It's really very very easy to use insults instead of getting the facts straight, right? I will admit that it's that easy to use insults to try and win an argument as much as it's easy to blow off one's cool when insulted. These kinds of people are very good at insulting others but will cry foul (and play the "poor innocent victim") when their own personal attacks fire back at them. I could read all the gaslights and virtue signaling. Even worse, these people engage in very pseudo-intellectual arguments which can be displayed often on Facebook and Twitter (which is very toxic these days) just to name a few.
The MARITES Pyramid of Learning
An essay I wrote was about the MARITES Pyramid of Learning. I've engaged with people who, when their appeal to emotion fails, start mocking me by calling me vulgar names or saying that I'm stupid, that my IQ must be low, that I must still be stuck in elementary, and the list can go on. I used to get irritated. There are times I want to punch such people. They continuously use insults trying to irritate me. However, I was told to stop entertaining such people or not to stoop down to their level. But whether we want to admit it or not, the use of insults really proves these things:
- It just shows that the person calling the other person a fool is the real fool. It's very often that the Duning-Kruger Effect shows that stupid people tend to think they're very smart. Again, not all intellectually stupid people are like that. Some intellectually stupid people know their limits. The problem is when stupidity enters the Duning-Kruger Effect zone.
- More often than not, insults are because one is angry or frustrated. It's like I called someone stupid because I was angry.
This would be very applicable to those people who want to defend the Filipino First Policy. The use of insults is pretty much used by insecure people. I'm really amused that when I ask them for their empirical evidence--I often get fired with insults over and over again. I'm tempted to lose my temper. However, there's a quote that says when a person starts getting personal, it might be a clear sign of losing. A person who insults others thinks that they're going to win by insulting others? It's because they're pretty much like the pigeon that lost the chess game. The pigeon thinks it's going to win by pooping on the board like it won.
One of my previous essays was written about social media attacks against Philippine Senator Robin Padilla. Instead of addressing the issue, they decided to bring up issues like Padilla's previous status as an ex-convict or calling him names like Boy Sili (Boy Chili). Some people would prefer to shoot down Padilla based on his ex-convict past. All the while, they support a system that keeps voting for people based on popularity rather than credibility. What they did to Padilla is just a small picture. What insults I get is just a small picture. Can Padilla's former status as a criminal ever defeat the argument if he's actually right? Just because one's a scholar in a toga doesn't mean one's always right.
My new imagined scenario if I'm going to ask them who they'd listen to between Davide and Mahbubani
 |
| Click to enlarge |
Maybe, I could think of possible racist comments if ever I should ask this question. We have two policymakers namely Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. and Professor Kishore Mahbubani. Mahbubani is the founder and former dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP). It's really no secret that some Filipinos are quick to accuse others of racism while being racist themselves. It can be like, "Of course, I'll listen to Davide, he's my countryman." The use of the Davide Jr. vs. the late John Gokongwei Jr. can be a categorical error. Gokongwei Jr. is a businessman and Davide Jr. is a policymaker. That's why I chose Mahbubani to be the foil for Davide Jr. Would that even convince them? I doubt it because there's always this cognitive dissonance or resistance to facts.
For an insulter, it's really very easy to just ignore the facts, insult the person, and feel good about it. Some of them may keep saying Davide this, Davide that. Then I'd start bringing up another of my favorite figures namely Mahbubani. I could just imagine the insults that these Filipino insulters could fling in the middle of the argument. They've already done that to Padilla. I can imagine that they'd actually do it to Mahbubani just to defend their admiration for Davide. Knowing all the racist jokes that are thrown against Indians (commonly called Bumbay in the Philippines)--I could imagine the racist jokes.
It might go with rude generalizations about Indians. They might start raising up stereotypes that won't help defend the argument. I could imagine the argument like, "I'd listen to Davide Jr. because he uses deodorant and I'm sure Mahbubani has stinky armpits." Since when did stinky armpits ever become part of the argument? Are they even sure that Mahbubani has stinky armpits just because he's a Bumbay? It's really nothing more than a series of Ad Homimens. Instead of trying to prove Davide Jr. right and Mahbubani wrong with the facts, they start using Ad Hominems instead.
Sorry to say but Filipino First can't be defended by using insults
It's very easy to stay that studies show but where are the studies cited? It's pretty much like how that dishonest former doctor Andrew Wakefield made that dumb research on autism and vaccines. There was also this research about microwaved water vs. purified water which was full of doctored data. I really feel like the person did pour hot water straight from the microwaves to the plants. How can you expect the plants not to wither if you water them with very hot water? It's plain common sense that hot water will kill your plants! The same can happen when advocates of Filipino First might be citing the "studies" of people like the late Alejandro Lichauco's praise of the late Carlos P. Garcia or the likes of IBON Foundation. Sorry to say but I really believe that IBON Foundation is nothing but a bird-tweeting network rather than a real research body! Many times, IBON does some data like blaming past presidents for the rising costs of gasoline. Gasoline is a world market problem.
I could ask for empirical data all day long but when they can't present it--they start throwing insults instead. It's really annoying and funny at the same time. That's why I'm often told to just laugh at them because insulters hate it when I refuse to stoop down to their level. Get mad, get even, and they have their "I'm the poor innocent victim! I did nothing wrong!" card. They could go ahead and keep saying I must be very stupid, that they are so smart, and you know there's so much they can say. However, Alexander Pope said, "Works are like leaves. It's rare to find fruit among them."
To defend the effectiveness of Filipino First, they need more than just growth rate data. Whether they want to admit it or not, the study of Lichauco has already been proven dishonest. The data proven by the rise of neighboring ASEAN countries is another. The book From Third World to First should be more than just a book used to cite against the Marcoses. What's the use of criticizing the Marcoses if one loves economic protectionism at the same time? The Marcos regime was heavily protectionist, not neoliberal, as some may suggest. If they really read the whole book From Third World to First--they will see how even nations rich in natural resources (such as Vietnam) actually benefited from listening to the late Lee Kuan Yew. Don't just use LKY as a bullet against the Marcoses. Read what LKY has to say from the book such as when he said, "The Philippines needs more discipline than democracy." A country may have a high growth rate because there was room for more growth. Meanwhile, a developed country may have a lower growth rate because it's entered a slowdown period. A country entering a slowdown period may still be economically better overall than the rising tiger. Compare that with the Philippines as a rising tiger under the reign of the late former Philippine president Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III vs. Singapore under the reign of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong or any stronger tiger.
In my case, I'm really probably just going to let them insult me. Sure, I can get angry and I can dwell in angry thoughts for certain periods of time. That doesn't change the facts that facts will remain the facts regardless of who's right or wrong. Their use of insults are unscholarly and should be rejected. The fact that they would use insults to defend faulty studies may even further make anybody question the validity of their sources too.