Be tolerant to managers and harsh to those under control - the incident of dragging a woman by the Xi'an subway

Before going to bed on the night of August 31, I swiped a question about this incident on Zhihu. It is no exaggeration to say that all the answers supported the security guard. I fell asleep with a very sad mood, so I was very impressed.

The next day, on September 1st, CCTV News posted a Weibo titled "CCTV News Comments on Xi'an Metro". I can't remember the original title, but when I went back to CCTV News' Weibo today, I couldn't find it. By the time of this Weibo post on September 1st, I have to suspect that my memory is messed up.

On September 1, the public opinion on Zhihu reversed, and a large number of answers for women were pushed to the front row. On the afternoon of September 2, CCTV News reposted Xi'an's official response #Official response to the incident of dragging a woman by a security guard in the Xi'an subway#, and after about four hours, another message was posted, "Can't play fifty major boards each." This is the timeline in my memory. When I rummaged through Weibo today, I found that the hot searches on Weibo on August 31st and September 1st were not displayed in accordance with relevant laws and regulations.

1. The space for the reversal of public opinion is given by CCTV News to a certain extent

This is just my personal opinion, there may be no direct evidence to prove the correlation between the two. On today's Jianzhong Internet, netizens are very superstitious about the authority of the official media. As long as the official media such as People's Daily and CCTV News speak out, it will have a finalized effect. The official media has the power to characterize the event.

I think that the large-scale reversal of public opinion on September 1 was partly due to the fact that CCTV News and Xi'an Metro sang a different tune. Those who were aggrieved by women had a big tree to lean on, and there was room for disputes over this matter. Just imagine that if there is no CCTV news commentary that "security enforcement exceeds the reasonable limit", Xi'an Metro is the highest level "official" who speaks out about the whole thing, and there will be people shouting "the official said that the woman was at fault first" and so on. If so, use the "official" stick, an inexorable stick, to suppress dissent. If a higher-level official media joins the Xi'an subway station again, emphasizing that the maintenance of subway order must not be missed, I believe that the reviewers of the major platforms will definitely know the autumn, delete a batch, seal a batch, and select a batch of comments. Make sure that public opinion seems to be in line with the official tone.

People's superstitions towards the official were also reflected after the "official response" came out on September 2. I have seen comments like this: "The official announcement is out, what else do you have to say?" Four hours later, CCTV News commented that "you can't play 50 big boards each" and the official response produced a small confrontation. There is still some room for discussion on this matter. I don't remember when the status of the official media has reached such a high level: a star will be completely cool if it is determined by the official media. "The official media have come out to beat him, he must be cool"; After the official media has determined the incident, people’s doubts are unreasonable, such as the Chengdu No. 49 Middle School incident; Weibo usually deletes posts, titles and pictures, people are accustomed to it, but the official media has the right to exempt, if it happens once, there will be people He exclaimed, "How dare you delete posts from Renri/CCTV/Ziguangge/Group Central".

I'm thinking, if I encounter unfair treatment like this, I'd better pray to the editor of the official media to have a little sympathy and be willing to say a word for me. No.

Second, "sensible" people will only empathize with managers

There is a saying on the Internet in Jianzhong, "It's time to take care of it", and people have become conscious of being in charge.

There are many people who stand on the side of the security guard who think that if the woman cooperates with getting out of the car, there will be no such disgraceful consequences. Isn't she asking for it? A typical post-mortem mentality, if he XXX, he will not XXX. This kind of argument is from the perspective of God. They knew after the incident that the security guard dragged her naked, but the person involved did not know that there would be such consequences if she did not get out of the car. How could she have thought that she would be stripped naked if she did not get out of the car? Woolen cloth? If she had the ability to see things, I think she would have chosen to get out of the car to avoid the devastating consequences, but she has no such ability.

People accuse the woman of not cooperating with getting out of the car. In addition to the "perfect victim" mentality that many people say, there is also the "you dare not obey" mentality. In their opinion, women deserve it if they don't obey. The security guards are also trying to maintain order in the subway. How could so many people delay the subway because of you, and others don't go to work? They automatically put themselves into the manager's perspective, and make one-to-many trade-offs for the parties, giving themselves the illusion that I have a high level and a big pattern. They don't want to substitute for the weak, they only like to substitute the perspective of the strong, try to stand aside with the high wall, and laugh at those eggs that are overly capable.

Quite a few people have become accustomed to empathizing with the strong, and I think this has something to do with education in mainland China. Education in mainland China does not teach caring for individuality or respect for individual dignity. Political textbooks clearly state that when individual interests conflict with collective interests, they must obey collective interests; history textbooks evaluate ancient emperors: Although he was brutal, XX had a profound influence and was a great achievement. I think if ten mainlanders face the "trolley problem", five people will choose to kill a few people, because from the perspective of the overall situation, this is the least cost. (No sample experiments, purely personal guesses). I remember that after the introduction of Shandong's policy of "combining villages and living together", I talked to the people around me, and she said that there is no way to do this. If the country wants to develop, there will always be a price. In the same way, those who empathize with the manager will see other people on the subway rushing to work, and will see the security guard's last resort in order to maintain order, but they can't see the woman's pain and collapse. Because this is the price of order.

People who empathize with the strong are very sensible, because this era is dominated by the strong, and understanding the strong will not take risks, but will be praised by the strong. Blame them, I can't expect everyone to have the courage to go against the strong. Then again, I don't have the courage.

3. People have no concept of procedural justice and outcome justice

The procedural justice and consequential justice I am talking about here do not refer to legal concepts alone. They can be understood as process and outcome in a popular sense. Is it accepting a reasonable process to lead to an undesired outcome, or accepting a desired outcome from an unreasonable process? roll out.

I came into contact with the concepts of "procedural justice" and "consequential justice" in a debate competition in college. Before that, I had not been exposed to these two concepts in my 12-year elementary, middle, and high school education. After I understood these two concepts, I always insisted on procedural justice when looking at things, because I felt that outcome justice is a bucket of water, and procedural justice is the source of water. Once the water source is polluted, it is difficult to have clean water. But many people on the Jianzhong network do not have these two concepts, and they can only judge things with their plain view of justice.

"Even if this woman is a criminal, she should not suffer the humiliation of taking off her clothes." This is the embodiment of the simple procedural justice concept, which requires people to use a reasonable process to do things. Even criminals have human rights. This is procedure. "A woman who doesn't cooperate with getting out of the car and rolling around and being stripped of her clothes deserves it." This is a simple result concept of justice. They only see that this result is not in line with the logic of heaven and reincarnation. She was at fault first, so she deserves to be punished. The process of punishment is unreasonable.

I've found a lot of what's going on lately, and that's where my disagreement with mainstream-permitted public opinion lies. Zhao Wei was banned, and there are many people applauding on the Internet, but I think this is not in line with the procedure. Regardless of whether the ban itself is reasonable or not, in the past, if the official wanted to ban an artist, at least the evidence of the artist's crime had to be publicized, and then the public opinion would ferment, and finally the ban would be determined. But the Zhao Wei incident happened so suddenly, the reason for blocking her was not publicized, people can only speculate, and I feel it is not right. Some stockholders went bankrupt because of Zhao Wei's manipulation of the stock market, so they are very happy to block Zhao Wei, but there is no procedural norm to block the power, how can you know that the next person to be attacked under this power will not be you, lips are dead and teeth are cold, every time you applaud, you are given this power Unscrupulous reason and confidence.

Under the sword of Damocles, I feel nothing but fear.