There have been two hot spots recently, let’s start with the first.
The Chengdu epidemic.
The biggest hotspot of the Chengdu epidemic is not the epidemic itself, but the trajectory of a young girl’s life.
Some friends have already discovered a very bad situation, which is the leakage of personal privacy.
In addition to pointing fingers at the little girl’s life, there have been a number of public posts condemning the immorality of the people eating the melons.
What I want to say is, while condemning the immoral melon eaters, can we think of another question: who is the biggest responsible for the privacy leak?
Is it the gossips who look at the track map, the girl’s identity, her age and occupation, or is it “some subject” who publishes this information?
What is the purpose of releasing personal information if the trajectory is necessary for epidemic prevention?
If the only published information is a risk area map with time and location, and the average person eating the melon has no idea how many people are on the track, nor does he or she know who the TA is, his or her age, gender, or occupation, can the melon still be eaten?
Is it reasonable to assign all responsibility to the “personal qualities or morals of the general public”?
Is there a more structural, systemic problem behind all of this?
Who created the problem?
Don’t ignore the elephant in the room when you’re pecking at each other over the moral haggling over ants – I get it, it’s easy to get trampled by an elephant in an open discussion. But at least it should be clear in your mind, and at least your friends can talk about what that elephant did when they’re having dinner together.
2.
We also discuss hot spots at our family dinner.
Today’s lunch.
My dad: The People’s Daily published the story, and the bar girl apologized.
Me: Why should she apologize, what apology? Does she know she is infected?
My dad: Look at that track, she’s so crazy.
Me: No apology for saying the domestic environment is virus-free? Is there any apology for holding a ceremony to honor the success of the epidemic?
My mom: Gee, it’s okay for her to feel embarrassed and apologize.
Me: No! There is no need to apologize for such things.
(There are three different spectrums in our house.)
To be reasonable, the infected are also victims, and are running around believing in their country’s success in fighting the epidemic. She didn’t invent the virus, and she didn’t issue a document calling for the opening of entertainment venues, so where is the need for an “apology”?
The trajectory of her running around reflects only one fact.
Female, 20 years old, no college, most likely no health insurance, no social security, small town girl’s trajectory to make ends meet – three to four bars a day, dawn to dusk. Taking a cab across town constantly.
There is a story of town, a story of age, and a story of gender.
Honestly, she’s more motivated than I am, and she works harder than I do. She’ll go back to her grandparents for dinner on weekends.
What exactly is the apology?
Incidentally, the nighttime temperature in Chengdu is around 4°. Not every cab is air-conditioned.
3.
Someone does need to apologize.
Another recent hot topic (which is not so hot anymore): a girl committed suicide by walking into a river under the watchful eyes of a group of policemen.
CCTV says: saving lives cannot be done at the expense of others.
This is a very typical pseudo-dilemma fallacy and slippery slope fallacy. If this logic were true, the police profession would not even exist. Not only police officers, but also infectious disease doctors, firefighters, all of them could be eliminated. All risky professions, including aerial construction workers, would be eliminated.
It’s not a “save one, die one” choice. “Certain sacrifice”. The CCTV statement is cherry-picking.
There’s no way of knowing whether there’s even a single swimmer in a large group of police officers. After all, investigative journalism is an archaic profession. I can’t say whether swimming should or should not be taught in the police academy when it comes to physical training.
But the basic fact is that the girl’s slow suicide and the police officer’s nonchalant bobbing on the shore were not as quick as two members of the general public taking off their clothes and getting into the water.
I thought that in our culture it was a derogatory term to not save a life.
When a police officer sees someone die in front of him or her, should he or she feel remorse and remorse?
However, it is clear that the public is looking at this incident from a completely different angle than the previous one.
We are thunderingly angry, unavoidably watching a little girl who doesn’t know she has a disease and is struggling to make a living, and occasionally a little bit of the public occupies the moral high ground to lightly make a little appeal that can’t explode on the net (but ignores the source of the leak of her personal information).
On the other hand, for another group of people who are not saved by death, at least not in terms of professional ethics and professional requirements, the demands are much milder. They were never sternly asked to apologize in the nation’s largest media.
Even the biggest media outlets are doing everything they can to help exonerate them.
4.
A man walks slowly into the river, and a dozen or so police officers slowly surround him. We (not including me) say, “A cop’s life is also a life.
We (again, not including me) said: positive energy.
I haven’t seen any official media saying that it’s unsafe to rush under the flagpole during a thunderstorm, or that elementary school students shouldn’t get themselves soaked in the rain. People’s Daily’s comment is: we are all flag guardians.
So, my insidiously sinister question is.
What if the flag sinks slowly into the river with a dozen or so police officers watching? To fish or not to fish?
Recent Comments