[lvlrsSTI]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/a...enerations

[lvlrsSTI]

[maxsanic]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/a...enerations

I don't know much about Thai attitudes, but using the experience in Singapore as an example, I suspect the reality is far more nuanced then the way this Guardian article is reflecting, i.e. it's not a simple old people support Russia vs youngsters support Ukraine scenario.

The article doesn't cite any meaningful statical studies to support its conclusions. Instead it relies on very weak anecdotal circumstantial evidence from interviews with a student activist and academic. Student activism is quite often an echo chamber, the same like minded people simply regurgitate each others' views and compounded with the younger generation's proficiency in social media can amplify and distort the real situation on the ground.

For example in the case of Singapore, when it comes to issues like LGBT the youngsters are always the loudest and posting everywhere giving the impression that almost every millennial Singaporean is very pro-LGBT. But in reality I know of some who although tolerate LGBTs somewhat reluctantly, are very against the sort of LGBT promotion that the activists put forward, yet all of them say nothing in public as they do not wish to be seen as "backward" and "old fashion" in front of their peers. Interestingly I observed the same dynamic with Trump, the media would have you believe that younger people are entirely against Trump but by snooping around I actually discovered a lot of Trump supporters amongst the young ones.

Another thing to be very careful is many youngsters are still schooling or even if working have very limited exposure as they are likely working at entry level positions in organizations. It is natural for the young to be more receptive to idealistic scenarios and the older ones being more jaded / skeptical as experience in dealing with real world issues, organizations and people have taught them that the real world is often much uglier than what is being said. To attribute this so called generation divide to a simple factor of oldies liking authoritarian figures like Xi & Putin while youngsters loving freedom and democracy reflects more on the Guardian's own bias than anything else.

[singlon]

Up to no good
something brewing
also...

[singlon]

Guardian




Information TERRORISMS
no forensic investigations just allegations


culprits security polis /m16

[Notdumb]

I don't know much about Thai attitudes, but using the experience in Singapore as an example, I suspect the reality is far more nuanced then the way this Guardian article is reflecting, i.e. it's not a simple old people support Russia vs youngsters support Ukraine scenario.

The article doesn't cite any meaningful statical studies to support its conclusions. Instead it relies on very weak anecdotal circumstantial evidence from interviews with a student activist and academic. Student activism is quite often an echo chamber, the same like minded people simply regurgitate each others' views and compounded with the younger generation's proficiency in social media can amplify and distort the real situation on the ground.

For example in the case of Singapore, when it comes to issues like LGBT the youngsters are always the loudest and posting everywhere giving the impression that almost every millennial Singaporean is very pro-LGBT. But in reality I know of some who although tolerate LGBTs somewhat reluctantly, are very against the sort of LGBT promotion that the activists put forward, yet all of them say nothing in public as they do not wish to be seen as "backward" and "old fashion" in front of their peers. Interestingly I observed the same dynamic with Trump, the media would have you believe that younger people are entirely against Trump but by snooping around I actually discovered a lot of Trump supporters amongst the young ones.

Another thing to be very careful is many youngsters are still schooling or even if working have very limited exposure as they are likely working at entry level positions in organizations. It is natural for the young to be more receptive to idealistic scenarios and the older ones being more jaded / skeptical as experience in dealing with real world issues, organizations and people have taught them that the real world is often much uglier than what is being said. To attribute this so called generation divide to a simple factor of oldies liking authoritarian figures like Xi & Putin while youngsters loving freedom and democracy reflects more on the Guardian's own bias than anything else.

I like all your postings here. 

Can tell me why got chinese people here hate China for no good reason while loving USA, whom I called terrorists and is famous for destroying many countries?

[singlon]

Forensic could tell us many things
like did  the bodies move bullets use and so on

[maxsanic]

I like all your postings here. 

Can tell me why got chinese people here hate China for no good reason while loving USA, whom I called terrorists and is famous for destroying many countries?

I can understand where you are coming from, but I would advise that you not get too emotional over it and more importantly, not see it as a moral obligation for anyone who has "Chinese" in their NRIC to support China against US. The reality is though all of us would like to think we are very rational, when it comes to a sensitive political topic like this most people side based on their sense of identity rather than any logic.

An individual's sense of identity is not just color of skin, but much more related to the culture he/she ascribes to. Culture is multi-faceted with many layers, for e.g. the iceberg model of culture is a common way to explain this complexity. http://interculturalism.blogspot.com/201...lture.html As someone who marinates himself in both the China Chinese and Anglosphere's universe online and offline, I can say for sure these two cultures are REALLY VERY DIFFERENT. 

A lot of times there is no right or wrong, just that the Anglos had a good run for the past 100+ years so a lot of what they say becomes "universal human values", but now with the rapid erosion of their power and influence, we are now seeing "transitional chaos" as their worldview starts to breakdown across the world and alternative cultures are now competing to assert influence and reshape the global narrative.

For Singapore because of our rojak culture, we do not actually have a very strong sense of identity as a nation. That's why despite PAP's hard selling of a so called Singaporean core, we never really got to define what is Singapore core in the iceberg manner, just lots of senseless surface squabbles whether naturalized citizens, PR or FTs are considered core, what Singapore food is good, Singlish etc.

With the absence of our own national identity and cultural definition, Singaporean Chinese end up a fragmented lot. Broadly speaking there are the "kantang" ones who continue to see Anglo values (US/UK) as aspirational and they tend to see this world as increasingly hostile because the world order is being challenged. This group tends to excuse Anglo failures as temporary or even go Ah Q by claiming such failures are evidence of the superiority of the check and balance system.

Their opposite is the "cheena" ones who see China's rise as an opportunity to put the hypocritical Anglos back in their place. As their world views resemble closely with that of China's Chinese, they get real upset when they see the kantangs siding with Anglos to put down their own race. For this group sometimes I think they need to be a bit more circumspect in their enthusiasm over China's rise. Know that at the end of the day that China and Singapore are two different countries, as Chinese we should certainly try our best to work ourselves into a win-win relationship with China, but not to the point of losing tract and starting to think that everything China does is all benefit without risk to Singapore because we are majority Chinese.

The last and likely biggest group are the apathic floaters. They don't have any strong cultural affiliations and simply go along with whoever exerts stronger soft power. This block used to be entirely shaped by US/UK because of their soft power and also because in Singapore we have organized our society to learn from western "best practices" which includes putting English ahead of Chinese in school and work. Of course now with China's soft power accelerating, this group is also slowly morphing in their world views as well. Where they end up will really depend on the outcome of the all out competition between US and China. 

Even amongst the PAP elite you can spot traces of differences amongst the 4G leadership. Some of them are standard US/UK educated elites belonging to the first group and generally hang on to the idea of depending on US for security and China for economy while others seem to understand the world is changing and do not see Singapore's continuation of the status quo in geopolitics as a tenable proposition.

[singlon]

[sporeguy]

I can understand where you are coming from, but I would advise that you not get too emotional over it and more importantly, not see it as a moral obligation for anyone who has "Chinese" in their NRIC to support China against US. The reality is though all of us would like to think we are very rational, when it comes to a sensitive political topic like this most people side based on their sense of identity rather than any logic.

An individual's sense of identity is not just color of skin, but much more related to the culture he/she ascribes to. Culture is multi-faceted with many layers, for e.g. the iceberg model of culture is a common way to explain this complexity. http://interculturalism.blogspot.com/201...lture.html As someone who marinates himself in both the China Chinese and Anglosphere's universe online and offline, I can say for sure these two cultures are REALLY VERY DIFFERENT. 

A lot of times there is no right or wrong, just that the Anglos had a good run for the past 100+ years so a lot of what they say becomes "universal human values", but now with the rapid erosion of their power and influence, we are now seeing "transitional chaos" as their worldview starts to breakdown across the world and alternative cultures are now competing to assert influence and reshape the global narrative.

For Singapore because of our rojak culture, we do not actually have a very strong sense of identity as a nation. That's why despite PAP's hard selling of a so called Singaporean core, we never really got to define what is Singapore core in the iceberg manner, just lots of senseless surface squabbles whether naturalized citizens, PR or FTs are considered core, what Singapore food is good, Singlish etc.

With the absence of our own national identity and cultural definition, Singaporean Chinese end up a fragmented lot. Broadly speaking there are the "kantang" ones who continue to see Anglo values (US/UK) as aspirational and they tend to see this world as increasingly hostile because the world order is being challenged. This group tends to excuse Anglo failures as temporary or even go Ah Q by claiming such failures are evidence of the superiority of the check and balance system.

Their opposite is the "cheena" ones who see China's rise as an opportunity to put the hypocritical Anglos back in their place. As their world views resemble closely with that of China's Chinese, they get real upset when they see the kantangs siding with Anglos to put down their own race. For this group sometimes I think they need to be a bit more circumspect in their enthusiasm over China's rise. Know that at the end of the day that China and Singapore are two different countries, as Chinese we should certainly try our best to work ourselves into a win-win relationship with China, but not to the point of losing tract and starting to think that everything China does is all benefit without risk to Singapore because we are majority Chinese.

The last and likely biggest group are the apathic floaters. They don't have any strong cultural affiliations and simply go along with whoever exerts stronger soft power. This block used to be entirely shaped by US/UK because of their soft power and also because in Singapore we have organized our society to learn from western "best practices" which includes putting English ahead of Chinese in school and work. Of course now with China's soft power accelerating, this group is also slowly morphing in their world views as well. Where they end up will really depend on the outcome of the all out competition between US and China. 

Even amongst the PAP elite you can spot traces of differences amongst the 4G leadership. Some of them are standard US/UK educated elites belonging to the first group and generally hang on to the idea of depending on US for security and China for economy while others seem to understand the world is changing and do not see Singapore's continuation of the status quo in geopolitics as a tenable proposition.

Great insight! But don't use the word "cheena" la!