What Should We Make of the Eating Alone Campaign?

Comments (10)
  1. Jason says:

    Excellent article written by Chettan. Perhaps the best I have seen on this topic so far.

  2. defennder says:

    Sorry for being the first critic of this article. I think you guys are taking a campaign which should be considered a joke too seriously. Is a defence such as that written above really necessary? The counter-campaign is nothing more than a humorous response. It doesn't deserve to be rebutted at all.

  3. Chetan says:

    Hey defennder,
    I see what you're saying but I don't think you're right. Why should the campaign be considered a joke if it concerns the happiness of those people who feel the pressure to not eat alone even though they want/have to? By running the campaign, the campaigners hope to alleviate the stress facing these people. Would you consider their distress at eating alone be considered a joke? If so, why? Please explain that to me.

    As for the counter-campaign, it certainly does seem like a humorous response, but when you read some of the comments by its creator on the facebook page, he seems serious. And even if it was just and nothing more than a humorous response, I'm still perfectly justified in critiquing it, simply because it attempts to downplay the importance and seriousness of the campaign its countering. This counter-campaign is designed to weaken the other, which the creator considers a stupid idea. My approach is no different from someone who critiques a humorous counter-campaign to one that rallies against bullying, or any other unjustified social pressure or stigma.

  4. Anon says:

    Everyone has the right to express their opinion and criticize what they think is obsolete. If someone sets up a campaign to vote for a particular presidential candidate, obviously the opposite party deserves a campaign of their own. You claim to be rallying against bullying. If criticism is bullying, I don't see why you have the right to criticize the counter-campaign and its supporters and followers as well.

    1. Chetan says:

      Hey Anon, I don't think you understood what I was saying in my reply correctly. I should have made it clearer in my comment, so my bad. I was saying that by criticising the counter-campaign which aims to challenge and trivialize the original 'Eating Alone in School' campaign, I am adopting a similar similar approach to someone who criticizes a counter-campaign which challenges and/or trivializes a campaign against bullying, or other such unjustified interpersonal actions. I was just trying to draw the parallel. So I don't understand why you're bringing in the example of campaign for presidential candidacy, and what it serves to show.

      Also, I did not say that I was rallying against bullying. I simply said that my approach is similar to that of someone who rallies against it. And why do you equate criticism with bullying? Why think that whenever we criticize someone, we are bullying them? That seems very odd. If I misunderstood you, please help me out on this.

  5. Jason says:

    "It is no secret that most Singaporeans, even NUS students, are highly apathetic."

    Couldn't agree more. This campaign best qualifies as "Campaigns we do not give a shit about" and joins up with "Meat-out Thursdays" as well as "Hug a stressed NUS student day".

    Still, it saddens me to see what kinds of campaigns NUS students come up with. Upon reading about the campaign, i can hear my mom sobbing in the kitchen every night and my dad starts drinking again. I tell my relatives that I come from SMU so as to reduce the embarrassment my family faces. I pray fervently that one day I may proudly call myself an NUS student, but then again I realised I dont have a God to pray to.

    But I suppose people who can't stand eating alone have a worse fate.

    1. Brezhnev says:

      took the words right out of my mouth

  6. RandomBeauty says:

    I detest the campaign because it further accentuates such stigma (via the urgency and campaign to ameliorate it). It has become counter-productive.
    Nobody said there was anything wrong to eat alone.
    The campaign reinforces the above assumption FIRST before it attempts to tackle the issue.

    1. Chetan says:

      I haven't seen people stigmatizing eating alone any more than before (which itself is in dispute). Not on the facebook page at least. From what I can gather, people seem to think that the whole campaign's objective is either pointless or that the campaigners are unnecessarily butting into people's private affairs. I don't think i've seen anyone saying something like, "man, eating alone is really bad, its ok and good to stare and denigrate those who wish to eat alone". You obviously very strongly think that people are. Where are you getting this idea from?

      The counter-campaign may seem like an attempt to accentuate stigma further, but if you read the creator's comments on the facebook page, he agrees that people should not be stigmatized for eating alone. So I don't understand how you can "detest" the campaign without any real evidence that it is indeed accentuating such stigma.

  7. fabrizzo says:

    i dont understand the meaning of this campaign.havnt heard it b4 too

Leave a Reply

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

Established in 2009, The Kent Ridge Common is the independent daily of the National University of Singapore. Writers comprise largely of current undergrads with select alumni contributing to the paper. Opinions expressed are of the writer's own. Please visit our disclaimer page for our terms and conditions.

Enter your email address to subscribe to the Kent RIdge Common and receive notifications of new posts by email.