The Atenean Voice: October 2017

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Email this to someone

“Do you think ADMU Rantbox promotes constructive discourse about issues concerning Ateneans?”

“Looking at it from a psychological point of view, not being able to express yourself personally is okay. However, if we are to take it from a social standpoint, it does not help at all. You don’t identify yourself or the person you are trying to correct. If we are to assume and live out the idea that we are a loving community, then it follows that if someone were to give you correction, it is done out of love. It should not be criticism for the sake of criticizing, like what the Rantbox appears to be. It doesn’t make you change, and it’s a bit unfair. If the purpose of a submission was to alleviate the person’s anger and later help them find the courage to make the correction themselves, then we have an ideal outlet in the form of the Rantbox. The idea is to give and listen to feedback. We have much to learn from one another, but that is part of community.”

Gary Faustino, MA, RPsy

Director, Office of Guidance Counseling


“I think ADMU Rantbox can prompt discourse, but I don’t agree that it’s always constructive since most replies to the posts seem to be reactions rather than actual relevant input. I find that most conversations that spur from the posts weren’t fully intended by the person who submitted them. When a person replies to a post, the anonymous submitter doesn’t always reply back, which is why I don’t think it’s really considered discourse. I feel like some people comment for the sake of commenting and not really to initiate conversation.”

Ticia Almazan



No. While Rantbox opens an avenue for the taboo, I do not believe it provides constructive discourse. The comments section is a minefield of evidence for this. While I understand what Rantbox aims to stand for, I do not believe it is seen through. For example, when complaining about, say, noise that an org created while they were having too much fun, passive aggressive replies of apologies were handed out as opposed to sincere ones. My professor once commented about Rantbox's discourse decorum in class as she took from her observations of the alumni who couldn't get a job and came off as elitist. While she agreed on said Atenean's sense of privilege, she asked us to check out how many people provided fair, unbiased, and clear judgement to his prose and to also count how many people actually decided to offer aid and understanding. While you'd be able to find a number, it does not hold a candle to the excited and heated remarks of ‘you're so entitled!’ and ‘check your privilege.’ So, no, I do not believe that Rantbox promotes constructive discourse. I believe the taboo topics that are opened in Rantbox reach more hostile eyes than constructive.

Marthella Claire Santos



“Though it allows [for] constructive discourse, ADMU Rantbox does not necessarily promote it due to the assurance and sense of security given by anonymity. The assurance of anonymity decreases the propensity of constructive discussions. This is further heightened by the namesake of the group being a ‘rantbox’ - a collection of rants that does not necessarily produce healthy and constructive engagements.”

Cymon Kayle Lubangco



“No. Because constructive discourse is, more often than not, hindered by the anonymity of the posts. There’s no accountability and responsibility for whatever opinions are shared. There’s constructive discourse, however, in the comments section, not because of the anonymous post, but because of the need to respond to problematic posts.”

Albert John Reyes



“Notice how the popular posts are controversial and negative. These will also incite others to submit posts that are just as controversial, and just as negative. The anonymity doesn't help either. Information is spread fast, so things are easily blown out of proportion. While it can help in raising issues among the community, and the comments section can often be decent, it still encourages the students to send things without thinking of consequences.”

Djay Endona



“It depends on the situation, I think. I remember a post on the Rantbox about someone who voted for Duterte and how he knew that the killings were gonna happen but ended with the statement, "hassle overpopulation" or something along the lines of that. In the comments section a lot of people offered rebuttals but being in the minority, close to no one supported what the OP said. However, there was a post regarding mental health and likewise in the comment section, a lot of people were willing to help.”

Michael Hans Aracid



“Some [posts] do, some don't. Iba-iba lahat, eh. Others rant about genuine complex problems in the Ateneo, and some just complain about petty things like the cats in Ateneo or not being able to get a job.”

Gabriel Cornelio Fajardo



“I would say that ADMU Rantbox does not promote constructive discourse about issues concerning Ateneans because of how it is set up. The opinion posted is anonymous—people who want to add to the discussion, however, are not anonymous. I think this unequal anonymity does not foster a constructive discourse, but rather leads to people taking the anonymous opinions as mere confessions. It does not feel like genuine discourse if you are trying to converse with an anonymous correspondent [sic]. The issues are important, but I think people do not choose to speak up because they are not protected by a wall of anonymity (and the prevalence of doxxing, ad hominems, etc.).

In short, having the Rantbox feels like it is just a glass box where people can see what other people think about it. Whether or not they choose to engage in discussion about these topics remains to be seen because people put their own opinions against that of nameless strangers.”

Caleb Catalan



I think Rantbox doesn’t do much to help people if they’re ranting on a personal level because the way I see it, it’s always better for people to solve conflict face to face. But for more social issues I could see Rantbox's potential for influence.

Casey Lumagbas



“I think that ADMU Rantbox has the capacity to promote constructive discourse in the sense that a post can evoke a response wherein the opinions of another person is respected and taken into account. On the other hand, it can also elicit hate and misunderstandings since a lot of people post their rants (hence the name Rantbox) and their unpopular opinions. With stricter guidelines and rules about the content of the posts, ADMU Rantbox can become an avenue and medium of constructive and intellectual discussions.”

Jose Tecson



“I think that ADMU Rantbox does promote constructive discourse. I believe that to let discourse happen, one must subject his or her thoughts to the general public to provoke more thoughts on what was posted and not the poster, and the Rantbox allows this to take place without any ad hominem attacks (you can't attack someone you don't know).

John Montecillo


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *