Follow-up to "Things More Important than "Reflections on Simplified Chinese Writing"

In "Things More Important Than "Reflections on Simplified Chinese Writing", a friend named HsuKeFeng wrote a long article to refute my article. One of the things that inspires me is this sentence:

Language may not be able to be compared with words one by one, there are countless examples of this

It's true that languages don't necessarily correspond one-to-one with words, but I think this is the case only for marginalized dialects, not Simplified Chinese. But I saw this paragraph yesterday, and I suddenly realized that my thinking was a bit one-sided:

New York is an extremely complex city, and it is imperative to make appropriate adjustments in the face of an unprecedented global epidemic. New York is again a high-speed, sophisticated machine, and any change is prone to unpredictable ripples—some people see it as a small episode in their lives, while for others it is a devastating blow that completely changes the trajectory of their lives. The United States has given individuals great freedom, and this freedom will inevitably need to be restricted under the epidemic, and the relationship between the government and its citizens has also been re-examined. These are the civic lessons I, an ordinary citizen, have learned during the epidemic.

This really provided a counterexample to the articles I wrote, and gave me a strong sense of writing for the college entrance examination. Is this the norm in domestic writing? Since I don't read books by mainland original authors, I have a question. Does it need to be reflected? Of course it is needed.

But my cognition has never changed, my cognition has always been - as this JinlyWong friend said :

Without reviewing the language, it only changes the use of traditional or simplified characters, but cannot change the expression habits, and the change of language requires more vigilance than the form itself.

And I never thought that if "it just changed the use of traditional or simplified Chinese characters", it would be like "I managed to escape the Baguwen, but I used another kind of "Baguwen"".

In addition, another friend, my name is Xiaodaoxia , wrote an article that mentioned:

In my opinion, words are just tools. They are like swords in your hands. Whether they are used to cut vegetables or fruits, kill people or save people, it is not because it is a sword, but because it is a sword. Because of you and me who hold this sword.

I do not agree, my reply is as follows:

not agree.

Even though I think "reflecting language is more important than reflecting on words", "it's just a tool" is another one-sided statement. The so-called "just a tool" argument ignores the theory that "tools shape people", if you realize that the invention of the clock has changed the way modern society operates and people, or realize that things like "WeChat" " Tools like DingTalk are the exploitation of workers by capital power, and you should agree with this view.

You can read books related to media theory, such as McLuhan's book, and the very classic "Entertainment to Death" (maybe many people recognize this book because there is a point of view that "the public is not thinking." capable”, but that is precisely the least important point).