Dialogue with Shudong Users: The Public Discussion of Anonymous Platforms Imagined by Shudong (Part 2) | Around the Furnace·CUHK

In September last year, the WeChat applet "Ma Liushui bb machine" (ie "Tree Hole"), run by students of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, was launched, and it has become a real-time discussion community and information exchange platform widely used by mainland students. The tree hole applet adopts the form of "anonymity in the foreground and real name in the background", and users can choose to display their own nicknames or hide their nicknames when publishing content. Shudong has a wide range of topics, including sharing daily moods, discussing social current affairs, evaluating course information, and more. But in addition to daily discussions, hanging people in tree holes, rumors, debates about social events, etc. also often cause public turmoil. This article interviews a victim of the Internet storm in a tree hole, Zeng Shudong Da V, who chose to fade out of the tree hole, and a news communication student who has completed the use of tree holes, focusing on the experience of using tree holes from different perspectives and views on various tree-hole-related phenomena, by which the tree-hole imagines the possibility of public discussion on an anonymous platform.

1

Tree Holes and Hanging People

Vinyl | So what do you think of the various behaviors of hanging people and scumbags in tree holes?

Ke brother | I think it is not very reasonable. It confuses the space of the private domain and the public domain, and puts a personal matter - whether it is his moral character or his academic problems, in a public domain. platform for discussion. In my opinion, this kind of behavior is similar to paparazzi taking photos of entertainers and discussing them on the Internet, because it exposes the artists' private lives. And a student is just an ordinary person, and you are even less qualified to put his personal life on the Internet and leave it to everyone to make moral judgments.

One of my interviewees (who was hanged in the tree hole) said: He thinks that many people not only scold him or judge him, but also use this kind of behavior as a ticket to socialize, not to criticize him anymore The man himself. This is also one of the reasons why I don't agree with the tree hole hanging people. After people hang people, they usually ignore the person himself, and only use him as a label and a talk, ignoring his right to privacy as a person. and the right to be protected, or his right to express his emotions, etc. So I think the act of hanging people is actually a deprivation of human rights.

In fact, I think this is the cancel culture of our society. Everyone should have the right to be forgiven, but in reality, when a person does something wrong, he is in a state of being canceled and exiled in this society. At the same time, whether its wrong size is really worth being raised to a canceled state should also be considered.

Xie Bao | I think when we "hang" a person, we always think that he is bad, wrong, or that he has had a bad influence on me. We always want to promote this sense of justice. But in fact, there are many things that cannot be said to be right or wrong. Maybe you and I have different values and you scold me. This is wrong. I don't think people have the right to comment on other people's private lives, and in fact, many times when we comment on other people's private affairs, we basically do not comment with much fanfare. If there were no tree holes, we would definitely not be able to shout on the street with a loudspeaker, who is not good, but in fact, the consequences of tree holes are actually equivalent to shouting on the street with a loudspeaker.

But I am conflicted about this issue, because I feel that every time I encounter an unfair event or a bad person, my simple thought is to hang him up and let him die socially. But I also think about whether it is right or wrong to hang someone, do I have the right to hang him, and can I expose his privacy?

Dolphin | I think the initial motive for hanging a person in most cases is a simple and righteous morality. There may be two considerations for disclosing these things. The first is that I want this person to do to him. He has to pay a certain price for his behavior, and he must be punished for his behavior; secondly, I think this kind of incident has some kind of external influence, and when I disclose these incidents, I tacitly accept that this incident will cause harm to people who do similar things. The same punishment, warning them not to engage in similar behavior in the future.

In fact, there are several different situations in this question. One is to publicly evaluate the appearance and stature of classmates. I think this can be directly concluded, but it is not allowed and improper. The scumbag is actually more of a pan-moral consideration. I hope that more people will criticize the scumbag and enjoy the thrill of such a moral judgment. At the same time, the scumbag may also want to apply a kind of symbolic violence, standing in the virtual space. Criticize others on the moral high ground to satisfy one's own power that is not available in real life. At the same time, I think that some people release malice in the virtual space, which is a kind of hostility and existential anxiety, and his own frustration needs to be vented through a channel.

In addition, the tree hole has a group function. Although you, as an individual, do not have an original group in this space, you can form such a group through similar viewpoints, and then criticize others through such a group. After forming such a group, your risk is actually transferred, from individual criticism to group criticism. Many times when you are in such a group, you will think that the interests you represent are the interests of the group, and your own behavior will be de-responsible, because such responsibility is the responsibility of the group. Therefore, these anonymous users will be more inclined to take risks with the resources of the group, enjoying the pleasure and transferring the risks, which will lead to a lot of extreme remarks. The behavior of scumbags reflects this feature.

But the definition of the so-called "scumbag" is very vague, and this vagueness will lead to the continuous expansion and generalization of power. Defining the power of others is another thing worth discussing. Who has the right to define it? By what definition? What kind of moral framework are we placing it under, and is this moral framework itself debatable?

I think the difference between hanging people in the tree hole and the circle of friends is that hanging people in the circle of friends will emphasize a center weight, the first is a real-name state, and the second is a center-to-center state, which may not necessarily be equal to this center, But it at least exists in this state, and hanging a person in a tree hole is completely asymmetrical, and there is no need to bear the risk caused by the behavior.

Ke Ge|But in fact, I don't think the act of hanging people in the circle of friends is justified. It is to publish your behavior in a certain place for everyone to see. Hanging people is equivalent to posting a big-character poster.

Once a person is given this power to post big-character posters, it will flood. It's like I may think a person is a scumbag now, and I have real evidence to prove that he is a scumbag, and then I hang him. But will this kind of power gradually be derived, I think this person seems to want to slander me, seems to be a scumbag, I hang him out for prevention? In the next step, it will continue to evolve into that I see a person unhappy, there is no reason, I just see him unhappy, so I say he is a scumbag and hang him up. Once such power is possessed, there is a risk of being continuously expanded, and at the same time, this is a difficult thing to prove to oneself, just like when someone says that you are a scumbag, it is difficult for me to prove it, no matter what it is Whether it is an unfounded crime or not, it is very difficult to testify against oneself.

So he's actually putting the pressure on the accused party, but the beginning itself is wrong. So I think that hanging people is actually a power that should not have a legitimate meaning of existence.

Vinyl | We have just discussed the issue of hanging people, then let's talk about the personal attacks, rumors and online violence that are likely to be caused by hanging people. Doudou can give you a brief overview, what kind of attacks did you receive from the cyberbullying at the time, and how different public opinions affected you?

Dolphin | After I prepared my presentation all night that day, when I returned to the dormitory, I saw a tree hole. It was a new member of our club asking how to quit our club. There were also Soviet jokes that mocked our club. I was sad, so I cried in the dormitory. When I was tired from crying, I went to the online class and then went to sleep.

I woke up the next morning and found that I had received more than 200 messages on my phone, dozens of people sent me messages, and one was the handover group of our club. Shudong, only to realize that something is not right, but at that time I didn't think that the object of the Internet violence was me.

I just scrolled down, the whole theme of those tree holes was around the P (President) of a certain club, talking about her private morality, roughly that she forced the club’s officer away and went to fourth base (sexy). experience), and having sex with my current boyfriend in the living room next door to my ex-boyfriend, only to look down and realize that he was talking about me. At that time, my whole mind was blank. Those tree holes included but not limited to exposing my personal privacy and professional information, and many people said things like begging melons and putting my ears away. There are also people who support me, saying that I hope you will not be affected by these, you are very good to hug you good night and so on. Then there were a lot of related tree holes that hinted at this in a mocking manner, such as "fourth base tonight", "living room" and so on.

My mood at the time was a pain to swallow and a shock that was out of the preset range. The whole person was pulled away to the point where my brain went blank. The characters in my phone and the world I was in seemed to be separated by yin and yang. In the next few days, I didn’t have the strength to reply to the news, and I didn’t have the strength to defend myself. But the pain goes back to my head, and I keep chewing on it.

Just like the description in the besieged city, when Fang Hongjian returned the letter to Miss Tang, he was "dull and had no feeling. After a while, he seemed to wake up from a faint, and he began to feel unstoppable heartache. The limbs that were curled up and numb, felt a stabbing pain when the blood flow was straightened out. The pain I had endured whole-heartedly yesterday, I didn't have time to distinguish the taste at that time. Endless aftertaste. The sofa and desk in the bedroom, the trees and grass outside the bedroom window, and the people I meet every day are all the same as usual, not changing at all, and they seem to ignore the big things like being sad and humiliated. The strange thing is that he At the same time, he feels that the world is miserable, at least his own world has changed. His personal world is suddenly separated from the world of public life, like a lonely ghost isolated from the living, looking at the joys of the world, he can't get in. , looking at the sun in the sun, he can't get in the sun himself. In other people's world, he can't enter, but in his world, anyone can enter."

At that time, my whole person was in a state of detachment. All the characters I saw in my mobile phone turned into symbols. When it poured into my eyes, I couldn't understand what they were talking about. I'm not quite able to perceive the meaning behind these characters. During that period of time, my whole brain was stagnant, I stopped sensing, stopped thinking, I think this is a self-protection mechanism, very much like an acute stress disorder.

It says that the initial stage of the patient is blindness or numbness, accompanied by a certain degree of narrowness of the range of consciousness. I think it is very suitable for me. I have no strength to think about these things. At first, I felt that if I encountered These things, my thinking should be quite agile, I should be able to think about the logic behind these things, or the overall structural framework of this matter, but when I encounter this matter myself, I The whole person has no strength to think.

Until now, when I see the original tree hole of stealing privacy and exploding melons, there will still be a sense of shame in the face of slut humiliation. Although I didn't do anything, these tree holes were just rumors that appeared out of thin air.

Later, I issued a statement at 7:00 p.m. to clarify, but that time was too long for me, and it was also for the reaction mechanism of the entire tree hole. In fact, in just one day, it has already fermented very seriously. Some people questioned why I didn't clarify the first thing. First of all, it was because I was sleeping that night, and when I woke up, the situation had developed to a very serious level, and there were a lot of rumors and attacks on me. My first reaction at the time was that I was very incapable of defending and replying to messages. As a person who has been attacked by the Internet, if I want to clarify these things, I must sort out a path for these original tree holes, and then respond to these points with facts. But for me to look at those tree holes again, it is very hurtful for me. I not only need to experience this secondary trauma, but also need to think about something behind these things, and sort out and respond. This thing consumes too much for me.

I have really never felt that kind of dazed state before, and I have no response to external stimuli. In such a state, it would be too arrogant for me to "rationally" explain and clarify. At that time, I was in a self-protection mechanism for those days, and my brain selectively made me lose this ability to react and think, making me dull, because dullness is the best way to protect me.

In fact, I feel that I seldom paid attention to this matter before experiencing the cyber violence, or seldom paid attention to the psychological trauma and feelings of the victims of cyber violence, because I saw some cyber violence on Weibo before. I found out that when these cyberbullyers came forward to clarify, they only brushed aside their psychological trauma, and only said things like I was very painful recently, and I was almost in a state of collapse. But this kind of general statement is actually impossible to empathize with someone like me who had never experienced similar events at the time, and I had no way to imagine what kind of trauma and pain he experienced. This narrative channel will allow me to look at these things from a grander perspective, but for the victims of Internet violence, this is not something that can be taken lightly in a few strokes. It does not mean that I have been attacked and hurt. You can take it.

When I was a victim, the things I needed to go through were very trivial and specific, just word by word flooded into your eyes and finally entered your mind. The trauma you experience is made up of those tree holes. Moreover, the anonymous tree hole will have a false representation, and the voice of an individual will be multiplied into the voice of many people, and it will become the voice of the surrounding environment that permeates your own life. When I talk about so-called trauma, hurting, I think it's too big to sum up or express my psychological feelings at the time.

So in fact, my change is very big. Before I experienced the cyber violence, my feelings for the victims were very absent. When I went back to review it later, I would feel that I was a bit cruel at that time. So I think this one thing has brought me a great change in mentality and perspective.

Ke brother | Regarding the Internet violence, I think there are many times when the tree hole will ask the person to respond with real name, and they have certain requirements for this response, that is, you have to be very rational to tell everyone the cause and effect, and analyze the real name This thing proves me not wrong.

Yesterday, there was another cyberbullying in Shudong. I think it was already a very large-scale and excessive cyberbullying. Then I saw many people saying that even if this kind of cyberbullying is wrong, you (referring to the victim) cannot To scold people like this, you can't use a very intense channel to respond. If you really feel that you are right, you should rationally and logically prove that you are right and respond to this matter. But I think it is very absurd and excessive to ask for a response and proof, because from the moment when these public opinions and online violence language are generated, they have actually had a great negative impact on others. The power of the two is completely unequal.

In fact, I think it is like the plaintiff should provide evidence in court. When commenting on a person's fault, you should find evidence to prove whether he is wrong or not, not after the identification without source, others will ask the designated party to prove it. You are wrong or right. First of all, asking for self-certification is a very excessive thing, but it seems that in the current public discussion of tree holes, self-certification is always required, and it is believed that only a positive response is a correct channel. It seems that only a response can prove that I am right. But in fact, from the very beginning, it should have been the designator who gave evidence, and the designee did not have to testify by himself.

I think what the victim bears is an unwarranted disaster, he needs to stand up and respond, dissecting his own pain twice, to prove that he did nothing, just like proving that he is not a slut, a scumbag, a scumbag, etc. This kind of proof actually comes from the accusation of others, but this kind of accusation is sometimes an unwarranted crime, just like when I called you a scumbag in a tree hole, maybe you didn't do anything, but I defined it. If you are a scumbag, nail it to a tree hole like a big-character poster, and you don't need to provide any evidence to prove it.

And once the poster hangs up the poster, other people who see the poster, that is, other users browsing the tree hole, have a preconceived idea: "Who is the scumbag?" It has become a premise, and then the person who is hung up has to refute this premise. But because people always have a preconceived notion, it's actually very difficult to prove something that you haven't done, or that you're not a morally imperfect person. In fact, no one is morally perfect. I don't think all tree hole users have the right to ask a person to prove that he is a good person.

Well, I think that the victims will actually bear the blameless disaster, because we have expectations for the victims when we use the tree holes, even in our entire society. Like the concept of a "perfect victim", it requires the victim to be hurt after being victimized, but it is rational enough that he has to experience a very big trauma, and he has to take the initiative to analyze how I am sad and how I am injured. , but at the same time he has to keep rationally proving that I haven't done those things, as if that's the only way he can be considered a perfect victim. At the same time, his morality is not only his behavior, but he needs to be flawless in all aspects, so that he seems to be called a victim, can be accepted by everyone, and what he says can be believed by everyone.

This is the second point I want to say, people always ask victims to be rational enough, and people think that victims should not use extreme public opinion to refute or scold. I think that asking the victim to be rational is actually one of the stigma of being emotional; the other is the article about the gaslighting effect, which was mentioned in the article about why there are so many crazy women, when you paint a woman emotionally After the label, the accusations against her seemed to be rationalized and all her actions were misinterpreted. If everyone thinks that she is an irrational crazy woman, then when she uses a more intense language to prove that she is not wrong, everyone will only think that she is crazy. Therefore, when people stigmatize this kind of emotion, they think that it is wrong to counterattack with emotion, and they should respond in a "purely rational" way without emotion at all. But why it must be rational, why being emotional is wrong, and why when a person does not respond "calmly" enough, his speech, response, counterattack, etc. will be labeled as emotional, irrational, or even crazy. Woolen cloth?

These are the two things that suffocate me the most, and also make me feel the most uncomfortable.

Dolphin | And I think the public's intrusion on the private life of others on the tree hole has no boundaries. The tree hole will make the desire to spy on other people's privacy reasonable and correct. In addition, in the name of moral judgment, to carry out other people's privacy. Wave after wave of onlookers and consumption carnival.

And I think the public opinion environment of the entire tree hole actually reflects a tendency of the social environment to turn sharply towards moral conservatism. My own perception is that in the era of moral conservatism, the most vulnerable must be the relatively weaker groups. "Scumbag Man" wrote: "Compared with the so-called joy of punishing a bad person, the complete fall of the private sphere and personal living space, as well as the excessive abuse of power and moral conservativeness, are actually more terrible."

If things go on like this, there will be a day when there will only be a pan-moralized model such as the moral example, but morality itself is a very chaotic framework for discourse. Why are their attacks on me rationalized? It is because they feel that they have achieved a certain moral judgment and moral punishment, and moral discourse is very easy to be awakened and recognized by the whole society. Their condemnation of me is actually the need to complete the moral restraint through criticism.

This is a very terrifying thing. Many times we may convince ourselves that our discipline of "anomies" is a moral restraint, but in fact why do we punish such accused anomies? ? This is some very humble thing in human nature, are we really just for the so-called justice and morality? Is there still some thrill of gaining power?

Then I just talked about the cyber bully and the cyber bully. I think the power of the two is completely unequal. The first is the asymmetry between anonymity and real name. The person who hangs up is anonymous, and their individual is invisible, because all the public opinion centers will be transferred to the person who is hanging, and the person who is hanging is not anonymous. Pressure, but to appear in the field of vision of everyone in the form of a real name, which itself is an extremely unequal state.

The second one is about the asymmetry between emotions and facts as I mentioned. In many cases, the incidents that hang people may be just a more factual statement, but those who comment below will criticize them with a certain emotion. But at this time, the person who was hung up can only clarify the facts, which makes me have a very strong feeling that the onlookers will say how can you use such an emotional channel to fight back, but the attack on the person involved is emotional, Why is the client asked not to respond emotionally after being attacked by such emotional emotions? This is very unequal.

Xie Bao | I think sometimes the person who gets hung up responds with a so-called "emotional" channel, which is actually a protection mechanism. Many times we find that if a person is bullied, he will still be bullied if he swallows his breath, so we think If you let others not bully you, you are not protecting yourself very well, but letting others realize that if you bully you, they will also be very uncomfortable, or they will be scolded in the same way, so that their psychological pleasure of bullying others will not be satisfied. won't bully you.

Dolphin|But I'm wondering if this is a kind of social Darwinism. I don't know if it's an accurate description. It's like someone bullying me. No one should bully me in the first place. In fact, I think that when we sometimes ask the victim to use the channel of self-protection mechanism to fight back against the bullying of others, when he needs to fight back in this link, he is already in a weak position, and it is a state of necessity. , so bullying others shouldn't be allowed to happen in the first place. We say that we encourage the victim, let him resist, obey or swallow his voice, make the other party feel uncomfortable, etc. No matter which channel we think is the best response, we are actually asking the victim. But from the beginning the victim he should not have been asked.

There is also an asymmetry of power, which is the asymmetry between the power to inflict violence and the right to counter violence. The power to inflict violence is very obvious in the later stage, especially for the victim, but when referring to these things later, the perpetrator is still inflicting a continuous invisible violence, which I have not received so far. When it comes to the apology of those who have slandered me and used violence and attacks on me, some reasonable people will ask me to apologize to them.

Xie Bao | A large part of the reason why I finally decided to quit the tree hole was because I found that some people around me who I thought were very rational would also say very hurtful things in this situation, and he would not think about the so-called truth, I just felt that this environment made a good person become bad, and then decided to quit.

Many people don't have the concept of how victims should be protected, and they want to "replace" the victim's position, and imagine what they would do in the victim's position? He feels that you should do what he planned, and if you don't, you are wrong. But they are not the real victims, they will only say what I think should be, why don't you clarify. In fact, I think asking the victim to come out and clarify this matter is a kind of violence in itself. He has not done anything, so why does he have to clarify? I think it's the voyeurism of some people who want to see victims reveal their privacy.

Dolphin | I can really understand the thinking of such people, and this is also my common thinking before I was attacked by the Internet. I used to think that these things were emotional expressions caused by the so-called deviation of understanding. At that time, I thought that there could be more equal discussions, clearer and more valuable views, and more complete cognition, but they chose to use this kind of Emotional channels to express will only allow the opportunity for public discussion to be overshadowed by emotional catharsis. At that time, I would think about how to reduce misunderstandings from a macro perspective, how to make things more rationally resolved, and how to think from a more functional perspective such as how to reverse public opinion. I felt at the time that victims needed a rational dialogue to calm things down to the greatest extent possible and reduce harm to both parties. I have always held this view and attitude before, but when I experience this, I will find that in many cases, it is not that the victim does not want to have a rational dialogue, but that there is no way to achieve a rational dialogue in a traumatic state. Those at the center of the storm of public opinion have no chance to discuss issues on an equal footing and in a detached manner.

I think our narrative is very lacking in the narrative perspective of the victim. What we perceive and feel is the entire incident, and we rarely feel the emotional fluctuations of the victim, so we stand in the perspective of an outsider. More thinking about what should be done to make this event reach an ideal state. But what is it that makes victims of cyber violence fall into the framework and trap of such rational dialogue?

In addition, when I mentioned this to others before, I did look very calm and analyzed the matter itself from a very rational perspective, rather than telling my own feelings. I weaken the identity of this client because when I am a victim, I subconsciously think that expressing this intense negative emotion when traumatized is not good, it is cumbersome and rambling, and I should provide some My new ideas and perspectives as a client, some more rational expressions and evaluations. I will even use the channel of jokes to dissolve the trauma caused by this incident. I feel that when I describe the trauma in such a channel, it is more real and not exaggerated.

I'm ashamed to express emotions because I'm actually worried about attracting blame for overusing trauma to gain sympathy. On the other hand, society as a whole is too stigmatized for expressing negative emotions. Equating irrationality with irrationality to reinforce such an unequal structure, the stigma that in turn constrains my behavior. So I will try my best to be the perfect victim, and one of the criteria for the perfect victim is to weaken sensitive emotions.

Brother Ke|I found that when I interviewed a victim, I would hope that he would express some sadness to me. I would presume that the Internet violence caused him a lot of damage, and he felt sad because of this. Criticize cyber violence incidents, so as a recorder and interviewer, I can write down how much damage cyber violence will cause to people, and then how to call on everyone to stop cyber violence.

But in fact, the response of another interviewee I interviewed at that time was very calm. When he talked about the harm caused by the Internet violence to him, he was very calm from beginning to end. Posts, including all kinds of candid photos and insults, etc., his reactions were unusually calm, so calm that I kept wondering if he was pretending, and I even wondered why he was so unreal in an interview.

But when I came down and thought about it, I found that when I first questioned why he was so calm and whether he was pretending, I actually assumed that the people who were hit by the Internet violence should be sad, hysterical, and show His dissatisfaction and sadness, I presume that only this is real and reasonable.

In fact, in the whole seemingly smooth process, I ignored the interviewee's own feelings of being abused by the Internet. First, asking him to express his sorrow and pain is actually a very cruel thing; second, I feel that I am The injury suffered by this individual has been raised to an overall assessment of cyber violence incidents, and the problem has been summarized from a broader perspective, while ignoring the pain of this individual.

Therefore, this interview made me deeply feel that my perspective is too macroscopic, and there are too many presuppositions before the interview, so I hope that the interviewee will say something that meets my expectations, or do something that meets my expectations. response, so that I can call for something. But in fact, the only thing I can do from the beginning is to record their feelings and thoughts in the most authentic way, and use their real feelings and thoughts to let others understand this matter, instead of using them as a tool to appeal and promote.

Vinyl | It feels like you're expecting the other person's social role, and you're expecting him to play a grieving victim.

Doudou|I have one more point to discuss. Even if this matter is not a rumor, is this kind of injury equal to the punishment he deserves? In the law, it is generally said that the crime and punishment should be corresponding to such a principle that it should be proportional. However, in the power mechanism of cyber violence, such proportionality is impossible, and it will inevitably lead to the all-round penetration of personal private life, and the unlimited and boundless accusations and abuses of the parties involved.

At the time, I thought a very interesting point was about the so-called "eating melons". I think this power difference is often reflected in a narrative. Whose behavior is described as an understandable human nature, and whose narrative is not . For example, in the process of his description of me, the so-called behavior of the so-called NTR four-base melon protagonist is unforgivable; but these melon eaters and those who spy on other people's privacy are described as forgivable. This is human nature, their voyeurism is legitimate, but this so-called sexual desire is not legitimate.

Also, when they demand freedom of information and speech with an attitude of eating melons, they sacrifice my human rights as an individual and consume the boundaries of individual freedom. This is quite dangerous.

Ke Ge|I feel that Shudong will go to extremes as long as it is emotionally involved, whether it is a boy or a girl. Boys are scumbags, girls will be humiliated by sluts, including yesterday I saw someone say that a girl is a chicken. Green tea and more. Although I am not a victim of cyber bullying in these incidents, when I am being humiliated by a slut, my first reaction is to prove that I am not a slut, and I fall into the language trap. When he accuses me of being a slut, my reaction should be why you accuse me, you have no right to accuse me of judging me.

Doudou|I also think of the lack of the perspective of protecting the victim, which will lead to a huge amount of secondary damage from the people who eat melons. It is often ignored. On the one hand, because the crowd of melon eaters is very large, we have no way to hold them accountable, and on the other hand, we ourselves have also played such a role of eating melons many times.

I have suffered a lot of secondary injuries. At first, when I was caught in the whirlpool of public opinion, I did not consider the people who eat melons. I think this is a kind of human nature, and they have this desire to snoop. I am more I want to hold some people responsible for spreading rumors and attacking me. But after a long time from this incident, I looked back at the process and felt that they must also take responsibility for this part of the spread.

If their accusation and verbal violence against me is a direct and explicit violence, then eating melons and spreading melons is an indirect and invisible violence, and the so-called “melon” symbol dissolves the color of violence , amplifying the harm of cyber violence, and indirectly rationalizing the responsibility of communication by rationalizing illegitimate selfish desires.

Then there is another one that after I posted that rumor to clarify the rumor, a high school Chinese teacher I liked said to me "be strong". These three words stinged me very sharply. I can understand his position and the context of his words, but I cannot understand the content itself. Why do we acquiesce that such violence is justified, and why do we rationalize such violence?

The speech in daily life itself has this kind of structural restricting power, which is more subtle than the violence of authoritative monopoly, but it acts on every social individual more widely and profoundly than the naked violence. So the negative use of such an unreflected language by each of us individually may have created a substantial violence. This structural violence is caused by everyone.

And the separation of public and private fields are relatively modern values, but how can these values give way to the expectation that others will abide by traditional moral standards, the desire to watch the artificial scandals caused by the random processing of such vague information, and the privacy especially? Prying into other people's sexual life and the desire to punish others for their possible immoral behavior are infinitely magnified on anonymous platforms, but I don't think all blame should be placed on so-called anonymous platforms.

One of the arguments that I don't like very much is that the tree hole is a cesspool, and the tree hole is a new type of Weibo. I don't want to put all the blame on the so-called tree hole in the narrative. Before this, I have always been very convinced of how this system can amplify and induce some instinctive violence or desire in people. But right after this incident, because I've been attacked by very specific people, I will pay more attention to how specific people are using these platforms. Of course, it cannot be assumed that all human actions are not affected by such structural factors, but neither can these people be exempted from responsibility.

Because individuals always have room to choose, at least within a certain limit, you have the freedom to choose. When we have such rights and freedom, can we choose to use our rights prudently and let go Slow the consumption of privacy space, maintain a little bit of your most basic ethics, don't do evil, or try to control yourself as much as possible not to be involved in such a populist denunciation conference. I think this is at least something you can choose to do. In fact, it is very easy for you to put up big-character posters, conduct moral judgments for the whole people, and turn to populism to call an iron fist. But when you are aware and have the right to choose Is it possible to consider how to reduce these things?

2

Ideal public discussion space

Vinyl | Have you ever imagined an ideal public sphere or space for public discussion?

Ke Ge|In fact, my ideal public discussion space is more similar to a symposium type, or similar to a discussion meeting, where everyone sits together. I hope it's face-to-face, because I feel that once the Internet loses voices, movements, expressions, etc., it is easy to cause some deviations in translation only through words.

And I think that for public issues, if it is anonymous, there will inevitably be a lack of responsibility for speakers. I think it will be healthier if real-name public discussions are held.

But I think if you put it in the tree hole, the first point is that everyone should not be anonymous anymore. You can express your own views in your real name, your own ideas, and your own remarks in your real name. Responsible, this is an essential first step in making tree holes a healthier space.

And before everyone expresses various opinions, or wants to hang people, etc., the most important point is that I hope everyone can treat people as human beings, not as melons, nor as some extreme labels. , men's rights and women's rights, grasshoppers or rural women's rights, etc., everyone treats people as human beings, our tree holes, our network ecology, and each of us's lives will actually be much better.

Xie Bao|My ideal space for discussing public affairs, suitable for schools, is a closed post bar, and its users should be linked to real people's real names. I hope it is instant, non-anonymous, There is a central discussion. A hub mainly refers to a focused discussion topic. If you really want to discuss a matter, there will be administrators in the post bar to identify people who have nothing to do with this matter. However, if it is identified by the administrator, another power mechanism will be introduced. Once a right appears, there will be a certain risk of rights expansion and proliferation.

I think the previous anonymous platform system construction is not enough. We cannot form an organization with limited power and efficient management. We need a power to manage the tree hole, but how to design this power is a big problem. The platform needs a group of efficient managers recognized by everyone.

Although I have already withdrawn from the tree hole, the main reason for my exit is my lack of ability. First, I cannot survive in the tree hole well; second, it is difficult for me to change the tree hole; I feel that exiting the tree hole can save a lot of trouble in my life. But I still sincerely hope that Shudong can become better, and hope that CUHK students can have a good discussion platform. I am running away now. I think the ideal platform has not yet appeared, but I think it is indeed A topic worth thinking about.

Dolphin | I think that because the current status of Shudong is disappointing, I don’t want to go to Shudong. In reality, this is a channel that can effectively reduce your exposure to negative emotions and information. But I personally think that if we all want to build a more egalitarian or idealized space for dialogue and public discussion, we should not escape some of the problems of the status quo. The construction of this platform, the composition and maintenance of the public space requires the joint efforts of all of us.

Not only tree holes, but how we build a better network ecology, build a better public discourse space, and how to make the interaction between individual behaviors and institutions reach the state we want are all we need to face together. The right topic is also an eternal proposition in modern postmodern society.

(The screenshots of the tree holes provided in the article are with the consent of the publisher)

Text | Vinyl

Reviewer | Nicole

Figure | From screenshot

WeChat editor | Zhang Yuxuan

matters editor | Gigi

Around the Fire (ID:weilu_flame)

The pictures in the text are not used for other purposes without consent

You are welcome to comment below the article to exchange discussions with the Ios team and other readers

If you want to know about the fireplace and read more articles, please pay attention to this official account and click the corresponding menu column on the official account page