao’s association with political movements reached its peak during the early 1990s, particularly around the 1992 Black May Uprising, a pro-democracy movement that saw thousands of people protesting against military rule. While not officially aligned with any political party, Carabao’s songs during this period reflected a call

for democracy and social reform.

 

 

Where is the link? Gives not one example of a song that calls for democracy and social reform, or what political movement it claims he was associated with. Ngor Pah does not really criticise government policies, in any case this was all over 30 years ago, if they were so actively pro the people then they quickly became sell outs for financial gain. All those kids jumping up and down at concerts by a multi millionaire with various businesses and supporting the yellow shirts were betrayed. The voice of protest against corruption and for workers rights achieved nothing tangible and was mostly lip service, just part of the image, IMO.

On their wikepedia page it says this at the end

 

'Aed announced that he would not end the band in order to continue fighting against the capitalists'.

 

Coming from one of the biggest capitalists in the country, sums him up I think.

 

Edited September 8 by proton

[kwilco]

2 hours ago, proton said:

 

 

Where is the link? Gives not one example of a song that calls for democracy and social reform, or what political movement it claims he was associated with. Ngor Pah does not really criticise government policies, in any case this was all over 30 years ago, if they were so actively pro the people then they quickly became sell outs for financial gain. All those kids jumping up and down at concerts by a multi millionaire with various businesses and supporting the yellow shirts were betrayed. The voice of protest against corruption and for workers rights achieved nothing tangible and was mostly lip service, just part of the image, IMO.

On their wikepedia page it says this at the end

 

'Aed announced that he would not end the band in order to continue fighting against the capitalists'.

 

Coming from one of the biggest capitalists in the country, sums him up I think.

 

Asking people to cite sources in an internet argument such a pointless tactic for several reasons. Your motivation is basically sealioning just being awkward….– you want to disagree but don’t have an argument yourself.

 

You are the kind who cherry-picks anyway, you choose sources and information that confirm their pre-existing beliefs (confirmation bias). Even if I provided a credible source, you would reject it because it doesn’t align with your worldview or because you only trust sources that align with your personal (anecdotal) views.

People like you use  the excuse that there’s a vast amount of misinformation online , to dismiss legitimate sources as biased or untrustworthy, especially if those sources are from mainstream media or a source the person distrusts or disagree with you.

You will even bring up false equivalencies, and try to present unreliable or fringe sources as equally credible.

You get emotionally charged with those who present information you are unfamiliar with or didn’t expect  as you look on debate as like a football match – you think that “winning” the argument is a thing rather than in discovering the truth. Even if solid evidence is presented, you will only double down on their position rather than admit they are wrong. And a long trail of ridiculous arguments follows.

 

On a thread like this and in depth academic discussion is not possible. People will often skim over detailed arguments, sources, or studies. So even when cited, sources may not be carefully read, or in your case, their conclusions might be deliberately misinterpreted to support your  preconceived notions.

 

You may or may not appreciate that properly citing sources requires time and effort, which I am unwilling to invest in a casual online conversation like this. As it his leads to a shallow exchange of information, with yourself  unwilling to engage deeply with the evidence presented.

 

Basically you are attempting to engage in a "bad faith" argument, where you aren’t genuinely seeking truth or understanding but are instead aiming to troll, provoke, or distract – (i.e. Sealioning). In these cases, citing sources does little to advance the conversation.

In summary, while citing sources can be useful in scholarly or serious discussions, with you, it is not the case - it just won’t translate well into a coherent argument as it would be clouded by your emotional investment, biases, and lack of genuine engagement undermine the effectiveness of this tactic or even understanding how to truly use citations.

[proton]

22 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Asking people to cite sources in an internet argument such a pointless tactic for several reasons. Your motivation is basically sealioning just being awkward….– you want to disagree but don’t have an argument yourself.

 

You are the kind who cherry-picks anyway, you choose sources and information that confirm their pre-existing beliefs (confirmation bias). Even if I provided a credible source, you would reject it because it doesn’t align with your worldview or because you only trust sources that align with your personal (anecdotal) views.

People like you use  the excuse that there’s a vast amount of misinformation online , to dismiss legitimate sources as biased or untrustworthy, especially if those sources are from mainstream media or a source the person distrusts or disagree with you.

You will even bring up false equivalencies, and try to present unreliable or fringe sources as equally credible.

You get emotionally charged with those who present information you are unfamiliar with or didn’t expect  as you look on debate as like a football match – you think that “winning” the argument is a thing rather than in discovering the truth. Even if solid evidence is presented, you will only double down on their position rather than admit they are wrong. And a long trail of ridiculous arguments follows.

 

On a thread like this and in depth academic discussion is not possible. People will often skim over detailed arguments, sources, or studies. So even when cited, sources may not be carefully read, or in your case, their conclusions might be deliberately misinterpreted to support your  preconceived notions.

 

You may or may not appreciate that properly citing sources requires time and effort, which I am unwilling to invest in a casual online conversation like this. As it his leads to a shallow exchange of information, with yourself  unwilling to engage deeply with the evidence presented.

 

Basically you are attempting to engage in a "bad faith" argument, where you aren’t genuinely seeking truth or understanding but are instead aiming to troll, provoke, or distract – (i.e. Sealioning). In these cases, citing sources does little to advance the conversation.

In summary, while citing sources can be useful in scholarly or serious discussions, with you, it is not the case - it just won’t translate well into a coherent argument as it would be clouded by your emotional investment, biases, and lack of genuine engagement undermine the effectiveness of this tactic or even understanding how to truly use citations.

 

 

My argument is clearly laid out if you care to read it, I don't see how it's a problem to ask for a source or a link to a statement, I think it's even in the rules of the forum. If you won't or cannot site the source you use that's up to you, but it hardly backs up what you are claiming. You clearly have little or no idea what you are talking about, so just use information from somewhere, who knows where. Yes there is a lot of information online giving various opinions. Mine is that the whole Carabao image is something of a fraud, even if it had some legitimacy 40 years ago. Keeping the band going to fight capitalists, what could be more hypocritical?

[kwilco]

6 minutes ago, proton said:

 

 

My argument is clearly laid out if you care to read it, I don't see how it's a problem to ask for a source or a link to a statement, I think it's even in the rules of the forum. If you won't or cannot site the source you use that's up to you, but it hardly backs up what you are claiming. You clearly have little or no idea what you are talking about, so just use information from somewhere, who knows where. Yes there is a lot of information online giving various opinions. Mine is that the whole Carabao image is something of a fraud, even if it had some legitimacy 40 years ago. Keeping the band going to fight capitalists, what could be more hypocritical?

thanks for the quote - QED!