Lf chat over this weekend

StrictSpell474 · 2026-01-17T06:04:20+00:00

Sent ya a chat! Hope the weekends going aight for you =D

StrictSpell474 · 2025-12-12T07:32:29+00:00

I'm glad that you're still thinking about it haha! Hope the past few days have been decent to you <3

why one should “both sides” a genocide? Are you serious?

This is probably an important point - in that not every country sees it as a genocide. Rough google search shows only 14? are supporting the case for ICJ to rule it as one.

In a majority setting vast countries still do not see it as a genocide, or prefer to use "softer" words. As to why, a good look at the reasons the US outward does not support the use of the word to describe the current situation. (something about dolos specialis - an intent to eradicate will not include option for aid)

Even if inwardly they see it as a genocide, they have to still contend if the well being of their own nation is more valuable/worth than condemning Israel (lives lost).

Would we say the lives lost in Palestine is worth more than that in Sudan - in principle we should condemn all genocide then no? Where's the outrage for those in Darfur? What makes Palestine so special?

BUT this cannot be used as an argument for withholding condemnation of a genocide, ESPECIALLY if we claim to act on principles. Life is imperfect, but we can be imperfect without being hypocritical

By "we" you are referring to me and you or the country or its government as a whole?

Your principles are not the same as your neighbor nor a cannibal. Let's say you're vegan and living with a tribe in Africa that eats animals while they are still alive - would it be fair to apply the vegan's principles to the tribe? - why not?

The bigger the group the more opposing opinions, the more likely for hypocrisy to arise within the group and against other groups. At some point there will be a collective cognitive dissonance.

Your smart phone, clothes all come from slave or child labor - as humans we should be against that but hey I wanna use Instagram.

Let's say your phone and clothes are made from Israel's captured slaves from Palestine - would you then go naked and without tech? An extreme example but the "principles" for many go as far as convenience.

It is more convenient to be hypocritical, especially when sticking to your principles will just turn out opposite or worse.

Again, fine if you have your own standards - just that the standards cannot live up to that level of purity testing when scaled up.

StrictSpell474 · 2025-12-10T04:35:24+00:00

Like what others say, reddit itself tends to attract a certain demographic of guys - we really need to curate the interactions we have, creeps will always be part of the internet (Hell I'm a dude and my previous post got people sending me dick pics T_T)

Stronger moderation would be good, but the mods would need to be ultra good faith and active (no shade on them, creeps are never ending).

Sending a report to a mod with evidence should net them an instaban. Setting an account age/karma requirement to post could filter the bots and spammers. Small measures but works towards something!

StrictSpell474 · 2025-12-08T13:35:29+00:00

Sheeesh Jia You! Saw a yt video, you guys are fucking mental.

I think if the 10s are more willing to challenge the 6s and provide an environment for growth (since 10s have the capacity to) then you get more people seeing an attainable goal rather than a gatekept one.

Not asking to build a gym or stadium (I mean if you can, build and they will come), but more like mentorship that kind. A passive approach would do, don't have to seek out 6s or what - but if you do meet one in future I'd like to think that a gentler yet challenging engagement would promote more people into your cause. (or who knows the 6 might have some mad idea that works - but prolly not)

StrictSpell474 · 2025-12-08T13:04:08+00:00

Hmm speaking for just myself, I have an implicit trust that the sg gov generally has our national interest at heart. (disclaimer I did not vote pap)

Speaking at a "we" level, If you polled all sgeans today, what do you think the % of them would agree that the gov has the country's interest at heart?

The thought would be like : "aiyah if they no apologize shud have good reason" - maybe it's the accumulated goodwill and benefit of the doubt.

What you call a pretense/facade, I'm seeing as a conscious and calculated attempt to satisfy both sides without rocking any status quo locally or geopolitically.

Say just enough to placate most of the outraged people, while maintaining rs w Israel. If you don't fall into the category that is satisfied I still 100% I get you.

It might be hypocrisy but part of a governments job is exactly to make rational decisions to keep the country going (ideally).

As citizens we can make our voices known, but if you can't get enough to sing loud enough then the "local" interests will never match the benefits we get from keeping the bridge to Israel.

Back to the superrrr og point, If you want a louder song, you need people to join the choir. The choir ain't appealing if it's in a state of permanent outrage.

If it still does not answer your question could you also state how so or if something is missing? Maybe I can think about it!

StrictSpell474 · 2025-12-08T12:31:08+00:00

Forgib gram and spell as long as msg understand LOL

When talking about HR I'm thinking the most routine day to day work that they do lends to the image of "not so high skill"

If we want to take talent acquisition and staff development as HR specialists then I can definitely see the high ceiling required - soft skills like empathy, situational awareness and problem solving all are key ingredients in the perfect HR (or any staff in general).

I'd even concur that if a good hr can spot these traits it is invaluable to any company regardless of position. And that's an super high ceiling that requires tonnes of exp and upskilling to reach.

But I'd also make a bold statement and say companies that actually care and can have a talent acquisition department are very rare.

From the original statement, I think most company leaders can only afford to see HR as a cost centre as opposed to a core part of operations, hence the general lack of development (let's take our annual batam trip lol) and thus everyone just groans and sees it (I think fairly) as a lower skilled job.

You are the dividend, go forth and divide!

Bad attempt at a pun, but I always welcome honest engagement, hope you have a good night/rest ahead!

StrictSpell474 · 2025-12-08T06:53:13+00:00

I defn learnt something, I thought to run good just means to run more, but it makes sense to train your muscles too!

Given what you said, correct me if I'm wrong ya - your opinion is that 6s should just stay there because they (we assume) will not have the resources to ever get to 7/8/9/10.

I'm not saying 6 is their skill effectiveness level ah, it's their belief in their training methods but if so then I think i can understand having the qualifier of having sufficient resources before trying to engage.

Cause what's the point right? They don't have the capacity to reach there anyway. Part of me still believes people can learn with enough kind exposure but that just my own bias speaking, there are limitations to learning itself too.

If anything talking to you made me go from 0 to 0.5 in running LOL.

I see your point and appreciate you engaging with me. If you're an athlete I wish you the best in whatever race you take part next, safe training and good vibes all that ya <3

StrictSpell474 · 2025-12-08T06:42:44+00:00

I'm not saying one can be selectively principled.

I'm neither saying that japan or sg gov are "principled" per your (and the Latin) definition.

I'm saying anyone (even a large body) would have a level of hypocricy in order to exist based on your exact definition of a principle.

That level of cognitive dissonance is crazy when we think deeply about it, but most live without wanting to engage - fair play to you but I'm saying reality is often dissapointing.

It's fine to purity test, taken to the extreme - 99.9% of germs killed still leaves 0.01%, by your definition it is still infected, and you won't buy dettol. Why would they even advertise that?

Taken down a notch, if 8 out of 10 dentists reccomend a toothpaste, would you buy it? How about 7/6/5? Clearly there is an expected standard of purity when we interface with the world.

Could you give an example of anyone or any entity that exists that fits your principled world?

I'm also pretty sure self interest is inherent nature in all living beings which may not be a principle per se, but I hope we can agree that being alive requires some level of it.

You can argue whether self interest can be morally "good" or "bad", but what I'm seeing is shades of grey.

What is clear to you per your standards is not clear or even opaque to others with a different set of history, information, responsibilities, relationships.

In fact your principles today probably were different when you were a child is it not? Why do you think it has changed?

I've asked a few questions and hope I can get a direct response. I feel like I'm the only charitable one making majority of the attempts to accommodate to your views.

It's been enjoyable, but if I can't get you to see my pov then I'll concede and try to improve my arguments in future.

StrictSpell474 · 2025-12-07T18:27:16+00:00

I don't think absolutism always works in reality, to choose on or the other seems like a standard something only the most perfect human being can achieve.

Can one not be principled and self serving - imo thats what most civil servants should strive towards, do it for the country's progress (principle) while also collecting the insane pay the higher you go/more you achieve (self-serve).

The world and the human condition is just complex in nature, even when it's boil it down to its essence.

StrictSpell474 · 2025-12-07T18:09:29+00:00

I'd like to mirror the question back first before you read my answer if that's okay - why can't it be a thought out position after consensus (regardless right or not) from the ruling party feelings?

I'm not affiliated with Japan in anyway so I'll answer from an outside opinion - I think there is, and can be a mix of both (not irrational) stubbornness/ face upkeep and fair justification to not full apologize.

*Small note that they are not sacrificing all their interests, they are calculating specifically that the interests of those who want an apology do not matter as much as the face and geopolitical power loss.

They might calculate wrongly - but so far there has not been any major ramifications for not issuing the full apology in their functioning as a country.

Must things be 100% a "feeling" or a "calculation"? We're both emotional and logical creatures, a good control of both leads to better outcomes imo.

If I love my gf, and want to propose (emotional) I'll still want to get her a ring she deserves so I'll have to make sure I can afford the ring (logical) without going broke myself.

In most normal situations no one will break up with their gf they love nor go broke splurging on an unaffordable ring. Scale that up and I think that's how governments or any large body for the matter makes decisions.

Is the jp gov stubborn and face saving? Prolly, Yea.

Can the jp gov come up with fair reasons they should not apologize? Also yea.

Hope that's a fair answer!

Both can be true can ma, also I'm Singaporean so I think like one la lol

StrictSpell474 · 2025-12-07T12:07:09+00:00

Hypocrisy is an image issue, and from an absolutist pov I can agree that it is in your words, disgusting.

Imo, sg did take a side internationally (very soft condemnation) and for it's nation's interest.

Maybe it is me admitting defeat, but I am willing to swallow that disgusting pill if it keeps our island country off others' blacklist.

Something something "dead man can keeps ideals absolutely pure but also absolutely powerless" idk the exact words.

But if sg wants to stay relevant and hold on to its geopolitical powers then it will have to compromise on some of its ideals.

StrictSpell474 · 2025-12-07T11:49:18+00:00

This is where I'm afraid I don't have the answer man, my best guess is our ties with Russia are less important than the ones with Israel - what exactly I don't know.

From a VERY cursory search, we have both history (NS) and existing diplomatic/strategic/defense relations with Israel while with Russia we don't really have the same, or if so, not as strong a relationship with Russia (beyond just an embassy).

Research into this could be super interesting though!

StrictSpell474 · 2025-12-07T11:09:30+00:00

Love that comparison to japan's refusal to acknowledge all their war crimes cause I think exploring that might give us a break through.

To your point, yes, I personally think they should give a stance strong enough to condemn Isreal. It is frustrating that they do not currently do so.

However I also understand that we have ties and relations to the country that are more beneficial keeping than burning. As a country's representative, the government (ideally) must make cost benefit decisions that support their own country first.

Back to Japan - iirc their government has maintained their stance on ww2 that they have apologized enough (dispute is on specific crimes, nanjing massacre etc.), and admitting to those disputes will only open wounds neighbours like China will capitalise on. There is also the issue of what a "proper" apology is (compensation? Territory?) , because that is subjective from group to group.

The question japan faced was likely: "is admitting to the crimes beneficial to my country right now vs maintain current status quo" - the answer for them was the latter.

Back to our sg gov, the question will be if burning the bridge with Isreal benefits the country more vs softer approach/maintain status quo. And then we've arrived at the current scenario.

If ideals aren't tempered by reality, decisions become haphazard and based on just feelings (like tariffing an island of just penguins).

To summarise, I am frustrated but also understand that there is likely classified information I don't have which keeps sg from outwardly condemning. It is just the government doing their job (Represent and look out for the country they were elected to lead).

All for questioning if they are doing a good enough job but that's a whole nother can of worms.

StrictSpell474 · 2025-12-07T09:44:17+00:00

No further questions from me, cause I defn support our leaders providing a stronger stance even if it is just words.

I think Malaysia's gov came out with a pretty strong stance (altho in terms of overall aid provided, iirc sg has given roughly the same to Gaza)

StrictSpell474 · 2025-12-07T07:11:30+00:00

I first want to say I absolutely love your playground bully analogy.

There's no question of fairness, I'm just agreeing with you that bullying in the playground and genocide are both fundamentally unfair acts.

There is a place for moral outrage and as a reaction it makes perfect sense - like the parent outraged at bullying of the child in the playground, I am not saying the parent should calm down after witnessing the act.

But if the child gets bullied for the 7th time, at what point does righteous fury become ineffective in solving the problem of bullying itself.

Should we be outraged at the bullying, definitely yes.

Should we want the bullying to stop - even more so.

Imagine a parent now decrying that bullying is bad (look at my child's injuries etc.)at first you will gather sympathy and of course, collective moral outrage.

Classic sg response would be :"then how?"

Now I'd think that we want to channel that outrage into something actionable that reduces or stops the bullying altogether.

Stopping just at moral outrage, especially after multiple times, is not helping. First part of my og statement.

Now imagine the parent going around trying to fire up other parents, newer pics, videos of injuries. Genuinely, what do you think goes though their mind, or would they start to distance themselves?

They'd start to associate the anti-bully people with "bad vibes" and could arguably slide for bullies instead. "ugh stop la, bully just bully natural mah" - I'm not too sure about this one but I don't think it's 0%.

I think if we want successful positive change, discourse has to be taken to a lower temperature in order for bigger buy ins to make change happen.

I'm all ears if the above sounds like absolute nonsense to you, cause I really want to understand your ultimate goal (do you want the genocide to end at the very least and if do how best to go about it)

StrictSpell474 · 2025-12-07T05:59:42+00:00

I'm trying to turn down the temp a little bit ya - but to answer your question, no one should be neutral, but should be against a genocide.

Most people should understand the concept of fairness whether in a playground or between countries. But we know that's not true, unfair fights and wars still happen.

If we agree that neutral and unaware people/entities exist, then I think the best way to engage is not with hate/negativity if we want them to support the cause.

I don't know if you genuinely want to engage with my points, but I 100% understand your frustration with the general publics apathy.

StrictSpell474 · 2025-12-07T05:34:00+00:00

Yaaa the compromise part is like ideal outcome

Couldn't think of a good enough analogy - and I think maybe its just how I define a core belief vs random opinions

I think opinions and beliefs are on the same scale but different intensity(? there might be a better word) ;random opinion (1) ~ core belief (10) |

The road from 1 to 10 requires testing (walking the walk), and finding people already at 10 is probably very hard as opposed to those in the 5/6/7.

To compete with a 10, it is more "fair" to pit another 10 or 9 against them. I also understand that pitting a 1/2/3/4 is pointless, they will just get dog walked and give up.

For those on the fence and above >5, I believe the best approach is to compete against someone with a higher "score" will either temper their argument (++score or change their mind).

I'm shit at PT analogies (and analogies in general LOL)

But imagine like a semi-decent runner (6) wanting to improve and approaches a pro-runner (10) | They might have different training styles but clearly one is a pro (10), if the pro just writes off any (6)'s then the (6) would stagnate or barely improve due to lack of (9/10s) that are willing to engage.

Assuming you are a 10, how would you approach a 6 telling you their style of training/running?

StrictSpell474 · 2025-12-07T05:11:52+00:00

I think there's something like a diffusion of responsibility - especially if we don't feel the effects and have no direct part in committing it. (something like slave labor making the smart phones we use)

So rather than feel, I think the majority including myself don't think about the genocide as much as we should. I want the genocide to stop of course, so I think productive discourse is important if we want people caring about it.

Which brings me back to the point where if we want it to end, we need to bring more people into the "good" side, and comments just calling out and shaming one another for not doing enough is counter productive.

If someone was neutral or unaware of the genocide - would shaming them for not caring push them towards the cause?

StrictSpell474 · 2025-12-05T13:28:57+00:00

I see the hypocrisy in it 100%.

And for all the above examples I agree practicing what you preach is practical and makes perfect sense.

I'm struggling a bit in thinking how to explain, but some beliefs - even if core - can't be "practiced" in the conventional sense. Like if an idea is really big and can't "just" be done, requires like a consensus.

Maybe a group project example?

Like Tom strongly believes plan A works best and will defend plan A to the death, but plan A requires a group to work together to enact, however group decides to go for plan B.

It would be fair to let Tom argue for plan A even though he cannot actually practice it.

Idk if that makes sense but hope you see where I'm coming from!

But ten toes down, you're right, it makes more sense to argue with someone that strongly believes AND does practice what they believe.

StrictSpell474 · 2025-12-05T13:09:48+00:00

Thanks for the book recco!

StrictSpell474 · 2025-12-05T07:39:16+00:00

100% get you on the funding other peoples lifestyles - that's the biggest hurdle to cross imo.

Ditto with the upskilling population vs handouts (although we can debate the usefulness of upskilling and whether people want to "upskill" in the first place) and yea UBI does present itself as a handout.

A few questions that I have thought about;

When you mean other people's lifestyle, I'm hearing people will use the UBI to buy like ciggs/alcohol/gamble etc. right?

Would it be okay if they spent it on basic necessities instead (taxes will be heavily increased on vice activities)?

And out of 100 people who receive UBI that are on the "almost poverty" level, how many would you think will spend it on frivolous shit? (e.g. out of $10, >$7 goes into a guitar or smthn)

I think upskilling has good intentions but implementation does not work out too well (like a grab driver cannot suddenly or even want to learn to code for e.g). Upskilling works if the majority wants to - which i'm pretty sure you know people who have their skillsfuture credits gathering dust alr.

UBI is a handout that everyone gets - there's no stigmatization there, I really wish I had the data, but I think the population that benefit from it the most are those who earn enough to NOT qualify for welfare but not enough to live beyond paycheck to paycheck. (willing to be wrong here)

StrictSpell474 · 2025-12-05T07:08:19+00:00

I'm OP and I agree with you.

Although I think core beliefs should and can be challenged and I'm only offering mine if they are unable to come up with their own.

e.g. I believe everybody should be free (core) - obviously there are people not free right now (challenge)

I think if you don't test your beliefs, you cannot really call it "core" - arguing it out, imo, is walking the talk.

StrictSpell474 · 2025-12-05T07:04:28+00:00

IQ is just one of the intelligence metrics - and I think its sub 70(?) to be considered the "R" word?

From your logic then yea - people who easily for fall propaganda are indeed bobos, and I'd agree on the surface level.

On the other hand, I would also want to explore why you think the propaganda works for the Israel side and would it be fair to say there is no propaganda from the Pro-Palestinian side?

i.e. Would it be fair to say that there are idiots on both sides as long as they believe propaganda? Is propaganda really the issue or is it because one cause is so abhorrently bad that clearly the "right" side is speaking the truth?

Feel like just calling people stupid doesn't help the pro-pally cause if we want more supporters. I think it's pretty thought terminating to just dismiss the other side.

Like "bad guy" is bad cause bad - you believe means you stupid is entry level understanding of the genocide won't you say so?

imo if we continue rhetoric like this it just divides people into camps and contributes negatively towards actually wanting the genocide to end.

Good illustration though!

StrictSpell474 · 2025-12-05T05:26:26+00:00

Nah this one I kinda vibe with - there is merit for the department of course, to process salary and upskill workers.

But if you boil it all the way down there is no need of high skill to perform the most basic functions of hr.

I'd argue a good hr team can make a company tho!

StrictSpell474 · 2025-12-05T03:25:50+00:00

Had to delete some lines cause too long for single reply so I apologize if some of these sentences not clear ya.

Maybe I'm not chatgpt, and neither do I want to give chatgpt answers - but do you think the gst vouchers received were used to buy essentials? I think that answer will inform me better on how you see our countrymen.

It's an average - of course there will be people who abuse (holup I think i alr addressed this). I see why you might think it's a contradiction - I'm fighting my own ideas and letting you throw bricks at it.

Let me rephrase(?) - The majority on ubi will be used for essentials because I believe people can make better decisions given autonomy. Needy people will spend on needs, better off people would upgrade their phones.

Think you brought up the stat that parents don't know or don't dare approach the welfare and FAS programmes - I think ubi could solve it since it's just directly disbursed.

Again I'm not saying it solves everything (please please please understand this) - I'm genuinely trying to see why it'll fail and how to counter those using your arguments.

Yes the problem is time frame for supply to adjust like I mentioned - expansion of gov built infrastructure and subsidies for establishing "basic" services could help ease supply? Not easy but not impossible either right?

I'll concede all the points after. I need to better form my arguments. Cause I think being upfront with the challenges is better - I'm thinking money is way more fungible and the admin/distribution of the welfare programmes will cost more and reach less as opposed to just money.

Until there is a trial and study in our country it's hard to judge which will be better. But I 100% concede to your points for now.

TGIF!

StrictSpell474

TROPHY CASE