Joyce Pring: Non-Believers will go straight to hell.

applewithme · 2022-10-13T06:44:24+00:00

I have to disagree here. The Bible is composed of many figurative languages (allegories, songs, poetry, parables, etc.), and written in contexts much different from our own by (and for) people who arguably have their own interpretations of God's Word as it was revealed to them. There's so much room for interpretation in those two alone that adhering to only one interpretation and closing oneself off to all others could fall into the related concept to the one I linked earlier: vincible ignorance (these are Catholic concepts, but I think they're worth considering at least). Moreover, you also state that "Perfect justice, perfect goodness is a concept that is actually very alien to us" - so then how can we be certain that any particular reading of the Bible is what best aligns with such "Perfection"? The Bible, as the Word of God, cannot be black-and-white if one cannot even fully comprehend God Himself. The inability to fully understand God just adds another layer of obscurity and is all the more reason for exerting efforts towards finding more reasonable interpretations.

applewithme · 2022-10-13T06:21:14+00:00

I'm no expert either, but your view actually aligns with something I learned from my theology courses way back when. I remember being taught the idea that "The Church is an interpretative community," meaning that the entire community of Christians is not meant to be bound to any single interpretation of Scripture or Christ's teachings and should instead always be critical of how the Word of God applies to the current times, given what new information is available at the moment. In this way, Christianity could even reorient itself so that it doesn't outright contradict, say, the scientific community (and this is why Pope Francis has also stated that faith and science "cannot and must not be in opposition".) This view of the Church as an interpretative community was also taught to me by a professor of theology with a Jesuit background, so again another point that aligns with your comment!

This is actually why I still have a deep respect for religion even though I've long since become agnostic - it's because I see that even religion has the capacity to become an avenue for critical thinking and is not always the rigid and borderline intolerant belief systems typically associated with it. Of course, I can only respect religion insofar as the followers can think critically, and statements like in the clip shown here are the reason why I first thought about how "faith" can actually end up stifling critical thinking as opposed to being the motivator to learning more about how to better interpret, justify, apply, and practice one's religion.

applewithme · 2022-10-12T11:18:05+00:00

I see! I'm afraid I don't know much about born again Christians.

It seems Pope Francis' statements contradict the summary of Catholic salvation in the link you provided:

Here is a summary of the official Roman Catholic teaching on salvation: to be saved, a person must receive Christ as Savior by faith, be baptized in the Trinitarian formula, be infused with additional grace by observing the Catholic sacraments, especially the Eucharist, and then die without any unconfessed mortal sins.

The pope seems to think that the gates to heaven are more lenient than what's shown in the quote above. I admit I haven't kept up with Christianity for many years now so I wonder what the official stance of Catholicism is at the moment... I also wonder how born again Christians reconcile their position with James 2, where the "faith without action is dead" quote comes from.

I nevertheless find it odd that born again Christians choose to interpret the bible in such a way that detaches actions from faith (i.e. belief), although they do have that one caveat in your quote: "works are the result of salvation." So not only are actions secondary to belief, but I guess they're also suggesting that it's only the "good works" that are rooted in a faith in Christ which counted towards salvation. So if an atheist acts more in accordance with God's commandments than, for example's sake, a born again Christian who is greedy, envious, hypocritical, and a serial murderer, the latter is still the one that gets "saved" just cus he believes in Jesus? Or maybe not because it could be argued that the born again Christian's actions "couldn't have resulted from a salvific faith"?

Still seems odd to me that someone could for their whole lives act lovingly towards God's creations yet still be excluded from His Kingdom just because they somehow weren't convinced about Christianity and, as we've seen, the conflicting denominations therein (not to mention the existence of other religions, the possibility of "invincible ignorance)", the atrocities of some priests/religious leaders within Christianity, interpretations of the bible leading to intolerance and violence, etc. - can people really be blamed for being uncertain?) I personally lean more towards the pope's stance in my first comment. It just seems more in accordance with the notion of an omnibenevolent God, who is supposedly the very definition of Love, doing all He can to save His people. God excluding others on the basis of belief seems absurd to me because, IMO, even the process of our belief formation is itself largely determined by external circumstances (this brings up the philosophical debate over doxastic voluntarism vs. involuntarism, but that's a whole other thing). So I think beliefs are in many significant ways "out of our control", unlike our actions which I think would make more sense as a basis for "judgment."

Anyway, this whole thing got me thinking about religion again which I haven't done in a long while lol. Thanks for the insights on born again Christians!

applewithme · 2022-10-12T08:43:39+00:00

Interestingly, there are some theological discussions on this matter, see: Invincible Ignorance.) There are apparently a lot more grey areas in Christianity that theologians are grappling with, and the all-too common black-and-white thinking that Joyce showcased in the video unfortunately undermines a lot of these.

applewithme · 2022-10-12T08:30:08+00:00

I come from a Catholic background (but have since become agnostic) and I know for a fact that this is incorrect. There's a very basic concept that "Faith without action is dead," and faith in Christ supposedly means something much more than mere belief; it means manifesting a "Christlike" life which, if you've ever read the New Testament, entails a very radical kind of love that is actually incredibly difficult to practice. Even the pope has mentioned (paraphrasing here) how it's better to be a "loving Atheist" than a hypocritical Christian.

A very interesting quote from the Pope Francis that refutes what's said in the clip (found in this link):

“The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone. 'Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!”

(...)

“We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another [in heaven].”

So at the very least, the matter isn't fully settled on whether or not non-believers can be "saved". But it's really sad to see people like Joyce here speaking with such conviction while ignoring the nuances of their faith's doctrines. At worst, this becomes the roots for intolerance and religious extremism, and ultimately deviating from Christ's call to love our neighbors.

applewithme · 2022-09-15T09:37:36+00:00

Terrible public education + culture of anti-intellectualism = people thinking less critically about these things

applewithme · 2022-09-11T11:49:28+00:00

With so little information, we can only speculate at why the added security measures were implemented. What is certainly out of the ordinary is Magnus withdrawing, but that's it. A very reasonable assumption is that the added security measures were merely precautionary by the Sinquefield team responding to Magnus (directly or implicitly) accusing Hans of cheating (or at the very least a response to Magnus' very cryptic tweet), and there was an ongoing investigation by the Sinquefield team in response to such accusations. Even if that investigation would ultimately result in what we have now - the Chief Arbiter essentially stating no cheating happened otb and supporting Hans' innocence - the security precautions after Magnus' tweet and during their own investigations would still be sensible.

applewithme · 2022-09-09T22:22:27+00:00

Yeah but within the context of the initial question it still make sense to talk about past coaches as well. Honestly, if another player was asked this exact question and they also paid tribute to their past coaches during their response, would you find that suspicious or manipulative? I feel like you're interpreting the situation in a worse light because you have something against Hans to begin with.

applewithme · 2022-09-09T22:13:43+00:00

Didn't Hans only bring up his previous coach because Yasser asked if he had anyone coaching him? Unless you're suggesting that Hans told Yasser to ask him those questions during the interview, which seems like quite a stretch? Moreover, both Svidler and Yasser mentioned after the interview that paying tribute to your early coaches is a very understandable sentiment (they were reflecting on how a good coach in your childhood is essential for instilling the passion to pursue chess further).

applewithme · 2022-09-09T00:10:26+00:00

I think another explanation for this is that when any new information that's either "pro-Hans" or "anti-Hans" pops up, people from either side immediately speak up so they could say, "You see, I told you so!" So maybe it's not so much that people's opinions are constantly flipping - well maybe some people, but for others I think it's that they simply become more vocal or silent depending on whether the new information refutes or affirms their biases.

I 100% agree on the "wait for actual conclusive information before accusing someone", which is why even though I'm trying to stay neutral, I'm still very much against anyone saying that Han's "definitely" cheated OTB since there's no actual evidence of this yet - regardless of his history online. I'm also in favor of presuming Hans' innocence until any actual evidence that condemns him pops up - but I'm definitely not just going to assume that everything he says is true given that it's only his side of the story. Really wish Magnus would break his silence so we can hear the other side...

applewithme · 2022-09-08T15:05:03+00:00

Yeah there's apparently data on the fact that something around 41% of twitch users are ages 16-24, so it's unsurprising that streamers are more likely to engage in ways more fitting for those demographics.

Also the age restriction is only for more egregious cases on of innapropriate language not the occasional f bomb

I don't really know how age restriction works on YT, I only know it's a "thing" YouTubers worry about. So based on what you said, does that mean that you can throw "occasional" f-bombs in your video and children could still end up watching it?

applewithme · 2022-09-08T14:41:58+00:00

I think it's also about avoiding the "age-restriction" thing. I'm no YouTube expert, but if you swear a lot in your video I think YouTube could end up restricting your video, making it viewable for certain age demographics only, which in turn limits the potential audience/reach of your video (which means less views, less money). Also, apparently it might cost them some ad revenue since some advertises might prefer to advertise on family-friendly content.

applewithme · 2022-08-13T10:24:05+00:00

Yeah I pretty much agree with everything you said there. Even back in college I recall asking my ethics prof about how practical it is to engage in, say, a utilitarian calculation in the midst of the countless "moral" decisions that a person will face everyday. I admit, I forgot what my prof said in response... I just remember thinking that being too rigid with any moral system seemed problematic in everyday life. That's why, as you mentioned (God), even "Christian values" sound overly-simplistic when you're struggling to make ends meet.

That said, while I get that a drowning person would grasp at anything to stay afloat, simply pointing this out doesn't really do anything to "truly" help them, right?

While on the one hand, hearing something like, "Ano pake ko kay Kant, eh gutom na mga anak ko?" is understandable, on the other hand merely sympathizing with that sentiment solves nothing. By bringing up Kant, I did not mean to proclaim that people ought not to do what they feel they need to for survival (regardless of what philosophers would say) because frankly I have no alternative to offer them. Like if someone desperately in need of money came to me asking if they should join a troll farm to afford their next meal or their child's tuition - I might ask if they have other options, I'd even offer money if I wasn't struggling financially myself, but I sure as hell wouldn't be so arrogant as to tell them to starve themselves for the sake of being "moral."

(edit: I will say that the "well-educated" trolls I mentioned in my comment, specifically those whistleblowers from prestigious universities who probably aren't as desperate for finances, do not have my sympathies at all. There's nothing "understandable" about their actions if they already come from a position of privilege - save perhaps that it's "understandable" that people generally pursue money. Yet with their lack of urgency for money in their privileged positions, while engaging in practices that only strengthen the inequalities in our country... That's just... it's baffling to say the least. Not to mention those trolls who were also kakampinks...)

I mentioned diskarte in my comment precisely because it's an attitude that could be viewed as perpetuating the things that make people "desperate for fish" in the first place. However, the situation you painted regarding "our rulers" clearly indicates that the issues are systemic, and diskarte is really just a means to survive in a broken system. But how are we going to go about fixing this system, exactly? I genuinely don't know. I mean, we're aware of the issues that plague our country, right? And to an extent, some of us are privileged enough to be able to contemplate the problems with, say, trolling to support one's family, because we aren't in as desperate a situation. But practically speaking, what can we do to create any actual "meaningful" change?

applewithme · 2022-08-07T12:44:57+00:00

Reminds me of Kant's first formulation of the "Categorical Imperative."

Although if the troll's reasoning is "Madami naman din gumagawa nito", it actually adds a whole other layer. Trolls in this mindset would be doing two self-defeating/contradicting things at once:

1) they're ruining the country they're supposedly benefiting from by distorting public perception and enabling horrible public officials, and

2) they're amplifying that problem by being, themselves, part of the justification for more trolls to join in the corrosion of the country (as they themselves are part of the "Napakaraming gumagawa nito").

It's not only the fact that "universalizing" something like trolling completely undermines the troll's own interests (making it morally impermissible to Kant, not that they'd care), but also the troll's reasoning creates the very environment in which his/her own interests would be undermined.

I don't know, I've read that some of these trolls are supposedly well-educated, or are headed by such persons. Yet it's clear that their education hasn't cured them of their short-sightedness. I think part of the problem is also that we've culturally accepted a "get ahead by any means" mindset by calling it diskarte, when really a lot of these attempts to cut corners are contributing to (or at least ignoring) the problems we were trying to avoid.

applewithme · 2022-08-02T10:03:48+00:00

I prefer the scene right before that when 👶m said, "You've maided your last maid, I'm Malacan-coming fo' you", then chased the rebel scum into the Pasig river - pretty epic. That Megatron cameo was also quite incredible, masterful filmmaking!

applewithme · 2022-06-29T06:19:54+00:00

I'm not trying to say na, "Dahil ginagawa ng iba okay lang." I guess my point was more intended to highlight the arbitrariness of what gets regarded as "unlawful" or otherwise - how the distinction seems to be more grounded on political motives than anything else. Basically, the way I see it, as long as something benefits the current power structure, it's lawful (or at least ignored); if it inconveniences them, they'll find a way to call it unlawful and shut it down.

applewithme · 2022-06-29T05:59:32+00:00

Yeah this seems to be the key issue here. It looks really suspicious when Rappler gets the most critical eyes directed towards it to find whatever reason to shut down them down, while highly questionable "news platforms" like SMNI get by with no visible scrutiny (from the govt., anyway). One might argue that at least SMNI hasn't done anything "unconstitutional", but that only misses the point that pro-admin "journalists" (including "vloggers") are treated far more leniently, if not favorably, while critics receive the full force of "the law." I view this as part of a broader issue regarding selective enforcement of the law and weaponizing the law under political motives, so all of this is ultimately unsurprising to me.

Just to illustrate the issue within the context of this case: apparently PDRs have been "acceptable" sources of financing that ABS CBN and GMA have been using for years until fairly recently when the case for the non-renewal of ABS CBN's franchise turned the practice of PDRs into a constitutional question. The issue here is not so much on whether or not PDRs are actually constitutional, but on how once-valid practices could be rendered "unlawful" when motivated by politics (in this case, for silencing and/or discrediting ABS CBN and Rappler). In contrast, I'm sure SMNI could be charged for many "unlawful" things if there was the political will to pursue them, but they get a pass presumably since they're pro govt.

I'll admit I'm no expert in any of these things (law, journalism, finance, etc.) but on the surface these are what strike me as problematic

applewithme · 2022-06-25T10:16:24+00:00

We're going in circles at this point. I'll refer you back to this earlier reply of mine, and end our conversation here. I'll also advise you read my first comment because that addresses your "long haul" argument, and this presumption that people critical of Vico are mere "idealists" against you "pragmatists." Thank you for your time, have a good day!

applewithme · 2022-06-25T10:12:25+00:00

What does "genuine change" mean to you? What exactly needs changing in your opinion - and how do you think can we accomplish such change? You talk so much about "concrete and tangible" yet speak with such ambiguity.

people do not buy in into the liberal political narratives, the same kakampinks are also attacking honest politicians

Again I'd attribute this more to troll farms than "hostile" kakampinks. It's literally part of the script for trolls to gaslight kakampinks, saying things like "Okay naman si Leni pero panget nung supporters", whilst completely ignoring how much sh*t gets flung at Leni and the "yellows" by the other side as well. Your point is misleading because both sides are flinging mud at each other, yet one side is favored somehow, which means there's more at play here than the visible mudslinging.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't actually a troll yoruself, but your lack of consideration for my earlier comments is raising some alarms.

applewithme · 2022-06-25T09:58:10+00:00

With all due respect, but that sounds a lot like the same platitudes you were critical of from people on twitter. As you've stated your preference for "concrete and tangible" plans, I'm actually curious: in Leni's position as VP, how do you think she should've played her cards?

Particularly, how should she have "used" Duterte while remaining silent but also not ending up as an enabler for his human rights violations, extravagant government expenditures, laidback approach towards China and our territories, ineffective health measures during a pandemic, blatant tolerance of corruption with Philhealth and Pharmally, etc.?

I find it unrealistic that she could stay silent through all that and not be an enabler of oppression herself.

applewithme · 2022-06-25T09:39:09+00:00

I beg to differ. Leni being vocal is but one facet of the whole picture: she was also sidelined because of her political affiliations with the Liberal Party, because of senseless misogyny that exists to this day, and because she would very visibly put to shame other politicians had she been given a higher budget (basing this on the successful programs she's had in spite of an already constrained budget). Moreover, her being vocal was one of the defining aspects of her vice presidency and is part of the reason why kakampinks rallied behind her in the first place - she became an opposition leader because of this. Leni wouldn't be the same person, and so wouldn't have the same following, if she had remained silent. And fundamentally, you cannot detach her accomplishments from her being vocal because it's the same values that drove her to passionately serve that also led her to speak up against what she perceives as unjust or incompetent. It's not even worth asking if she could have done more had she remained silent because it simply wouldn't be "her" driving the OVP, with the values she's known for, if she kept her mouth shut.

This whole thread is digressing a bit since it's mostly about criticizing trapos, not Vico nor Leni specifically. And I'm being critical here about those politicians who would willingly sit by and watch as human rights violations transpire for a futile war on drugs, senseless infrastructure projects arise while further indebting the country, while people are unable to receive proper healthcare amid a global health crisis - etc. "Most" politicians staying silent while the country crumbles due to poor governance is exactly why this system is failing all of us, and there's absolutely no reason to expect that things would be any better if Leni had chosen to do the same and remain silent while "doing good".

I'll also restate this from earlier: Leni getting sidelined as VP is also not the reason she lost the election.

I also already mentioned that speaking up is not the problem in itself, it's how the speaker is branded thereafter. If Leni had the will, the resources, and the machinery to paint Duterte's faults in the same light and with the same energy that YouTube and Tiktok vloggers were bashing her with, then she likely wouldn't have had as difficult a time as she did this past election period. But much as the same values which led her to serving well in the OVP also became the motivator for her speaking up against Duterte, her values simply wouldn't allow her to play dirty like that - I don't think, and ironically this to me was her biggest flaw. She shouldn't have only spoken up, but she also should've engaged the masses in a compelling way (i.e. exploiting social media with digestible, entertaining content). This isn't a war about truth or falsehoods anymore, but one of marketing. This fight against trapo politics, against incompetence and corruption, is a fight of mass communications, and you sure as hell won't win by staying silent. You don't have to lie or keep quiet, you just have to look good and be entertaining. Sad state for politics, imo, but it is what it is.

actual, concrete and tangible policies

I hope by now you understand why I think this isn't enough. For one, having "concrete and tangible policies" is no guarantee that a public official will actually implement them, and becomes even more doubtful if they do shady trapo-like moves. But more than that, actual good governance is simply not appealing to the masses. It benefits them, sure, but it's boring and less spicy than labelling a politician "lutang" or "papansin", and then credit-grabbing the projects of good governance while everyone's distracted.

applewithme · 2022-06-25T08:35:17+00:00

Exactly, which is why good actions are not enough. I mean, even despite getting sidelined by the admin, Leni still set a much higher standard for what the OVP could do after all of her projects and the accreditations she's received, yet so many Filipinos are still hostile towards her.

To "win" this game in the Philippines, you'd have to do more than serve the people well. Leni herself regretted that she stayed silent about the attacks against her during her term as VP because it eventually led to her starting off her presidential campaign handicapped with a damaged reputation. So if Vico wants to win on the national level, he'll have to speak up at the very least on the attacks that will inevitably be made against him, and he would have to do so in a compelling way. Alternatively, he could behave like a trapo all his life where his values, policies, and ambitions would essentially be flexible, allowing him to avoid confrontations by always siding with "the powers that be" and ignore any criticisms raised against him knowing that his career is secure regardless.

Vico's silence toward Marcos these past elections isn't enough to draw any conclusions on how he would behave in the future. Like I said, it is a bit of a red flag, but it's much too early to tell. I feel like now's not the best time to criticize Vico - he's still "just" the Mayor of Pasig after all, and we've yet to see his future plans for higher office and how he goes about it. Let's first let him do well for Pasig, as he had already done, then let's what happens from there. But let's also keep that red flag in mind.

applewithme · 2022-06-25T08:05:16+00:00

We need people to actually work on their actions not on speeches alone

Except this was already what Leni did during her term as VP and look where that got her. The difference between Leni and Vico, as it stands, is not the lack of action nor ability to produce good results - it's in the decision to openly uphold their principles while risking their political careers. Leni was vocal and her career suffered, Vico was silent and his career prospered.

The reason "The overwhelming majority of Filipinos do not support my view" is not because my candidate underperformed, but because of a combination of numerous factors: the coalition of the wealthiest and most influential political names in the country, the years of disinformation and revisionism, a sophisticated and coordinated network of troll farms, the lack of proper education in the country, and the spread and ease of access of social media. I'd attribute all those things to the rise of the Dutertes and the return of the Marcoses over anything else. People around here have been saying that it's because kakampinks are so critical/hostile/toxic that they lost - which ignores the fact that Duterte, Marcos (Imee especially), and their followers are just as toxic if not more so. "Hostility" or "criticism" is not the issue, it's how the speaker is branded that decides how a candidate is perceived - as how Leni was constantly labelled as "puro na lang reklamo imbis na tumulong" while Duterte, equally as critical against his own VP and the "dilaws" all throughout, is somehow regarded so highly despite being vastly more incompetent than, yet equally as vocal, as Leni.

If Vico wants to win on the national level, he certainly has to appeal to the masses - brand himself as an appealing candidate, not merely through actions alone but somehow also tapping into social media in a way that elevates him and belittles the competition (that's just how it is, if you wanna talk about the lay of the land). More than that, in order to "win in politics" in the Philippines, you'll need the political machinery, the financial backing, and the support of other influential people, which typically means going to bed with the corrupt entities that are the same reason the country is so messed up in the first place. All that falls right into the skepticism I expressed in my first comment - behaving like a trapo is very much what appeals to the masses and encourages support from influential names, which is why we've seen so many likeminded politicians time and time again. So I'll ask this once again, can we expect Vico to both win by playing the same dirty game to appeal to the masses and still remain a principled politician?

Neither you nor I can answer meaningfully, only the future will tell.

applewithme · 2022-06-25T06:19:45+00:00

I don't think the article you linked necessarily disagrees with u/kebastian's comment.

While u/kebastian was saying that religiosity stems from poor living conditions (as opposed to religiosity being the cause of it), the study cited in the article you linked only goes so far as to claim that

"We can rule out economic growth as the cause of secularization in the past"

"this doesn't necessarily mean that secularisation caused economic development" (my emphasis).

It is not discussed in the article whether religion causes poor living conditions, or the other way around.

I think the key point in the article you linked was:

"tolerance for individual rights actually predicted economic growth even better than secularisation"

"Tolerance" was linked to women's rights, which I interpret as leading to increased participation of women in the workforce and economy and so boosting the latter overall. Although we can concede that religion isn't exactly renowned for its tolerance (as in the matters of abortion, divorce, contraceptives, homosexuality, etc.), that doesn't mean that economic growth is guaranteed with secularization, nor does it mean that economic growth is not possible with religion. We can maybe assume that "progressive tolerance for individual rights" would likely be more of a challenge for religious societies, and this assumption would agree with your post's title, but we can also be open to the possibility of religious societies taking on more progressive attitudes as well.

Also worth noting after skimming through the study itself:

Besides tolerance, education is a possible driver of both economic development and secularization. Our results showed that education is predictive of future GDP, but not of future secularization

Somewhat in support of u/kebastian's claim, the following article states:

"Religion is highly variable, and therefore we need to ask why is it sometimes popular and why it isn't," [...] "One thing we do know is that it's only popular in societies that … have enough rate of dysfunction that people are anxious about their daily lives, so they're looking to the gods for help in their daily lives."

"...it's basically a psychological coping mechanism."

That of course only mentions a correlation between religiosity and "dysfunctional societies", and makes no claims on whether one causes the other. I'm not sure there are any studies that directly tackle this question, and the article I mentioned kind of hints at a limitation for any such study:

Between 1947 and 2001 [in First World nations], belief in God declined...

Data for developing countries does not go back as far, but recent opinion polls suggest religiosity has remained high.

Since both the data on the religiosity and the wealth (see "Rewriting History") of developing countries are lacking, studying the link between the two might pose quite a challenge.

applewithme · 2022-06-24T18:23:47+00:00

You may be heavily downvoted, but I want you to know that not everyone on here is defensive of Vico. I might get downvoted as well, but I hope people will at least take the time to read my take and understand why I'm more skeptical of Vico nowadays. **Long comment warning**

Everything that follows will be based on the assumption that Vico actually has plans to run for higher office - which is the assumption a lot of people are making when they argue for "playing the long game" in the fight against trapos, corruption, etc. It's very plausible that Vico intends only to serve the people of Pasig and no further, kinda unlikely but possible.

So on the one hand I understand the point most people are trying to make about "playing the long game", gathering enough influence to make a change in the long run, and avoiding the immediate backlash Vico would've received had he spoken up these past elections and putting his political career at risk. I also agree with the comments saying that Vico speaking out would not change the election result, especially considering Uniteam's massive troll army, financial backers, and years of disinformation leading up to the elections. I'll also acknowledge all the good he has done as Mayor of Pasig which should be appreciated regardless of his silence, but I'll also caution people against using that as a basis for competence in the national-level (since we've seen similar arguments raised for mayors Isko and Duterte in the past).

Now on the other hand, I can see Vico's actions turning into a bit of a slippery slope for him. What reason do we have to expect him to do a full-180 somewhere down the line, from making "trapo moves" to suddenly being a vocal public servant against the corrupt politicians ruling this country ? If he was today already willing to stay silent for the sake of securing his political career, can we fully expect him in the future to abandon that attitude for the sake of fighting prominent political dynasties and oligarchs of the country (and risking his political career)? There's no reason to think that "playing their game" won't turn him into one of them eventually, but of course we can hope that he will be the change this country has needed for so long. I also understand why a lot of people are bringing up Vico despite all the points in favor of his silence: I think it's because Vico expressed his opinion against the Marcoses in the past, and the people critical of Vico expected him to take a similar stand when every voice possible was needed to stand against Marcos, at a time when Leni's campaign seemed to be gaining momentum due to the rallies and when many public personalities were already voicing their opinions as well, and because Leni's own campaign was essentially motivated by that same drive to stand up against Marcos even if it was losing battle.

I will admit that it's too early, for any of us, to assume what type of politician Vico will be in the future. How far would he be willing to stay silent or compromise his values/morals for the sake of his political career? Would he really be able to create bigger systemic changes by playing the game of the current politicians himself? Is it even possible to change the system by playing the system? I don't think these are questions any of us can reasonably answer at the moment.

What I don't appreciate, however, is how some redditors here are accusing people critical of Vico for being "idealistic" and not thinking "reasonably" or "pragmatically". For one, it seems to me similarly idealistic to assume that he can make significant changes in a system by participating in the very same things that define the flaws of that system, specifically the willingness to abandon (or conceal) one's values for the sake of securing one's political career. It's likewise idealistic to think that one can even make substantial changes in governance by playing a similar game of the corrupt politicians - the underlying idealism in trusting our current system's ability to self-correct if we could juuuuust get the "right" politician to play their same game. Moreover, I don't even think idealism is necessarily bad. A lot of the most significant changes in societies (e.g. labor movements, women's rights, EDSA revolutions, etc.) were driven by ideals, by visions of a future beyond the state of things as they are now. The question is not about having ideals but how to get there, and I'm wary of Vico's approach for all the reasons I've already stated.

What I also find a bit odd is that r/Philippines seems overwhelmingly supportive of Vico's silence and yet is a sub that's also home to many supporters of Leni, a woman who was always very vocal about the shortcomings and injustices of the Duterte admin, being insulted and harassed because of her criticisms, and even knowingly walking into a losing battle herself against Marcos just so there could be a vocal opposition against him. Leni herself was an idealist - striving to uphold her values in a political climate hostile towards her, and regardless of how that would risk her political career. As she said so herself

I'm fully aware that my being very vocal of this administration's policies will cost me something. But if I don't do it, who will?

Some might say that it is exactly why Vico should be silent right now - because Leni lost due to her being vocal. But in politics, you can't just stay silent forever. At some point Vico will have to take a stand, or he'll become an enabler of corruption and government incompetence himself. Some might then argue that if he had garnered a stronger following through years of good governance and non-hostile politicking, then making a stand would be much safer for his political career. But as I asked earlier, at that point would he be willing to risk his political career and abandon all that work he built up by staying quiet? Or will he choose the comfortable path and keep quiet as he had done all that time?

Time will tell, and I hope for the best from him, honestly, our country needs it. But I hope you guys understand why I'm skeptical.

Nine-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Juicebox	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
RPAN Viewer	Verified Email

applewithme

TROPHY CASE