Rated-i Awards






The Rated-I Awards is an initiative purposed for identifying blogs and sites of insight value.

This initiative was first inspired by an appreciation of the deficiencies in past ‘blooker’ and ‘blogstar’ awards that relied either on ‘hits’, or ‘bloggers’ keeping in their place by simply focusing on the trivial, being self/nation-absorbed, or offering little more than a trivial or entertaining rendition of reality.

This tended to maintain the perspectival and self-perceptional divide between the .coms and the .blogs and replicated non-virtual realities within cyberspace – thus further reinforcing in non-virtual reality. By picking ‘champions’ amongst the proles for being a prole, this sector of global society was prevented from being champions amongst the global intellectual elite. Additionally, this also encouraged competitive alienation amongst bloggers whilst granting them some semblance of significance whilst keeping them in their place. In this, the bar wasn’t raised but came up to divide them from the said elite whilst bloggers were kept satiated by having been deemed to have beaten the rest of their class.

The singapore blog awards also presented gross deficiencies such as its reliance on ‘hits’; a panel consisting solely of Chinese persons; being presented as a Chinese event on the main website; and the standards used to judge the quality of blogs being based solely on a criteria of quality emerging post-marginalisation of difference and cultures not practiced by a majority defined on the basis of race and associated culture – all of which basically promotes the notion, ‘if you aren’t thinking it the Chinese way, you’re in the way.’ The validity of such an award is based on the best that can be identified after the imposition of a singular system of thought and thoughtlessness in the general socio-economic-political milieu over 3 decades. Hence, besides all the winners of, for instance, their ‘insightful’ category being fascist and non-insightful for not noticing this, albeit unwitting, it perpetuates the fallacious notion amongst the ‘majority’ that they are on the right and maximal intellectual and perspectival path. Additionally, the fact that it was simultaneously presented as a chinese event under the guise of bilingualism, and a 'singaporean' event as illustrated by 'Singapore Blog Awards'. In this, we can recognise yet another effort to associate 'singaporean' with 'chinese' and exclude all difference in typically fascist fashion. Of course, given the fascist nature of most singaporean 'democrats' and bloggers, it is not surprising that none of the winners of the said awards, amongst almost all other singaporean political observers, appreciated this point.

Hence, it can very plausibly be argued that the 'SgBlogAwards' are little more than an effort to identify 'insight' in a successfully post-fascist state that simultaneously sets these diminutive standards as the one worthy of conformity for the purpose of maintaining the status quo. In that, these 'winners' can be likened to the Hitler, or more accurately, 'Confucian', jugend whom are there to set the perspectival standards of the nation as the cream of the fascist crop.

In Sum,

The Rated-I Awards, hence, strips the winners of singapore's blog awards as the standards utilised to judge are not based on criteria emerging from the maximal development and appreciation of all cultural streams of thought within the country. If difference and said streams of thought were given equal attention and appreciation, the current winners and nominees would either be unknown, or would have produced insights that would have relegated the insights for which they were awarded the position of mere creative and intellectual doodles.

Secondly, the Rated-I awards urges bloggers worldwide to afford such awards an appreciable degree of scepticism for its potential to keep them ‘in their place’ as the intellectual and perspectival proles of a civilisation led by an elite in all its departments.

Finally, the Rated-I Awards has two categories. One, it recognises those whom are attempting to delve deeper into a subject past the perspectival norms observed by the intellectual and creative elite. Two, it recognises versatility and cosmopolitanism as laudable virtues expressed by way of inquisitive interest in various fields and locales outside of one’s immediate national or familial concerns. With this criteria is in place, (pending further modification) it is left up to bloggers to award such sites with attention and support.

At its core, the Rated-I awards supports the notion that bloggers can not only be as good as the intellectual and creative elite of the world, but even better. With such a belief in place, they will be able to maximise the benefits that comes with making the most of themselves and each other.

I would call upon all bloggers to display the blog button above as a show of support for an egalitarian version of a truly 'Singaporean' blog awards, and till then, to boycott the current exclusionist version. This is not a favour for those whom are not represented through the presentation and approach by 'S'pore Blog Awards', but your duty.



according2,


ed

0 thoughts:

The Inquisitive venture is a collaborative one. Let's collaborate.

Ad hominem is fine so long as it is accompanied with an argument, as opposed to being confused for an argument. In the latter case, deletion will follow.

Blogger Template by Clairvo