Double standard talk is even cheaper

I refer to the 24 April 2015 TR Emeritus article “Amos: Talk is cheap, very cheap” by Cynical Investor.

CI wrote:

And jeers and sneers for those who claim to support, sympathise Amos Yee but who stood aside.

Didn’t CI similarly stand aside and did nothing? Why doesn’t CI similarly jeer and sneer at himself for whatever sympathies he has expressed for Amos?

This is what CI wrote:

… I hope the AGC drops the charges in return. Let’s remember, he has spent four nights in jail.

Or would CI indulge in the double standard of classifying what others say about Amos as sympathy and what he said about Amos as not sympathy?

CI wrote:

The absence of the anti-PAP cybernuts who pollute the comments section of TRE is not surprising.

There have been quite a number of TRE posts in favor of Amos so far, why does CI insist anti-PAP folks are absent? Or CI has decided that all TRE posts in favor of Amos so far are by non-anti-PAP people? Looks like it is CI himself who is the cybernut polluting cyberspace instead.

CI wrote:

But where were the ang moh tua kee human rights activists like Kirsten Han (she wrote an eloquent, sympathetic piece on him in Yahoo) and the lady who so eloquently blogged on Amos? They left him to rot in jail, while they eloquently proclaimed his right (duty?) to slime one Harry Lee Kuan Yew, and hurt the feelings of 20-odd S’poreans? Seems, he’s a flag or mascot, not a human being to these ang moh tua kees.
My serious point is that these ang moh tua kee “activists” cannot be taken seriously. They are not prepared to walk the walk, just talk the walk.

If people like Kirsten Han are ang moh tua kee, then what is CI? Ang moh suay kee?

Didn’t CI also leave Amos to rot in jail? Isn’t CI similarly just talking only and not walking?

What right has CI to complain about others just talking and not walking when he himself is guilty of the same thing? Where does CI even find the cheek to do so?

Compare the blog that CI quoted:

And now, the boy is spending the weekend in prison. Police handcuffed him when they led him out of court. He is to be tried as an adult.

Twenty-one Singaporeans can congratulate themselves for defending the nation against a 16-year-old. For safeguarding the boundaries. For being offended enough, concerned enough, patriotic enough to set the police on a child.

with what CI wrote:

Me? I think it’s wrong that he is charged under the Protection from Harassment Act. He should not be charged under any law for his bad, loitish but non-violent behaviour.

Society’s anger at its rules being broken should be allowed to manifest itself without affecting the boy’s future too much.

Both expressed sympathy, injustice, whatever you call it for the boy. Both spoke for the boy. Yet, CI has the cheek to pour scorn at others for talking without walking when he himself is guilty of the same thing. How does CI expect to win arguments on the basis of double standards?

CI wrote:

LKY needs no monument. So long as these people are around, Harry will be remembered. He had contempt for them, and rightly so.

The people that LKY supposedly had contempt for included CI himself because CI is guilty of the same contemptuous act he complained about.

CI wrote:

I hope Amos Yee will reflect on the kind of supporters he has. With friends like cybernuts and ang moh tua kee “activists”, he doesn’t need enemies.

CI may wish to add himself to the list of friends that Amos doesn’t need. Or would CI employ the double standard of labeling others who spoke for Amos as friends Amos doesn’t need but not himself?

Or would CI simply deny that he expressed sympathy for Amos? That unfortunately is not up to CI to decide. If CI can label what others say as expression of sympathy for Amos, then CI cannot deny others of the right to similarly label what he said as expression of sympathy too for Amos. So if others’ expression of sympathy leads to them being condemned by CI, then CI’s expression of sympathy should also lead to him being condemned by others.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Double standard talk is even cheaper”

  1. dotseng Says:

    No one takes that loud mouth seriously. Fortunately most netizens who are savy already know only too well why he regularly writes the things he does. The only people who take him with any degree of seriousness are those who pay him to write what he does….just like maybe the folk in five stars and moon, Singaporedaily et al.

    Regards

    Darkness 2015

  2. Daily SG: 28 Apr 2015 | The Singapore Daily Says:

    […] – Yours Truly Singapore: Double standard talk is even cheaper […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: