Self-censure
Recent events on the blogosphere have been fast paced and very eventful, and it only serves to reinforce my cynicism. The events that have unfolded are both disheartening and frightening.
It is disconcerting to see how blogs are slowly being recognised and curtailed by the big boys. Most bloggers treat blogs as personal blogs (naturally and rightly so, I might add) but fail to appreciate the dangers of publishing content open to the entire world. In doing so, opinionated matters especially of a sensitive nature and/or relating to an identifiable individual or corporation are openly published and leaves the blogger in a very vulnerable position. Some application of tact or discernment is warranted but some things are beyond one's control. Especially after recent episodes, only the most naïve would continue to think that his words are not being monitored. This is no Conspiracy Theory, but as cliché as it sounds, Big Brother IS watching you. Even if you think you are secure behind a veil of anonymity, you are still traceable.
The crucial question is: how will mere mortals ever be able to appreciate all the responsibilities and liabilities incurred by publishing a blog? Indeed, like many aspects of cyberspace, there is still much uncertainty. Unfortunately it is never a defense to plead ignorance of the law, but is that fair to hapless individuals?
I'll be the first to admit: I have, to date, written under a pseudonym, mainly due to prevent potential repercussions on my 'real' life. To be frank, my intentions were never to start a blog site which offers the content it does so now. There are a couple of entries whereby I wince before I press the 'publish' button (including the previous entry) and indeed many more potentially sensitive ones which will never see the light of day. Yes, I very much practice self-censorship, I am quite aware of the dangers of airing one's opinions, having been burnt before. Indeed, I have steered clear of politics (no desire to be involved in such discussion), focusing on personal opinions from a layman's perspective. As it is, this site is first and foremost a personal site, in contrast to more journalistic-styled sites. Yes, some opinions are somewhat subjective, and although striving towards objectivity is laudable, we are, after all, normal layman, unlike professional reporters who, indeed in certain domestic publications, more often than not give skewed subjective opinions masked in objective language as well. Absolute objectivity is the Serpent's Lie, because to be truly objective, one will need to encompass the viewpoints of every individual in the whole world, since everyone is uniquely individual. That is, of course, quite impossible. As such, it is all a matter of degree, with esteemed publishers tending toward absolute objectivity, as opposed to layman blogs which offer much more subjective material.
Pretty much because I do not have any ulterior agenda other than to air my opinions, I have, as far as its reasonably possible, try to remove references to distinct identifiable persons or objects, preferring to use satirical, hypothetical or theoretical examples, primarily for 2 reasons: Self-preservation and Disengagement.
While The Singapore Commentator rightly says that 'satire not a good substitute for serious discussion' when important issues are at hand, and states that it is often used as 'disguised rants', on the flipside, satire often protects and softens the blow, and gives one leeway in expressing unbridled opinion whereupon otherwise there would be no opportunity of doing so without exposing oneself to susceptibility. I believe in adaptation. To ensure one's own survival, one must adapt to the circumstantial surroundings. As it is commonly known in Singapore it is prudent to exercise discretion when airing potential sensitive views, hence the proliferation of sites such as Talkingcock and Mollymeek. Like it or not, thats the way it is here.
While I am admittedly somewhat anti-establishment, I have no time or desire to launch a 'crusade' to 'right' the 'wrongs' of society. I do not think its worth forsaking my family, friends, career, and goals (incidentally very different from what may be construed from this blog). Unfortunately, this is a sentiment shared by many fellow Singaporeans. Rather than being apathetic or infantile, it is just not worth the sacrifice. Whether such a situation is 'right' or 'wrong' doesn't really matter. What matters is that the situation is such and we just have to deal with it.
*Note that 'right' and 'wrong' are inherently relative and subjective as well. What may be 'right' to me may be 'wrong' to you.
And those few who choose to take up such a thankless task are either shot down, compromised, or most commonly, join the very establishment they were previously opposed to.
The vicious cycle goes on.
*Oh yeah and I shall also add a disclaimer on the sidebar, for what its worth.
It is disconcerting to see how blogs are slowly being recognised and curtailed by the big boys. Most bloggers treat blogs as personal blogs (naturally and rightly so, I might add) but fail to appreciate the dangers of publishing content open to the entire world. In doing so, opinionated matters especially of a sensitive nature and/or relating to an identifiable individual or corporation are openly published and leaves the blogger in a very vulnerable position. Some application of tact or discernment is warranted but some things are beyond one's control. Especially after recent episodes, only the most naïve would continue to think that his words are not being monitored. This is no Conspiracy Theory, but as cliché as it sounds, Big Brother IS watching you. Even if you think you are secure behind a veil of anonymity, you are still traceable.
The crucial question is: how will mere mortals ever be able to appreciate all the responsibilities and liabilities incurred by publishing a blog? Indeed, like many aspects of cyberspace, there is still much uncertainty. Unfortunately it is never a defense to plead ignorance of the law, but is that fair to hapless individuals?
I'll be the first to admit: I have, to date, written under a pseudonym, mainly due to prevent potential repercussions on my 'real' life. To be frank, my intentions were never to start a blog site which offers the content it does so now. There are a couple of entries whereby I wince before I press the 'publish' button (including the previous entry) and indeed many more potentially sensitive ones which will never see the light of day. Yes, I very much practice self-censorship, I am quite aware of the dangers of airing one's opinions, having been burnt before. Indeed, I have steered clear of politics (no desire to be involved in such discussion), focusing on personal opinions from a layman's perspective. As it is, this site is first and foremost a personal site, in contrast to more journalistic-styled sites. Yes, some opinions are somewhat subjective, and although striving towards objectivity is laudable, we are, after all, normal layman, unlike professional reporters who, indeed in certain domestic publications, more often than not give skewed subjective opinions masked in objective language as well. Absolute objectivity is the Serpent's Lie, because to be truly objective, one will need to encompass the viewpoints of every individual in the whole world, since everyone is uniquely individual. That is, of course, quite impossible. As such, it is all a matter of degree, with esteemed publishers tending toward absolute objectivity, as opposed to layman blogs which offer much more subjective material.
Pretty much because I do not have any ulterior agenda other than to air my opinions, I have, as far as its reasonably possible, try to remove references to distinct identifiable persons or objects, preferring to use satirical, hypothetical or theoretical examples, primarily for 2 reasons: Self-preservation and Disengagement.
While The Singapore Commentator rightly says that 'satire not a good substitute for serious discussion' when important issues are at hand, and states that it is often used as 'disguised rants', on the flipside, satire often protects and softens the blow, and gives one leeway in expressing unbridled opinion whereupon otherwise there would be no opportunity of doing so without exposing oneself to susceptibility. I believe in adaptation. To ensure one's own survival, one must adapt to the circumstantial surroundings. As it is commonly known in Singapore it is prudent to exercise discretion when airing potential sensitive views, hence the proliferation of sites such as Talkingcock and Mollymeek. Like it or not, thats the way it is here.
While I am admittedly somewhat anti-establishment, I have no time or desire to launch a 'crusade' to 'right' the 'wrongs' of society. I do not think its worth forsaking my family, friends, career, and goals (incidentally very different from what may be construed from this blog). Unfortunately, this is a sentiment shared by many fellow Singaporeans. Rather than being apathetic or infantile, it is just not worth the sacrifice. Whether such a situation is 'right' or 'wrong' doesn't really matter. What matters is that the situation is such and we just have to deal with it.
*Note that 'right' and 'wrong' are inherently relative and subjective as well. What may be 'right' to me may be 'wrong' to you.
And those few who choose to take up such a thankless task are either shot down, compromised, or most commonly, join the very establishment they were previously opposed to.
The vicious cycle goes on.
*Oh yeah and I shall also add a disclaimer on the sidebar, for what its worth.

17 Comments:
Even if you think you are secure behind a veil of anonymity, you are still traceable.
Damn right. Remember the Washingtonienne? Y'know that girl working at the US Senate who got fired for keeping a sex blog?
it is pretty easy for anyone to monitor another individual's internet activities- there is no need even for specialised knowledge to do so.
In Washingtonienne there were giveaway clues to her identity, thus making it simpler to pinpoint her.
And those few who choose to take up such a thankless task... or most commonly, join the very establishment they were previously opposed to.
I wonder if there's any explanation for this sort of thing? Is it because they intend to change the system from within? Or they just become disillusioned with the whole thing?
i think in the end its because its the most logical and practical choice to take.
pardon my allusion to real person examples, especially with the tense atmosphere these days, but let me stick to an analogy.
3 radicals, A, B, and C voice their minority contrary views against the establishment.
A refuses to compromise or give in to the establishment, prefering to always be with the minority. He is a real threat to the establishment and is consequently 'dealt with' and shot down by the establishment.
B realises that there is no way that he is going to 'triumph' over the establishment, and seeks compromise to avoid the same fate as A. The establishment allows the compromise as they benefit as well: they are able to point to examples of their tolerance to anti-establishment views.
C realises there is no way to 'triumph' the establishment. However, C is a very capable individual. As such, the establishment wants him on their side to further strengthen their already considerable force, and woo him to their side. C, lured by the superior prospects awaiting him should he join the establishment, consequently crosses over.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
C reminds me of an interesting father-and-son talk with heavy breathing that didn't turn out as initially planned LOL
they were reconciled in the end, though ;)
Trackback: From a Singapore Angle, "The AcidFlask Affair in ether and beyond"
What THE HECK ...astrology zone How Would You want to find something you are looking for, Find someone...astrology zone can work if you want it to ...
You have a great blog. Please feel free to check out my site subliminal messages and leave me your opinion on it.
Building Self-Esteem and Happiness in your life..Visit and learn..Any questions..http://possibility123.com/build-self-esteem.html
Neurolinguistic Programming
In the early 1970s in America Richard Bandler, then a young college student studied the work of Fritz Perls and later Virginia Satir and found that he could reproduce their high-level therapy skills to a degree that even surprised him. Bandler seemed to have a natural ability to mimic (model) the language patterns by Virginia and Fritz.
At the University of California at Santa Cruz, Bandler who was well versed in the teachings of patterns in mathematics and computers teamed up with a college professor, John Grinder to help him understand the processes that were at work. Soon Bandler and Grinder, who used what he knew about patterns in linguistics, created a new model for personal growth called NeuroLinguistic Programming.
Bandler and Grinder had set out to model the hypnotic skills of Milton Erickson. They had astounding results. They built a communication model about human "thinking" and "processing" and used that model of how we see images, hear sounds, reproduces smells and tactile experiences in our mind to track and model the structure of subjective experiences.
Sounds very complicated but really it works very simply. Here is an example as used by Paul McKenna - probably the best & most successful hypnotist in the world.
Close your eyes and think of a negative memory. Become involved in the situation as best as you can. Feel the emotions that you felt, see the things you saw and hear the things you heard.
Now take that memory and project it onto a mental screen seeing yourself in the picture. Put a frame around the picture and view it as if it is an old photograph. Next drain all the colour from the picture and shrink the screen to the size of a matchbox.
Have the feelings associated with the picture decreased in any way?
Another good example of NLP involves Anchors. Have you ever smelt a certain perfume or aftershave and had it remind you of a certain person or situation? Gone to a certain place that brings feelings long forgotten flooding back? Or been in any situation that creates emotional responses that would not normally be associated with it? Well if you can answer yes to any of these then you have experienced anchors. Some anchors are associated with positive feelings and some with negative emotions. However, you should be aware that anchors can be consciously installed or already existing ones altered. Here is an example:
Think of a time when you were really happy. If you can't think of one then imagine something that would make you feel really happy. See what you would see, hear what you would hear and feel what you would feel. Really get into the picture and try to experience it as though it were happening now.
Now brighten the colours and make them richer. Increase the volume. Make the picture bigger, brighter, louder. That's it and more and more....
Now press your first finger against your thumb and fully experience your happy feelings. Do this everyday for 2 weeks and you will create an anchor that will instantly recreate these feelings. Whenever you want to feel like that again just press your thumb and first finger together and wham the feelings will come flooding back! Don't believe me? Just try it and see!!! personal development plan
Subliminal mind power or subliminal controversy--thanks for your imput. When you can give me your input regarding my subliminal blog. Go to www.subliminalcommunication.blogspot.com/
Cool blog, interesting information... Keep it UP Relief for heel pain Add nutritional supplement from itching valtrex john deere watches for kids 0 nline pharmacy.com valtrex vaniqa viacreme viagra zyban online Proactiv perth pharmacy Car cover review tyvek Incorporate your business how to volvo penta marine fuel pumps
Wonderful and informative web site. I used information from that site its great. » » »
That's a great story. Waiting for more. » »
best regards, nice info film editing schools
Post a Comment
<< Home