右翼分子吐槽扯淡专楼
"The defense of individual rights has reached such extremes as to make society as a whole defenseless against certain individuals. It is time, in the West, to defend not so much human rights as human obligations.
On the other hand, destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society has turned out to have scarce defense against the abyss of human decadence, for example against the misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, such as motion pictures full of pornography, crime, and horror. This is all considered to be part of freedom and to be counterbalanced, in theory, by the young people’s right not to look and not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil.
......
This tilt of freedom toward evil has come about gradually, but it evidently stems from a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which man—the master of this world—does not bear any evil within himself, and all the defects of life are caused by misguided social systems, which must therefore be corrected."
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Harvard Commencement Address ("A World Split Apart"), June 8, 1978
On the other hand, destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society has turned out to have scarce defense against the abyss of human decadence, for example against the misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, such as motion pictures full of pornography, crime, and horror. This is all considered to be part of freedom and to be counterbalanced, in theory, by the young people’s right not to look and not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil.
......
This tilt of freedom toward evil has come about gradually, but it evidently stems from a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which man—the master of this world—does not bear any evil within himself, and all the defects of life are caused by misguided social systems, which must therefore be corrected."
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Harvard Commencement Address ("A World Split Apart"), June 8, 1978
1473 个评论
多伦多星报复述了最近一项基于民调的研究，主题是对疫苗的态度和对俄乌战争态度的关联，调查结果显示对接种疫苗的开放态度和支持政府介入俄乌冲突高度正相关：
星报转述说：
The study concludes the results point “to the highly corrosive influences of disinformation.”
“This is definitely a new and bluntly insidious force that’s contributing to polarization and disinformation and poor decision-making. And it doesn’t seem to be going away. Things are getting worse,” said Graves. “I don’t think this is because those people had an ingrained sympathy to the Russians. They’re reading this online, they’re consuming this from the same sources that were giving them the anti-vax stuff.”
所以研究者的结论，用直白的语言说，是我们的社会里有一群白痴，他们看的信息来源在疫苗和俄乌冲突问题上造谣，这帮偏听偏信的白痴是民主的威胁，积极注射疫苗的反俄好公民才是我们的榜样。此为如何利用“中立”研究来生产意识形态党派话语之一例。
如何基于以上民调得出一个相对无偏见的结论？考虑以下两组由两个态度组成的立场，哪一组更“自然”，或者说其形成过程更少依赖于权威的宣导：
A: 允许权威机构向自己体内一次两次三次地注射物质 / 支持政府因为另一块大陆上发生的战争而对某国采取敌对措施
B: 不允许权威机构向自己体内注射物质 / 不支持政府因为另一块大陆上发生的战争而对某国采取敌对措施
显然B更“自然”。采纳A要求主体对权威的宣导和行为有高度信任，这种信任是长期规训的结果。涉及的权威不仅是主流媒体，还有科学共同体、政府、经济组织和军队。接受A的公民相信主流媒体基本讲真话，而且掌管社会各领域的精英能把事情办好。所以民调里两类人的差别，用更中立的话语描述，是对权威（及其塑造的主流意识形态）的信任程度之别。
虽然任何社会都需要对权威的信任才能运作，但流于盲从的信任会将社会带入迷途，民主社会也不例外。知识分子眼中好公民对于民主的威胁，恐怕不比“白痴”更小。
星报转述说：
The study concludes the results point “to the highly corrosive influences of disinformation.”
“This is definitely a new and bluntly insidious force that’s contributing to polarization and disinformation and poor decision-making. And it doesn’t seem to be going away. Things are getting worse,” said Graves. “I don’t think this is because those people had an ingrained sympathy to the Russians. They’re reading this online, they’re consuming this from the same sources that were giving them the anti-vax stuff.”
所以研究者的结论，用直白的语言说，是我们的社会里有一群白痴，他们看的信息来源在疫苗和俄乌冲突问题上造谣，这帮偏听偏信的白痴是民主的威胁，积极注射疫苗的反俄好公民才是我们的榜样。此为如何利用“中立”研究来生产意识形态党派话语之一例。
如何基于以上民调得出一个相对无偏见的结论？考虑以下两组由两个态度组成的立场，哪一组更“自然”，或者说其形成过程更少依赖于权威的宣导：
A: 允许权威机构向自己体内一次两次三次地注射物质 / 支持政府因为另一块大陆上发生的战争而对某国采取敌对措施
B: 不允许权威机构向自己体内注射物质 / 不支持政府因为另一块大陆上发生的战争而对某国采取敌对措施
显然B更“自然”。采纳A要求主体对权威的宣导和行为有高度信任，这种信任是长期规训的结果。涉及的权威不仅是主流媒体，还有科学共同体、政府、经济组织和军队。接受A的公民相信主流媒体基本讲真话，而且掌管社会各领域的精英能把事情办好。所以民调里两类人的差别，用更中立的话语描述，是对权威（及其塑造的主流意识形态）的信任程度之别。
虽然任何社会都需要对权威的信任才能运作，但流于盲从的信任会将社会带入迷途，民主社会也不例外。知识分子眼中好公民对于民主的威胁，恐怕不比“白痴”更小。