The Joke Behind Discrimination

In the recent election for the president of the student union of the National Taiwan University Department of Economics, there was a serious incident of discrimination. The two candidates quickly apologized, but apparently no one bought it.

In particular, "the size of the joke is not appropriate", "unnecessary harm", and "consider the consequences before speaking", it seems that the speech itself is permissible, but the occasion is not right.

In fact, in high school or university elections, this kind of crooked political opinion has been practiced for many years, and it is often retweeted and liked. Find real ghosts", "Cadres need to be proficient in fire magic or meteorite magic".

I guess the original intention of these two is to imitate the trend, but there are too many red lines.

Maybe they still feel that it is unlucky that others' crooked political views are collectively applauded, but their own crooked political views are publicized, almost to the point of social death, and a joke turns into a life-threatening one.

It's definitely possible. Because according to my experience, many students' understanding of "freedom of speech" is:

Except for serious hatred, any speech is tolerated, but it must depend on the occasion, otherwise there will be unintended harm (to others) or punishment (to oneself).

So, when they are accused of discrimination, and the speakers themselves don't think it has anything to do with hatred, their intuitive reaction is:

Just kidding, why are you so serious.

Because of this, emphasizing the level of punishment makes it difficult to truly reject the theory of jokes. Those involved will use rhetoric such as inappropriate occasions and excessive levels to ease the past, and are less likely to reflect on the discrimination itself.

In particular, as far as my own experience is concerned, this kind of potential jokers probably account for a certain proportion, it's just that they have not exploded.

So from a teaching point of view, it is worth thinking about whether we just need to tell students that if you step on the red line in some things, the club will die. Or try to use some intermediary concepts to say that discrimination is morally unacceptable, rather than tolerable in certain situations.

To put it bluntly, "discrimination is not a joke" requires a more salient reason.

One way is to point out the taboo: Historically, such speech has led directly to incidents of hatred and conflict, so it is considered taboo not to be laughed at, no matter how well-meaning you are. In my own opinion, the cognitive effect of taboo theory is not bad, but the meaning of dogma will be heavier.

In the case of elections, it can also emphasize that the elected will hold more power than the average person, and therefore their statements should be more carefully scrutinized. This is in line with the thinking of "greater power comes greater responsibility", and many similar cases can be found, which is more conducive to subsequent discussions.

But it is a bit regretful that the crooked politics prevailing recently, as well as all kinds of "jokes" in and out of the red line, have largely eroded the fact that "the election will be magnified and tested", and even made running for the election a good channel for being famous for being funny.

There is an allusion in the Han Dynasty, which is called "the one who kills the emperor and horses by the side of the road": because the villagers who watched the excitement continued to applaud, the riders whipped repeatedly, and finally the horse fell to the ground halfway and died. An old man next to him said that the horse was killed by those cheering people.

At this stage, I will not say that crooked political views should be expressly prohibited. At least as far as this incident is concerned, I think the responsibility is mainly on the two candidates, or those who have contributed to such discriminatory remarks.

But crooked politics seems to be discussed. In particular, realpolitik seems to be beginning to have this tendency.