HJ's critical reflection | The most not lacking thing in the world

don't want to cut off

The relationship between people has a rich sense of hierarchy. In the face of every you, me and him, my principle has always been the kind of person who "will not cut off the relationship easily", as long as you and I are still " friends " .

For example, when I confessed to a girl for the first time in my life, I looked into his eyes and told him: I like you .

Soon after, it ended with me being shot. For fear of embarrassment, this girl cut off all contact with me after she made it clear, LINE, Facebook, Instagram.

A few of my friends agree with this girl's actions, but most of them, like me, feel that it seems a bit "too cruel", and there is no need to cut off all the possibility of continuation of the relationship .

Going far, what we are going to talk about today is " the most insufferable thing in this world. " What is it?
I think it's the perpetual misunderstandings , contradictions and conflicts .

It should be seen from the previous layout that I am a person who will not cut off relationships. The same logic is expressed on social platforms, that is, I will never actively block or delete friends.

Today, I want to share with you the stories of these "good intentions being deceived" that I have personally encountered or witnessed. First from 2018.

aftermath

I joined a debating club in college, eager to find more people with whom I could discuss public issues and make confidant friends. However, due to the formalized discussion brought about by competitive debate itself , it is too purposeful for me to resonate or agree with the debate.

However, the main cause of conflict and fragmentation, I think, was that I was not very social at the time. In September 2017, I joined this club after I went to university. After more than a year of running in, I met the referendum in November 2018.

Then, what happened? It's strife and conflict .

I am the only Christian in the community, the referendum is considered by the media as a showdown between " Christians and gays ", and I "absolutely disagree" with this. On the other hand, it is this dichotomy of binary opposition that causes misunderstandings and disputes.

Labeled as "false neutrality"

The referendum result was reported by the media as "a big victory for the conservatives", and it's the conflict factor hidden in the words, the emotional words between the lines that make us reluctant to understand each other, rejecting More dialogue, deeper understanding.

In addition, I hate that the word "conservative" is often misused. The word " conservative " is more suitable to express the position of these people . As for the difference, I will write another article to discuss it when I have time.

After the referendum, I posted on Facebook, "I don't think there will be a winner in the referendum. We are all victims in a society where conflicts and antagonisms continue to deepen ." As a result, two members and a gay friend , the response to me is to block and unfriend.

They think that my " failure to vote for the civil law " means " anti-gay " and " anti-human rights ". However, this overly violent identity proposition itself is of course problematic.

They left comments on my posts, labeling me "conservative," "disgusting," and "discriminatory." They were outraged and shouted for freedom and equal rights, but the next sentence would label those who seek understanding with the hypocritical label of "false neutrality".

As for gay friends? Just after I messaged him " I want to hear your thoughts ", the conversation stayed read. Check the message a day later and find that the friend has been unfriended.

Of course, after a while I quit the Debating Club. Today, nearly three years have passed, and these three people and I have not said a word during these more than 1,000 days. Like strangers, as if they had never known each other.

heterothermia in the stratosphere

Let’s stop the story of the 2018 referendum for the time being. Going back to today, I participated in the launch of the new book by Mr. Yao Jiawen, hosted by the Taiwan Association of Professors in early November. I have a clear political position of " normalizing the country ." Anyone who knows these NGOs or is often involved in social movements should know that this organization was founded by a group of scholars with a more independent stance.

Therefore, most of the time participating in these activities always brings me the feeling of "warming in the stratosphere", and in the past two or three years, every time I pay attention to public issues, the result always ends in disappointment, which makes me spend less and less on these things. above.

Furthermore, given that the political confrontation in Taiwanese society has become more and more serious in recent years, if participating in these activities is only a gathering of people with similar stances, it seems that there is no need for further in-depth contacts. Since it is impossible to bring about a dialogue in the heterosphere and promote people from different positions to better understand both sides , why should I still participate?

But, taking a step back, why don't these venues always lead to more dialogue? I saw the answer in one of the aunts at the meeting.

There are fewer and fewer activities that can attract me. This time I went to participate simply because of Yao Zizheng’s heavyweight status . He is a veteran of the Democratic Progressive Party. Compared with other leaders in the party who often appear in the media, he His acting style is relatively low-key, and his words are not suspected of being too extreme or reducing.

To put it more vernacularly, in the abnormal political arena, he is a normal person.

The content of the book takes the United Nations Resolution 2758 as the main point of discussion, criticizing Chiang Kai-shek for disregarding international visibility for his own political interests in Taiwan , and insisting on not accepting any other country names other than the name of "China" (Republic of China). Contains the possibility of being named "Taiwan".

How convincing Yao Zizheng's view is, that's another article to discuss. However, since it is a "stratospheric" gathering, people with different opinions write more uniquely.

In the question-and-answer session, there was a middle-aged man who spoke Chinese in a foreign accent (most of the participants spoke Taiwanese), and the content of his question to Yao Zizheng was quite different from that of the previous questioners. Most of the questions asked by the first few people were "under the premise of the same position" to discuss the direction of Taiwan's international status.

The question of this man surnamed Yang is based on the content of the book. I hope the participants can explain clearly what the "presupposition" in his discussion is (what he wants to say is actually " presupposition ", but the wording is not very precise. ), that is, he wanted to know what the central idea of those who supported this position (independence faction, Taiwan faction) was.

It's just that his way of questioning and the choice of words may seem a bit sharp to some elders.

Shortly after the host and Mr. Yao responded to Mr. Yang's question, an aunt who had a similar stance with most people raised her hand to speak, and directly tagged Mr. Yang as "Love China", "Chinese School", "Support the Kuomintang", Labels such as "China Common Passers-by".

Fortunately, the gentleman did not quarrel with the aunt, but just shook his head thoughtfully and sighed. ( I can fully understand why he sighed ) For me, although this aunt is close to mine, it is indeed a little too excited. I think the fact that a heterosphere is willing to come to other people's occasions is something to be encouraged in itself .

The most lacking in the world

The most notable thing in the world is misunderstanding and opposition, there are more conflicts and misunderstandings, and the most critical labeling . It must be the easiest and the most violent way to put a person on the discussion of a certain faction or a certain position.

It can clearly distinguish between you and me's different positions, distinguish each other's viewpoints, and let people know who is the enemy and who is the friend . As I mentioned in this post, the fact that people belong to an opinion is inherently " not very rational, " so do we need more opposition?

Because you are XXX (a party or a faction), it must be XXX.

Perhaps, what we need first is to see where each other's viewpoints come from , to face common problems , to let go of each other's antagonisms together, and to move towards a path to solve problems together.