One day's experience lurking in Clubhouse's cross-strait exchange room

I heard that the app clubhouse is very popular recently, so I joined in the fun and stayed in the cross-strait exchange room for a while. I admit, it would have been nice to use this software to have open-ended discussions. So, next, I will try my best to put away my instinct of trying to express "reasonable people" because I am afraid of being misunderstood and sprayed, and write my thoughts on the latent experience of this short day according to my intuitive feeling.

In a voice communication method like clubhouse, people try to put away impolite expressions and instead express their true thoughts in a more euphemistic manner, or criticize opinions they disagree with out of politeness and painlessness. There are good and bad in this way. The advantage is that this kind of communication will not cause the two sides to quarrel, it is not easy to "collapse", and it is easy to continue. And the shortcomings are also obvious. Everyone has to tolerate some people occupying everyone's time to speak, and to express some opinions that appear repeatedly on other social platforms. However, we cannot predict the quality of the next person's speech.

I don't want to comment too much on the remarks made by friends from Hong Kong and Taiwan. I don't like to "play fifty big boards each" in order to build the so-called neutrality, and finally stir up a pile of paste. So allow me to be more disciplined - focus on what the speakers in mainland China have said.

Most of the Chinese people in this discussion are people with overseas backgrounds. Although it is an "elite mode" that can only be entered with an invitation code, there are still many overseas people who have spoken out about the "self-going five". There are no different remarks; on the contrary, some people who have no overseas experience have recounted or moved personal experiences, or provided additional information on the actual situation at the grassroots level in China today. Compared with the former, I think the latter is more I want to listen to, because they are more "true".

What amazes me the most is that almost all the pro-Chinese government speakers rarely talk about the actual situation in China and make so-called constructive speeches, nor do they have new perspectives to put forward theoretically, and more It is a party-state-style dialectical criticism of these two big words - "freedom" and "democracy", and some plausible empty routines . Moreover, the proportion of such people among speakers in mainland China is inaccurately estimated to be about one-third.

Next, I pay the highest respects to all the speakers and allow me to be self-righteous and arrogant to turn the clichéd and repetitive remarks of mild politeness into a "familiar flavor."

Note: The following is a list of some of the speeches I remember. The quoted part is the speaker's point of view, and the non-quoted part below is my opinion and impression.

· Unthinking denialists

"Democracy and freedom are rotten , so they must be good?"

If you thought he was discussing political philosophy propositions with you, then I think you misunderstood him. He simply wanted to use the disorder and chaos of freedom without presuppositions to prove that "the people do not need freedom" .

· "There are many kinds of freedom!"

"You have freedom of speech, and I have the freedom to go out in the middle of the night without fear. I think the latter is more important."

So, does having freedom of speech make you afraid to go out in the middle of the night?

· The world is as black as crows

"Weibo deleted the post, then Twitter also deleted the post!"

Ask yourself, are Weibo’s reasons for deleting posts and Twitter’s reasons for deleting posts and the power behind it the same? Are the scales the same? Is the degree the same? Is there the same amount of "false news" that defines a true situation? Will you be called to "drink tea" by Twitter? Isn't a mere comparison without context and premise and degree a hooligan?

· Tears welling up in the eyes of the victims of humiliation

"We have a common historical memory of being colonized, plundered and invaded. The last thing we can't accept is a government that is weak and unacceptable, and we absolutely cannot accept the division of territories!"

Read a lot of history, read a lot of history from different sources, and you'll find a lot of official history contradicting itself. If you don't look at China's past beyond the humiliating modern history of the official narrative, you will always be an arrogant and mentally incompetent victim of humiliation—righteous indignation, blood boiling, and tears will be your norm.

· My Qing Dynasty has its own national conditions here

"There is no concept of democracy and freedom in Chinese history, so democracy and freedom cannot and do not have to be realized in China."

"It's always been like this, right?" - Lu Xun

· Chinese people are not suitable for democracy, Chinese people are suitable for dictatorship

"Taiwan can say that democracy is good, and mainland China can also say that dictatorship is good. It's fine for each to go his own way. There is only one more suitable. There is no good or bad."

If China is suitable for dictatorship, and there is no difference between the system, what do you think about amending the constitution and replacing the democracy in the "socialist core values" with loyalty to the leader?

· Demand others with the standard of a saint and demand yourself with the standard of a rogue

"You must also see your shortcomings, and you must also see the advantages of our Chinese model."

Well, by the way, should I say this myself?

· Development of omnipotentists

"We must look at problems from the perspective of development. Development is the last word. Many problems can be solved naturally with development. After all, the economic foundation determines the superstructure!"

If you think that the wheel of history will move forward automatically, that there is a set track, and many problems will be solved slowly as long as you go on, can the problems arising from development itself be solved through further development? Don't forget that the "superstructure" will also have a reaction force. Problems do not resolve automatically, and spontaneous order does not mean that it will automatically become better without any effort.

· Patience with the government

"Give the government time and I'm sure they'll get it right."

If you want to give it a time limit, is it 10,000 years?

To quote a familiar phrase: " Without a broom, the dust doesn't run away on its own as usual ."

· Refuse to communicate

"Take care of yourself!"

You are speaking to individual citizens, do you want me not to talk about state affairs? Or tell the Taiwanese on the other side not to point fingers at China's system?

· "proceed if you can!"

"Discussing China's bad every day, what have you done to make China better, what can you do?"

Everyone in the room is talking about the act itself, isn't it doing something to change China? At least I think that every article I write can cause even one person to reflect a little bit, doesn't it play a role in making China better? Ordinary people have ordinary people's efforts to do what they can.

· Democracy premature

"China is still very backward. There are still 600 million people whose monthly income is less than 1,000 yuan. It has not yet reached the stage of pursuing democracy."

Democracy is all about learning by doing. You can’t say that you won’t start if you don’t have the conditions. There is a saying that goes well—“Don’t be afraid of being slow, but be afraid of standing”. Now you not only stand still, but also run backwards... ·Don't tell me it's for a run-up.

"What's the use of democracy at the bottom of society?!"

"Have you ever made a green leather train? Do you know what the people at the bottom want?"

Such people often feel that they know the people at the bottom very well, they fully represent the people at the bottom, and they imagine the so-called people at the bottom as a whole without seeing them as individuals with different ideas and demands. Isn’t this kind of arrogance to take it for granted that the people at the bottom don’t care about other needs except the improvement of material life?

· When it comes to Western fake news, it must be called BBC, and when it comes to dictatorship, it must be called Singapore

"There is also fake news in Western reports, and they all choose to report poorly on China, such as blablabla led by the BBC..."

"Singapore is also a dictatorship, but Singapore is doing very well."

I can probably know what he wants to say with such a mouth. It is estimated that he has read too much at the Global Times and the propaganda agency of the Central Committee of the Communist Youth League. I choose to give up

By the way, Singapore has an opposition party, and people also have the rule of law. But do we have it?

Habitually raise the pass line for democracy to 100

"I admit that democracy sounds great, but does democracy bring prosperity? Democracy has a lot of problems!"

Democracy does not necessarily promise material prosperity, it is just a benefit distribution mechanism that can give dignity to most people. How well this distribution mechanism works will determine the development direction of the country.

We don't need a mythical democracy, and then set a super high passing threshold for democracy, as if even if you fail the test with a score of 99, it is not as good as a dictatorship. Just like you can't say, anyway, if we don't get 100 points in the test, we should just skip the test.

-------------------------------------------------- -------------------------

Why Disapprove of Communication With These Viewpoints

I am not writing these remarks to deny the value of the exchange itself, nor to attack and belittle friends who hold these views. I just want to say that these remarks seem to be produced on an assembly line. They are just opinions derived from the official discourse system. These remarks can neither solve the problem nor create a collision of ideas. They are only official propaganda narratives. It's just repeated over and over again.

When these views appear repeatedly in conversations with friends from Hong Kong and Taiwan, it will only wear down the patience of the other party, and will not produce effective communication, because it does not produce any effective information, and the only effect may be to let the other party understand the original There are so many Chinese who think that way and feel more unable to communicate, that's all.

In the end, those who hold these official views will still think that the world is looking at China through colored glasses, and they do not understand China. Only when China is stronger can it gain the right to speak in the world. In the end, a "speaking power trap" that integrates anger, arrogance and stubbornness is formed - thinking that everything is caused by insufficient voice, and eventually loses the patience to listen to different viewpoints.

Problems that may be solved by reading

Some people may say, is there a way to break this deadlock? My answer is simple: read a good book, understand the basic concepts, and discuss it after you have a foundation for the discussion.

From past observations, I found that most Chinese people do not have a basic understanding of the modern state. That is to say, they have accepted this set of arguments against the modern state without understanding the composition of the modern state. Their opposition is not rooted in reflection on modernity issues, but accepted without hesitation. The official narrative method of Global Times and Observer.com, etc.

It is true that the modern state and modern ideas do come from the West, but this does not mean that the theory of the modern state is only applicable to the West. First of all, this misunderstanding must be put aside. You cannot take it for granted that what is in the West must not apply to China . Even if you are determined to be against the West, you should first understand what the basic logic of the so-called Western countries is. Secondly, one of the most important features of a modern country is the constitution. However, constitutional texts are not enough. The most important thing is constitutional government. Therefore , only by understanding what constitutionalism is can we understand and clarify some principled issues . For example, concepts such as "democracy", "human rights", and "freedom of speech" that have repeatedly appeared in discussions actually belong to the category of constitutional law.

When I was sorting out and summarizing the various arguments mentioned in this article, I suddenly realized that this "Principles of Constitutionalism" by law professor Zhang Qianfan can respond well to the above arguments. If you are fortunate enough to have friends who hold the above viewpoints and see my article, I sincerely recommend reading this book.

The reasons for recommending this book are as follows.

First, this book systematically expounds the commonalities of a modern state construction —such as "democracy", "rule of law", "rights", etc., and systematically expounds the meaning of these "big words" and their differences practice in reality.

Second, although this book cites many examples of constitutional countries, it does not ignore the situation in China. It also cites many examples of China to let us know what China should be like if it is implemented according to the Chinese constitution . Moreover, through the analysis of past cases in China, I also know whether the rule of law in China has progressed or regressed.

Third, they have a strong awareness of problems, and their answers to questions of principle are unambiguous, and they are free from the shackles of "the party leads everything" . For example, at the beginning, it explained "why should not suppress freedom of speech", "the limits of freedom of speech" and other issues, suitable for ordinary people who are aware of problems to learn.

Fourth, the discussion structure of the book is very speculative and critical thinking. This book not only narrates the author's own point of view, but uses a " argument-rebuttal-response " method to take our readers to "fight each other", to understand the essence of the problem more thoroughly, and let us know The various fallacies we encounter in our lives and let us understand where the various fallacies go wrong.

By the way, this book seems to have been discontinued a few years ago, but it is still available on the market. But maybe it's because it won't be published in the future? Prices vary, there are cheap ones, and there are hundreds of them. Pick the cheapest one and buy it. Regardless of your political leanings, hopefully this book will help improve the quality of the discussion.

at last

Although I know that the app Clubhouse will be taken off the shelves in China soon if there is no accident, but taking advantage of this gap, domestic friends should communicate as much as possible under the premise of paying attention to safety. Although I have said so many critical words, I still feel that there is no communication, and only hatred and prejudice against a group is the worst result.