There were several rule of thumbs (at least, these lists inclusively applicable just for me), if ‘netizen’ started having a narrative or making argument based on Prabowo’s actions
- ”What if” + Prabowo’s current action + implications about what he’s doing
- first principles thinking approach or normatively ideal stance to counter this narrative is: it’s dangerous to make assumptions, implications, or even hypothetical ‘what if’ scenarios about someone’s actions simply for the sake of social conformity → apalagi Prabski
- even the argument may sound convincing, we must be aware that: normalize breaking / bending institutions for the sake of “good implications” will create predecent that enables authoritarian phase
- first principles thinking approach or normatively ideal stance to counter this narrative is: it’s dangerous to make assumptions, implications, or even hypothetical ‘what if’ scenarios about someone’s actions simply for the sake of social conformity → apalagi Prabski
- ”Tapi itu kan dulu / people’s changed” + fokus ke sekarang aja
- Any wrongdoings, specifically ‘violating human rights’ lead to personal consequences and these consequences always PERSIST regardless of the time passed. Yes, people can evolve, we should all focus on the current situation and need to think upwards, but it doesn’t simply disappear (lagi dan lagi, apalagi ini Prabski). Real accountability requires acknowledge that he’s wrong and MUST make amends about his past actions