It’s like devolution. Opinions have an interesting way of degenerating into so much idle chatter on the airwaves. For those unaware, bloggers in Singapore have been brought on charges and sentenced. An overview can be read here. The most interesting comment would not be easy to pick out:
Nevertheless, it is striking that, one, the police report should be the first resort; and two, that Kalin should find the entire notion of posting objecting comments “childish”. Responding to hatred with hatred is one thing. But what happened to the reasoned response? Is that hatred too? Or necessarily childish? Or is the very notion of a reasoned response to unreason such a rare flower in the jungle of the internet? –destined only to be trampled by hatred on one side, and criminal sanction on the other?
The reaction’s about the same from Malaysia’s more prominent bloggers, which I’ve talked about here. And that, ladies and gents, is the real fear, summarized eloquently enough by Mr Loy’s comment quoted above. I hope people realize what sort of consequences obtain from pursuing certain actions. The alternative isn’t always silence, but a response which will provide an alternative opinion on a subject/topic. To refer a situation to a ‘higher authority’ ends conversations, it ends discourse, it ends the debate before reasoned responses can be given. It’s the same sort of thing that happens if you start deleting comments.
It’s has the character of the arguments used by moderates when considering the whole phenomenon of suicide bombing. Tony Blair once remarked that suicide bombers end conversations, end dialogue. I’m more interested in asking if superpowers give credence to the grouses of the people their interfering with; do arguments from moderates about the roots of terrorism have a hearing at all?
