I read an article in Rappler yesterday.



The headline reads: Let us not call Filipino voters ‘bobo’

The author of the article offers the case as follows:

“I believe at the core of our political disagreement is not a ‘stupid’, ‘gullible’ masa. It is the birth of an antithesis formed by a class that was hurt by years of decent but elitist policy. Choosing the actor over the statesman, to many, is like poking the eye of the rich.”

This is then supported by other people from the opposition, and largely by the Vice President herself:

Other people surprisingly from the other sectors of the intellectual elite also have the same analysis:

From Kevin Mandrilla

I answered the above image and content with the following:

I answered the above image and content with the following:

you’ve hit three main points sa post na ito
not particularly wrong but not entirely right
yung bobo kasi na stanced is based on empathy
if you warn people for a long time and they still do the opposite then ‘their choice’ is bobo because scientifically and intrinsically its wrong

2nd a masters degree is a red herring argument, it doesnt prove anything instead it proves the opposite. having a masters degree would mean that you belong to the upper 30% of the population or higher and yet you cant grasp the complexity of creating a law or the job a senator entails and yet you ran which makes your intentions suspect kasi even in papers sa masters to get it kailangan may prior knowledge ka how to write it

3rd everything is diversionary but how do you measure it?
we measure it with the expected outcome but not to address immediate issues that supports the diversion only strengthens the veracity of the diversion itself
although granted na valid yung fears natin

Some people even went as far as blaming the people who are calling out the wrong decision of the voters and branding them as elitist and insensitive to the plight of the masses.

I answered the above image and content with the following:

While others aren’t just happy::

Some are even vehement enough to call for “Respect” even if the majority’s decision was clearly wrong.

I also wrote some counter arguments regarding the images above they are as follows:

Sagutin ko lang itong original poster besh ha, isang tanong lang.

Ano bang napaka komplikado sa ideya na kapag bumoto ka ng magnanakaw ay malamang sa hindi nanakawan ka nila?

Sobrang hindi komplikado nun mehn… as in sobra hindi mo kailangan ng degree para ipaintindi yun, maski batang 7 years old naiintindihan yun.

Wag naman nating gawing excuse ang kahirapan para sa mga maling choices natin sa buhay.

May choice sila and they choose wrong, bakit?

Kasi hindi naman nagkulang ang mga tao na sabihan sila at ang media na paalala hanan sila eh.

Pero despite that they choose wrongly and sino nga ba naman tayo para magreklamo diba eh taxpayer lang naman tayong mga ninanakawan at ang ironic pa dun kasama sila sa mga ninanakawan.

Parang ganito lang yan sinabihan mong wag tumawid sa highway kasi may namatay na dyan, pero tumawid pa rin at inilagay sa alanganin ang buhay ng mga pasahero na pwedeng bumangga sa kanya at yung mismong buhay nya, hindi mo pa rin ba siya tatawaging bobo?


You don’t get to tell me not to call out people who voted for CRIMINALS, PLUNDERERS and HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSERS —-> “BOBO”.

These people knowingly put my person and the people I love in harms way by voting for a senate whose main aim is to dehumanize filipinos and have China openly invade the country.

These people knowingly and happily voted to support well known CRIMINALS, PLUNDERERS and HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSERS to spite the rule of law and the people who support it.

These people, despite being told what’s wrong, what’s moral and what’s ethical purposely and decisively aimed for the destruction of our entire democratic system and moral fiber.

In fact calling them “BOBO” might be an understatement or even too kind.

They might as well be called accomplices of CRIMINALS, PLUNDERERS and HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSERS themselves.

Let us all stop for a moment in tolerating what’s wrong in society shall we?


I have a really huge issue with these Pro-Wrong Choice statements, because it implies the following:

  1. You can’t blame the poor based on their status for making the wrong choice.
  2. Right and wrong is a privilege and relative to the status of the person exercising it.
  3. The poor can’t make the right choice because what is right is relative to ones status.
  4. There is no such thing as right or wrong.
  5. No one has any right to call out anyone’s choices even if they are clearly wrong morally, ethically and scientifically.

It also brings to mind the Paradox of Tolerance see below:

Clearly people who are pushing for this “respect and tolerance” argument has no idea about the history of Germany and China.

What is importantly more dangerous is how post-modernism and moral relativism pervaded the entire campaign of the Duterte administration as such it was also able to permeate the opposition.

I have very good reason to believe that this dangerous ideological and psychological approach by the Duterte admin is masterminded by China as it bears all the framework of radical leftist and Marxist ideologies.



Furthermore the opposition does not understand the danger of not having a principled stand and drawing the line between non-negotiables such as objective moral values, truth and virtues along with human rights by joining the narrative of romanticizing the poor or that of anyone who clearly commits something wrong and get away with it by virtue of status.

Nonetheless this statement by James Deakin deserves further scrutiny if it is true:

This is a huge problem of the country.

Because it empowers a more basic problem in our country’s history: A victim-hood mentality for the poor and a privileged mentality for the rich.

Luckily I wasn’t alone in the debate altogether:

Featured image from Bong Banal