[barrkel]

The "but" negates any disapproving effect it may have had, because structurally the latter part acts as a justification for tolerance.

"The tool is squeaky but it gets the job done" - you wouldn't expect the speaker to do anything about the squeaks. Squeaking is tolerable.

"The tool does the job but it's squeaky" - you would expect the speaker to do something about the squeaks. Doing the job isn't good enough.

Your comment is most easily read as not disapproving of authoritarian government when it is effective.

[exhaze]

Comments like this are part of the reason why people like Sam Altman stopped posting here. Can you just give the poster the benefit of the doubt that they just admire the efficiency of the Singaporean government, not that they're endorsing authoritarianism as long as it's effective?

[loup-vaillant]

Never acknowledge any quality of the Enemy. The Enemy is Bad, therefore it is also weak, stupid, lazy, cowardly… Because the risk of being perceived as praising the Enemy always trumps the consequences of underestimating it.

Not the best example of crowd wisdom.

[rfrey]

>Can you just give the poster the benefit of the doubt

Perhaps you should do the same for barrkel? I read your parent as a simple explanation to solveit why their comment may have been misconstrued by bsder -- a question solveit directly asked.

[solveit]

You're probably right. I just get frustrated when people insist on reading value judgments in literally everything. Sometimes the curtains are just blue, you know?