Skip to main content

The 'Rated I' classification for blogs - what is?

‘Rated-I’ is basically a simple site classification that does not rely on ‘hits’ or ‘votes’ to determine a site’s value as these can just as well indicate that a site panders to the perspectival and linguistic deficiencies of the day. Rather, a site is classified as ‘Rated I’ if,

1. It deals with issues that aren’t generally scrutinised

2. It deals with issues from angles not generally utilised

3. It deals with issues that aren’t generally supposed to be the concern of those inhabiting the selfsame ‘bloggersphere’. i.e. a local site that deals with global issues.

The underlying belief here is that versatility is the key to profundity in any specific arena. Additional elements of an ‘I’ site is where it deals with issues with greater depth, systematically, logically, appreciating the various elements that come together to produce a particular phenomenon, amongst others.

This classification may be applied to any site whatever the subject matter - tech, photography, art, music, etc.

Rated I is not so much a ‘brand’ but rather a reminder to ourselves, or a check on our tendency to ‘go with the flow’, to spout commonly held perspectives, dwell in that which concerns the ‘majority’, or our own learnt and narrow sphere of interest.

The underlying belief here is that versatility is the key to profundity in any specific arena.


postscript: The ‘Rated I’ classification was conceived by - based on film classification logos - as an answer to singapore’s racially/culturally biased ‘blog awards’ that relied mainly on ‘hits’, ‘votes’, and based on a criteria that determined ‘what’s good or ‘insightful’ after all non-Chinese cultural perspectives had been diluted/marginalised to the point of having little or no impact on the public imagination. Such a criteria is laughable as it is not formulated with the best of all ideas but post-discounting of ideas not congruent with one sectors perception of reality.


Popular posts from this blog

Is singapore a tyranny, or are people to dumbed down to feel it?

The following is a consideration of the perspective posted at the site, 'article14'. The site, in discussing the so-called 'Black Sunday movement' whose members wear black and congregate at Starbucks - perhaps they have an unstated desire to boost Starbucks sales of overpriced beverages, or perhaps Starbucks is paying for their black garments...silly people - to express their support for the freedom of expression - brought up certain points that seem to be commonly held by the 'singaporeans' of today.

Manifesto Against Same-Sex Marriages and Homo-Promotion

My stand against homosexuality is based on the following.  It is a logical, rather than a personal, decision.

Under the slogan, 'the freedom to love', it in principle justifies incestuous, group, etc, marriages.  All it requires is 'consenting adults', without an inquiry into what it means to be an 'adult' in intelligent, moral, and introspective terms.

This in turn encourages a ‘go with your feel’ tendency, which in itself gives rise a myriad of tendencies that go unquestioned.  Right and wrong ceases to matter, and even if something is illegal, one can still view it as society just having its own bias against it, just as it once had a ‘bias’ against homosexuality.

‘Nothing is natural.  Everything is just a matter of preference.’  That is the basic thrust of this unfortunate situation.  In fact, having a preference is in itself seen as evidence of one’s intelligence.  No attention needs to be paid to intellectuals, thinkers, philosophers, sages, religious te…