Who are our friends and who are our enemies is not the first question

" Who are our enemies? Who are our friends? This question is the first question of the revolution." -- This is the first sentence of Mao Zedong's "Analysis of the Classes in Chinese Society".

If you put me back in the context of 1925, I would probably agree too. Even if it is used as a tool in the social movement of the current era, it is also tried. For example, our young friends in Hong Kong and Macao (I admit that each of our compatriots judge for themselves, don’t force it, don’t eat tofu), in the social movements in recent years. They also used this principled tool of struggle well, even though they may not have read the Selected Works of Mao.

However, if this sentence is placed on the phenomenon of the recent debate among users interested in politics on matter, then I think "who are our friends and who are our enemies" is obviously not the first question.

The reason is very simple: because not all the people who post on the matter are "doing revolution and fighting", and not even those who participate in the debate.

So what's the first question?

I think the first question is: we first need to figure out what the purpose of our post on matter is.

At this time, someone should feel that what I said is nonsense. Then please be patient and listen to the nonsense that follows.

In the past few days, the articles and discussions on issues such as "China's responsibility for the global epidemic" have come and gone, gradually turning into siding and judging, escalating into personal attacks, and then into complaints. This rhythm was unexpected to me. I don't mean to offend anyone in this debate, nor will I judge who is right and who is wrong, and I will never think that I am superior to others. Everyone is drunk and I am awake alone. I can stand and talk without back pain, because I may also disagree with Others get angry. In addition, as a scumbag, I don't have the capital, and I, a high school science student, don't deserve to bark here.

Here I would like to ask first, users who care about politics, what is the purpose of posting articles on matter.

I think everyone's answer will be different, I'm taking a guess

Some people will say: The wall is too oppressive to express, I am here to satisfy my desire for expression.

Some people will say: I write articles to show others, the creative environment here is good, and I enjoy the freedom of creation here.

Some people will say: I'm just a person who doesn't like pretending to be B, and I want to fix it. That's my fun.

Some people will say: I write articles to wake up the Chinese people.

Some people will say: I just can't get used to the self-righteousness of people here, I will water every day, and revenge is my pleasure.

Some people will say: My purpose is to be a "reasonable person", any low-end extreme critic is the object of my debate, and I can feel the pleasure of mentally crushing my IQ from the debate.

Some people will say: Seeing so many people criticizing the CCP, I am not convinced. Anyone who criticizes it, I will find someone to scold, not only scolding but also stepping on it.

Some people will say: I am targeting XX people.

Some people will say: I am here to find the stratosphere, to find like-minded partners.

Some people will say: I want to get out of the stratosphere, come over the wall and fight the public to the end.

Some people will say: Lao Tzu is also an old fritters, I am very familiar with the western style, I just want to hate you naive guys.

Etc., etc······

Well then, before we tear it apart, ask me whether our purpose counts as a "revolution" or a "struggle".

If you say, my original intention is not to fight, but to exchange views and discuss.

Then, it may not be very good to rise to the level of attacking people, and it will not escalate to the level of mutual complaints. If you can communicate, try to communicate as much as possible . Instrumental rational people look down on people in the humanities and social sciences to point out the country, and people in the humanities and social sciences are not used to instrumental rationality supremacy only citing data that is beneficial to themselves. At this time, stop the discussion and agree with the other party . After all, no one is necessarily completely correct. In the case of a large gap in personal value judgments, it is impossible for the truth to become clearer and clearer. For well-intentioned criticism and corrections, if there are any, they will be encouraged to correct them if they are not. For malicious attacks, just block them.

If you say: My purpose is to fight, I want to win this public opinion war.

Then according to the struggle mentality, if you are "liberal" friends, can you pay a little attention to who is your friend and who is your enemy? Your enemy is largely not here, but within the walls and in the comments section of YouTube. Even most people inside the wall are not the object of struggle, but the object of solidarity; if you are a friend of "patriotism and party", then you must first ask, who is the object of your struggle? Not enough for you in the wall? Even if you are far away, you will be punished? ; If you are a "establishment" friend, which "system" did you build? Since it is an establishment faction, it should be avoided for this kind of struggle thinking, right? So you choose to fight all the people who are different from your position? Or try to unite as many people as possible?

Furthermore, in fact, this division of positions is very crude . Because a person may have many different attitudes towards different specific events. The position is never a point on the spectral line segment, but is composed of countless points on the infinite curve segments between the two poles of the sphere, and it is three-dimensional. For example, in Taiwan, political stances are usually classified as blue and green. On the issue of reunification and independence, a voter with a green slant may be an independent stance, but when it comes to issues such as whether to support gay marriage, he may not necessarily support gay marriage. Marriage, the coincidence of the two is not 100%. When it comes to elections or referendums, political parties package their set of ideas.

The reason why we usually reduce the position to a spectrum of line segments is that for the sake of simplicity of analysis, we assume that people tend to accept a set of seemingly logically consistent ideas when accepting an opinion, rather than a single point of view. . This whole set of concepts is called ideology . In the real world, our views do not always coincide exactly with the positions we are classified into, and we may even be labelled the exact opposite.

Then, on the one hand, the real object of struggle is not clear, and on the other hand, the position of the object of struggle is not single but complex and chaotic. So how likely is it that we accidentally hurt? Under such circumstances, how can we engage in "struggle" and "revolution"?

Summarize your point of view

If you think that our speech on matter is not a public opinion struggle, then we don't need to fight to the death, just click until it is enough. If you look really disgusting, just block it.

If you think this is a battle of public opinion, then it is best to first clarify who the object of the struggle is. When we are specific to a certain person, should we consider whether he may have similar opinions with us on other similar issues, and whether we need to take this "person" as the object of struggle.