20200320 Discuss the results of Li Wenliang's investigation team

Record some confusion and analysis.

The Li Wenliang investigation team dispatched by the State Supervisory Commission released the investigation results today, and the person in charge answered reporters' questions. The contents of the two articles are detailed and rigorous, and they are very pertinent. The actions and experiences of Dr. Li Wenliang do not effectively reflect the loftiness bestowed on him by the cross-cooperation of people of insight, the general public, and hostile forces. But Dr. Li has long been symbolized, and the political issues raised by his discussions are real. If you insist on discussing matters too narrowly and avoid talking about larger political issues, you are hiding your ears. There is some tone on political issues in the two manuscripts, but not much.

With my limited access to information, I saw a lot of dissatisfied voices in the wall with this result. Everyone's negative comments and emotions are different. In my opinion, it can be roughly classified into two levels: 1) speech control should be loosened. The response to the epidemic has been delayed due to speech control. If it is loosened, it can be mobilized earlier and at a lower cost; 2) people who oppress the people The regime should be overthrown, and water can carry a boat and capsize it. The results of this investigation, which is evasive, only proves that the boat should have been capsized long ago. However, it is the sadness and misfortune of the people that the evil government can continue to oppress the people.

The latter emotion is far more intense and decisive. In my judgment, Chinese society today is not at the level where it needs to capsize. Under the current circumstances, capsizing the boat does far more harm than good for the people themselves. Of course, it is entirely possible that my judgment is due to the fact that I have seen too little darkness and injustice—it may indeed be the time to overthrow it. I feel inconclusive. Let it go.

Let's talk about the former level: the control of speech should be loosened, and now it is too much. I agree with this judgment, it is indeed too much. The current level of control may be having the opposite effect of maintaining stability and becoming more unstable, deviating from the original intention.

But I don't think it's a good idea to completely let go of the dogma's claim to freedom of speech. As powerful as the United States, its elections need to worry about Russian interference in the election. China, with a per capita GDP of only about 10,000 US dollars, is completely liberalized and may only be left for Americans to manipulate at will. Judging from the current situation, speech control is necessary to ensure autonomy and stability. It would be more ideal if more detailed regulations could be achieved. Of course, it is also possible that with the "fragile" system of one-party autocracy, refined and moderate speech control cannot be achieved. Or, for groups of more than 1.4 billion, with the current level of human productivity, their ability to self-organize cannot be achieved.

The following describes some arguments against the complete liberalization of free speech. Or it can be seen as washing the ground for the CCP.

In the past week or two, the epidemic has spread in European and American countries. What amazes me is that European countries and the United States are not doing well. Since January, the WHO has repeatedly warned the international community that the epidemic must be actively dealt with, and its words are heavier each time; China, especially Wuhan, has also exposed various deadly problems. Yet the U.S. still waited until this week to fully mobilize. In the past one or two months, in addition to taking the lead in blocking flights to and from China, even the test kits have been in a state of low supply and high rejection rate. Must be able to aggressively and extensively detect. Of course, the United States and Europe are much more secure now that they are mobilized. After all, they are the most developed group of countries.

In January and February, I was still immersed in the myth that "the repressed political environment in China is the biggest factor in the uncontrollable outbreak of the epidemic." Europe and the United States, with free speech and affluent societies, must have open, transparent, efficient and perfect ways to deal with them. It was later discovered that this was not the case in reality. For example, the CDC in the United States even presents a more chaotic and powerless appearance; Trump has been full of promises from the beginning, and gradually realized that the problem is serious, which is also incredible, and so on. Such a comparison can at least show that if the early situation in Wuhan was placed in European and American countries, it may not be able to do better. Moreover, Europe and the United States have observed that the disease is one or two months ahead of China's, and we can already see the pit that China has stepped on. The power of this virus may exceed the current average level of human social governance.

As for the excellent epidemic prevention results of Taiwan and Hong Kong, the early attention of the government and the public is of course the decisive factor. But there is also an element of great luck. Because the society of these two places is just in the process of rising tide of hatred. Usually you have to guard against thieves, and you will naturally have to max out your force when something goes wrong. Blind hatred is very anti-intellectual and short-sighted, insisting that "Wuhan pneumonia" also shows the narrowness and stupidity of the mainstream voices in the two places, but it is not a blessing. In the endless hatred between Taiwan and Hong Kong, it also shows from one side that under the so-called full freedom, the news and the public can also be mentally retarded and political populism.

Think of this first today.

Attached:

Circular on the investigation of Dr. Li Wenliang's situation reported by the masses

The person in charge of the investigation team of the State Supervisory Commission answers reporters' questions