Vectorfield @Vectorfield@qoto.org

@siusiu 我感觉像是体制的年轻一代写出来的，懂流行文化，喜欢梗，喜欢嘲讽，尝过权力的滋味，同时又很蠢。

@ludy@go5.dev 我记得长毛象有一位朋友说过大意是这样的话：如果你移民的目的是追求希望中的完美世界，那么你会很失望，如果你移民的自的是逃避暴政，那么你会很满足。我认为这句话是对的，为了内心真正渴望的事物做出牺牲是值得的，但同时也要准备面对一个并不完美的现实。祝你在欧洲为自己创造出幸福的生活，也祝愿你的家人能分享这一幸福。

就智能设备的监视而言，首先，是厂商而不是政府在实施监视，虽然政府有能力从厂商那里获取这些信息，但是这种监视本身并不是行政命令的产物。其次，厂商之所以投放广告，收集信息，是为了获取利润，而不是为了管理用户，对于商业公司来说，只要做一件事利润高成本低，它就一定会去做，用户听不听话不在它的考虑范围。而这一切之所以发生，也并不是因为政府在强制施行自己的监视计划，而是因为从监视中获利的这种商业模式给厂商带来了许多利益，并且未受到社会的抵制。政府在这一过程中获利了吗？当然。不仅如此，政府还会利用行政权力从中获一杯羹，例如打载阿里云os的智能电视就曾被远程删除敏感软件。但扩张权力是任何政府的天性，它们只不过紧跟了时代潮流，将已有的这些事物化为已用罢了，政府并没有发明计算机与互联网，并没有规划信息革命，并没有发明出24小时监视用户的智能设备。信息时代的糟糕现状是自然演进的结果，有着多方面的原因，不能被简化为政府阴谋的产物。福柯的理论并没有如实地描述问题，也没有提出解决方案，而是用压迫者和反抗者的叙事解释一切事物，这只能让人产生受迫害的狂想，对社会产生一种片面的看法，而无实质的作用。要正确地理解现状，人们的常识要比看上去高深莫测的抽象理论要可靠的多。

运行原生安卓的智能电视基本不会内置任何国产软件，如果你需要安装这些软件的话，可以直接在网上找TV版软件的apk，拷到内置存储里，点击安装即可，或者直接用内置浏览器下载这些软件，再进行安装。安卓智能电视本质上就是放大的安卓手机，安装软件的步骤大同小异。此外，你还可以通过工作空间将这些国产软件进行隔离和冻结，正如我在https://qoto.org/@Vectorfield/105316658227396694 介绍的一样。(虽然我还没有试过，但这些措施应该也适用于安卓电视，因为二者并无本质的差异)

智能电视领域的种种乱象，例如广告泛滥，系统流氓，个人信息被随意收集等等，无非是智能手机行业已有问题的延伸而已。解决这类问题只能靠消费者用脚投票，真正的把隐私当作主要的诉求，不再为"方便快捷"之类蝇头小利和花哨浮夸的界面舍弃自己作为用户的长远利益。这样的消费者达到一定的基数之后，厂商才有可能作出实质的改变。

如果既想使用智能电视，又不想被监控，可以在购物网站上搜"原生安卓"+"电视"，或者"AndroidTV" ，直接接显示器就行了，价格两三百块不到，没有任何广告，流畅度远胜于定制系统，更不会发送乱七八糟的信息(也许有的会内置Google软件，禁用即可)，而且有不少是可以root的。

详细的说明

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/02/naming-enemy-critical-social-justice/

https://symposium.substack.com/p/we-need-liberal-social-justice-not

网上的图片，出处：

https://nitter.snopyta.org/waitbutwhy/status/1375246690047901699

美国左派在近几十年来间的主要变化，就是从图一中的"进步自由主义者"变成了图三和图四中的"后现代进步主义者"和"批判式社会正义活动人士"

@yangharrylg 保守主义者(至少就英美而言)希望保守的是近代文明，而传统主义者则希望回到近代以前的传统，索尔仁尼琴更近于传统主义者。

索尔仁尼琴，《古拉格群岛》的作者，曾于1978年在哈佛大学发表过一篇演讲，不少人可能对这篇演讲有些模糊的印象，知道该演讲对西方国家有不少批评，但是未必了解它的完整内容。我之前也是这样，不过在好几次看到人们提及这篇演之讲后，我对演讲的内容产生了好奇，于是我在前一段时间听完了整段内容。听完后我的感受是，虽然我不认同他的所有看法，但是他对西方(或者说，对于现代社会)的许多批评是很有价值的。
<br>
下面是我做的一些整理：
<br>
索尔仁尼琴在演讲的初始部分先是回顾了西方文明的历史，他认为，在过去的几百年中，西方凭借自己的发展优势，在世界进行了成功的扩张，对于其它的文明不屑一顾。这一切很顺利，然而到了二十世纪，人们突然发现西方是如此的脆弱。接下来，作为一名外部的观察者，索尔仁尼琴描述了他在西方看到的问题：
<br>
**1.勇气的衰退**
<br>
在这一部分，索尔仁尼琴认为，西方国家的精英阶层和知识分子丧失了勇气。他说道：
<br>
_"对一个外部的观察者而言，勇气的衰退或许是西方世界最显著的特征。不管是作为社会整体还是公民个人，在每一个国家、每一个政府、每一个政党（更不要说联合国了）中，西方世界都已丧失其公民勇气。这种衰落在统治集团和知识精英中表现得尤为明显。当然，尚有很多勇敢之士，但他们在公众生活中缺乏决定性的影响力。政府官僚与学术官僚在言行中透露出消沉、被动和迷失，在他们高深的理论中则更是如此：他们不断争辩将国家政策建立在软弱和怯懦之上是多么现实、合理，在理智甚至道德上有多么充足的依据。当这群官僚面对孤立无援的弱小政府、国家或是弱水潺潺似的潮流时，他们每每爆发出愤怒与顽固；但当他们面对强力的政府和威胁性力量，与侵略者和国际恐怖份子打交道时，他们却总是张口结舌、瘫倒在地。这种对比仿佛就是在重重嘲讽勇气的衰退。这难道还需要人来提醒吗？自古而今，勇气的衰退总被认为是没落之始。"_
<br>
**2.福利**
<br>
在这一部分，索尔仁尼琴认为，西方国家的人民享受着许多自由，拥有着许多物质财富，然而道德水平却在下降，因为他们把精力都放在了物质上的安逸和享乐上。他说道：
<br>
_"当现代西方国家被创建的时候，以下的准则早已被宣告：政府的意义在于为人类服务，而人类为了自由追求幸福而活（比如，可以参照美国《独立宣言》）。而今，几十年技术和社会的发展终于使福利国家这一梦想成为了可能。每一个公民都被赋予了渴望已久的自由和物质享受，从而在理论上保证了幸福的获得，但与此同时，这几十年来道德水平一直在走下坡路。在这一过程中，还有一个心理学的细节被忽略了：那就是人们仍旧保留了对更多东西和更好的生活的持续渴望，对这些事物的追求让许多西方人苦恼甚至是绝望，尽管人们常常掩饰这样的心理。活跃且紧张的竞争渗透着所有人类的心灵，却没有打开一扇通往自由心灵发展的门。各类来自国家的压力之外的个人独立得到了保障；大多数人被赋予的福祉已到了他们父辈和祖父辈无法想象的程度；按照这些理想培养年轻人已成为可能——给他们创造强壮的体魄，快乐，物质财富，金钱和休闲，甚至是没有尽头的自由和享受。那么现在，在一个国家的安全需要在海外才能确保的复杂情况下，又有谁会放弃这些自由和福利，冒着失去宝贵生命的危险，而去捍卫共有的价值呢？_
<br>
**3.法律主导的生活**
<br>
在这里，索尔仁尼琴认为，法治十分重要，但一个社会若是只靠法律支撑，也是不可取的。他说道，
<br>
_"西方社会给它自己创造了最适合它目的的机构，要我说，西方社会就是建立在法律条文上的。人权与正义的界限被一套法律制度所决定，尽管这些界限太过宽泛。尽管对于一个普通人而言，如果没有一个专业人士的帮助的话，法律太过复杂而不能被理解，但是西方人们已掌握了相当成熟的对法律使用、解释、掌控的技术。任何争执都可以通过法律来解决，并且这被认为是最至高无上的方法。如果一个人从法律角度来看是正确的，则无需更多的解释，没有人会提出这个人仍然并非完全正确的可能性，且要求自制；那种放弃法律权利的意愿，牺牲和无私的冒险：这听起来只会是荒谬的。人们几乎从来都忽略主动的自制。每一个人都在法律框架的极度边界上生活。石油公司购买一种新能源的发明以防止它的使用，在法律上是无可指责的；食品生产商毒化他的产品以延长保质期同样也是无可指责的：毕竟，人们有不购买的权利。_
<br>
_我在社会主义的统治下度过了一生，因此我可以告诉你，一个没有客观法律制度的社会的的确确是可怕的，但一个除了法律制度之外没有任何别的制度的社会也同样不值得人类生活。一个社会如果只建立在法律文字之上，而不再有更高的梦想，那是对人类崇高可能性的忽视。法律文字太冷漠而且太正式，因此无法为社会带来有利的影响。一旦生命的薄纱由法律关系织成的，世界就会被平庸道德的气氛所笼罩，从而麻痹人类最崇高的激情。_
<br>
_如果仅剩法制的支撑，在这个充满危险的世纪，我们将完全不可能经受住重重考验。"_
<br>
**4.自由的方向**
<br>
在这一部分，索尔仁尼琴认为，在西方，自由已经出现了失衡，人们过度地强调权利，而忽视了责任，自由成为了一种放纵的借口。他说道：
<br>
_"在当今西方社会，行恶的自由有许多，行善的自由却很少。想要有所作为、为国家办实事的政治家不得不谨慎行事，甚至蹑手蹑脚。他的周围有数以千计的感情用事、不付责任的评论家，并长期遭受议会和新闻的冷遇。若要取得进展，他只有证明自己的每一个举动都经过深思熟虑并天衣无缝。实事上一个杰出的独具天赋的个人鲜有机会为心中与众不同、别出心裁的创见争得主动。至一开始就有很多陷阱等候着他。结果，平庸之辈靠着被民主强加的束缚而获得胜利。_
<br>
_行政力的削弱随处都成为可能，且毫不费力。事实上，所有西方国家的行政力已经被急剧地削弱了。对个体权利的保护已经走向极端，导致社会整体在某些个人面前不堪一击。在当今的西方，人们是时候更多地捍卫个人责任，而非个人权利了。_
<br>
_人们拥有了破坏性的且不负责任的自由，而丝毫不受限制。在人性堕落的深渊前，社会毫无防备。比如，自由受到了滥用，成为了一种对年轻人施加道德暴力的工具，电影里充斥着色情、犯罪和恐怖。然而这种放任却被当作自由的一部分，因为理论上，人们也有不去看的自由，两者能够达成平衡。事实证明，若完成按照法律条文组织社会，社会在面对恶的侵蚀时将束手无力。_
<br>
_法条（尤其在美国）已经宽松到了不但鼓励个体自由，还鼓励一些个体犯罪的地步。对于犯罪这一阴暗的领域，我们还有什么可说的？罪犯在众多公众保护者的支持下能过逃脱惩罚，获得不应有的宽恕。当一个政府开始对恐怖主义发起战斗，公众舆论立刻指责其侵犯了恐怖主义者的公民权。此种事例还有很多。_
<br>
_自由向恶的倾斜已逐渐发生，但很明显，这一趋势恰恰主要起源于一种人道主义的仁慈的观念—人性本善。世界属于人类，生活中所有的问题都是由错误的社会制度导致的，社会制度必须被纠正。说来也奇怪，虽然西方已经实现了最佳的社会条件，犯罪活动却并没有消失，甚至数量更甚于贫穷而无法治的苏联。（我们国家的囚营中有数量巨大的被押者。他们被称作罪犯，但他们中大多数从未犯下过任何罪行；他们只是试图当这个毫无法纪的国家采用法律体系之外的途径对付自己时作出抵抗）。"_
<br>
**5.媒体的方向**
<br>
对于西方的媒体，索尔仁尼琴认为，它们的自由很多，影响力很大，却极为肤浅和不负责任。它们没有把自己的影响力用作正途，而是背叛了社会。他说道：
<br>
_"媒体也享有最广泛的自由(我将用媒体这个词来指代所有的媒体)。但媒体把这种自由作何使用呢？_
<br>
_同样，这里主要的考虑是不违背法律条文。媒体对事实的扭曲和偏袒不负有道德责任。一个媒体工作者对读者或历史负有何种责任？如果他们通过不实的信息或错误的结论误导了公众观点或政府，这些媒体工作者和报社会不会公开地承认和改正犯下的错误？不会，这不可能发生，因为这会削减销量。一个民族可能成为这样的错误的受害者，但是犯下这些错误的媒体工作者却总能免于追责 。人们几乎可以确保，这些媒体人士很快又会写出相反的东西来，却同样地理直气壮。_
<br>
_因为必须给出即时和可靠的资讯，有时就需要用臆测、谣言和假设来填满空白，这些虚假信息从来得不到矫正，而是存在于读者的记忆中。每天不知道有多少仓促、不成熟、肤浅和带误导性的判断就此得以传播，不经确认而蒙惑读者。媒体既能刺激公众意见，也能误导它。于是我们就看到恐怖主义者被当成英雄赞扬，或者属于国防的秘密被公开披露，或者我们会看到媒体打着”人人都有权了解一切”的口号无耻侵犯名人的隐私。然而这是一个错误的口号，体现了一个错误的时代：人们同样有不知情权，而且它更为珍贵。这种权利使人们美好的灵魂免受流言蜚语和高谈阔论的骚扰。有意义的人生不需要过度信息的羁绊。_
<br>
_冒失和肤浅是二十世纪的心疾，这一点在媒体界比在其他任何领域都反映得更严重。媒体界对问题的深入分析避之不及，却止于煽情的套话。_
<br>
_然而，如其所示，媒体已经成为西方国家内最大的一股力量，超越行政，司法，立法之上。人们不禁要问：谁选举了这些媒体？它们又对谁负责？在共产主义的东方，媒体工作者无非是国家职员罢了。但是在西方国家，谁又赋予了西方媒体工作者这些权力？这种权力将维持多久？又是怎样的一种特权？_
<br>
_对来自于媒体被严格统制的东方的人而言，他还会感到另一种惊讶：他们逐渐发现西方媒体界整体有一种趋同的倾向，这是一种潮流。它们的看法大都是有规律可循的，已被接受的定式。它们商业利益也许是一致的，总的来看，它们没有在相互竞争，而是在相互联合。媒体有极大的自由，但受众没有。因为报纸总是着重强调那些和他们自己的观点相符，与主流不公然抵触的观点。"_
<br>
**6.思想上的时髦**
<br>
对于思想领域，索尔仁尼琴认为，对于主流思想的趋之若鹜阻碍了独立思考的精神，使国民盲目，偏颇，自大。他说道：
<br>
_虽然没有审查制度，但在西方国家中，主流思想却被小心地和非主流思想分离开了。没有什么被禁，但是不合主流的思想鲜有机会得以在期刊上发表、出版成书或在大学内流通。法律上你的研究是自由的，但也受到时潮的制约。西方没有东方式公然暴力，但思潮的筛选和趋众的需求时常阻碍独立思考的人们把他们的贡献融入公众生活。有一种集群的危险趋势，消减了成功的发展。我已收到一些十分聪明的美国人的来信，也许来自某个偏远小学院的教师。假若不是因为媒体对他们不感兴趣而导致他们的声音无法在国内传播，他们可能为国家的复兴和拯救做出更多。这引发了强烈的大众偏见、盲目，在我们这个飞速发展的时代非常危险。比如说有一些对当代世界时局自我欺骗式的阐释。它仿佛僵化的外壳笼罩着人们的思维。东欧和东亚十七个国家的声音都无法洞穿它。只有时局发生重大震荡才能击破它。"_
<br>
**7.社会主义**
<br>
索尔仁尼琴认为，社会主义在西方阴魂不散，民众眼高手低，因为当前的社会没有达到理想水平就去鄙视它，去追求危险的社会主义。他说道：
<br>
_"尽管在过去几年西方世界受困于严重的通货膨胀，但其经济发展道路依然是全球公认的典范。然而，西方民众对于他们的社会（状况）并不满意。他们非难甚至鄙视这个未能达到人类自身成熟水平的社会。于是，许多执此观点的批评家转而投向了社会主义，而这样的趋势是相当错误和危险的。_
<br>
_但愿在座的各位不要怀疑我对西方体制提出个人批评的动机，这断不是为了让社会主义取而代之。这种取代曾在我的国家变为现实，亲身经历之后，我绝不会为社会主义说话。著名数学家、俄科学院院士伊戈尔?沙法列维奇先生曾著有《社会主义》一书。该书深刻的分析指出：任何性质、任何程度的社会主义都将导致人性的彻底毁灭甚至人类的灭亡。这本好书两年前在法国出版，迄今为止没有任何人对其观点提出异议。此书不久也将在英美面世。"_
<br>
**8.鼠目寸光**
<br>
这里，索尔仁尼琴认为，西方国家的决策层聚焦于实际的利益，而舍了弃道德的原则，只顾短期的好处，而忽视长远的忧患。比方说，在二战中，西方国家本可以凭借自己的力量打败纳粹德国，却非要和苏联合作，结果给自己培植了一个更强大，更危险的敌人。再比如，冷战时期，美国又指望打拢中国制约苏联，这么做虽然在短期对美国有利，但是长远来看，中国会成为美国的一个新的劲敌，甚至会让美国成为大屠杀的牺牲品。索尔仁尼琴这样说道：
<br>
_"许多从你们这个社会涌现出的知名人物，例如乔治-凯南(译者按：George Kennan 美国政治学家，在1946年任驻苏联代办时向美国政府提出”遏制”政策)，说：我们不能把道德准则运用到政治上。于是我们混淆了正与邪，对与错，同时为这个世界上彻头彻尾的邪恶势力之最终胜利开道。而与之相反的是，只有坚守道德准则才能帮助西方世界对抗共产主义缜密的世界战略，舍此无它。任何现实的或偶然的想法都会不可避免地被战略所取代。而当这个问题上升到一定程度之后，循规蹈矩的想法催生麻痹；而它使人无法认识到任何事件的大小与意义。_
<br>
_尽管有着充足的信息（又或许正是因为这样），西方世界很难正确地理解现实。部分美国专家会提出一些极幼稚的揣测：例如认为安哥拉会成为苏联的越南；或者阻止古巴在非洲的远征军的最好办法是特别殷勤地向古巴示好。凯南对他自己国家的建议—-开始单方面裁军—-也是一样。多么希望你们知道克里姆林宫里那些最年轻的官员是如何嘲笑你们的政治奇才的！就像菲德尔-卡斯特罗—-他肆无忌惮地蔑视美国，把军队从你们国家的眼皮底下派遣去远征。_
<br>
_但是，最残酷的错误随着对越战的误解产生了。有些人渴望所有的战争都能尽快停止；另一些人认为越南或柬埔寨理应有空间实现民族自决（或者共产党自决），正如我们今天特别清晰地看见的那样。但是美国反战组织的成员们在这么做的同时，却也背叛了远东国家中种族屠杀的遇难者，背叛了在那些惨遭奴役的3000多万人。听到那儿传来的哭喊了吗，那些狂热的和平主义者们？他们意识到自己今天的责任了吗？还是说他们装作听不见？美国的知识阶层丧失了勇气，导致危险进一步逼近美国。但是没有人意识到这一点。你们那些短视的政治家，草草地在越南签下停战协议书，似乎给美国带来了一刻的无忧无虑；但是现在，一个百倍于越南的阴影正逼近你们。小小的越南已经成为一个警告和一个让这个国家鼓起勇气的机会。但是如果羽翼丰满的美国在共产党控制着的半个越南承受了彻底的失败，西方世界又如何寄望在未来屹立不倒？_
<br>
_我在许多场合都可以说，民主国家在20世纪还没有独自赢得任何重要的胜利；它总要依赖欧陆强有力的盟友,并且不去质疑其哲学和意识形态。在二战对抗希特勒中，西方世界的力量显然足以击败希特勒。但他们没有选择这样做，而是为他们自己培养了另外一个敌人。目前看来，这是一个更可怕、更强大的敌人，因为希特勒从来没有像苏联一样有如此多的资源和人口，充满诱惑力的意识形态，以及如此众多来自西方世界的支持者—-他们很可能成为一支新的第五纵队（译者按：Fifth column 意指内奸或叛徒。出自西班牙内战）。_
<br>
_现下西方已经有些声音要求从第三个权力中心获得保护以对抗下一次全球冲突（如果有下一次的话）；这么说来，这面盾牌就是中国。但是无论是哪个国家，我都不希望这种向中国寻求保护的结果会发生。首先，这注定又是一次与邪恶的联盟；另外，虽然这会给美国暂时的安全感，但随后当全幅美式武器装备的中国以及它的十余亿人民一起调转枪口对准美国，美国自己就会成为一次大屠杀的牺牲品，就像柬埔寨一样。_
<br>
**9.意志力的丧失**
<br>
索尔仁尼琴还认为，西方国家丧失了意志力，幻想维持现状，没有进取之心。他说道：
<br>
_"并且—无论多么强大的武器都不能帮助西方世界，除非它能克服自身意志力的丧失。一旦心理上软弱，武器就会成为失势一方的负担。自我保护就必须有赴死的准备；而在物质条件优越的环境中成长起来的社会内却极少有此种牺牲的准备。什么都不剩了，只有让步、争取时间以及背叛。于是在耻辱的贝尔格莱德会议中，自由西方的外交官们软弱地放弃了他们的底线，这条底线是身陷囹圄的赫尔辛基观察团的成员们即使牺牲也要坚守的。_
<br>
_西方的思想正在变得保守：无论代价多大，世界局势必须像现在这样保持下去，不应该有任何变化。对维持现状的幻想令士气低靡，但这是一个社会发展将至尽头的征兆。只有瞎了的人才不会看见那些海洋已经不属于西方，而受西方支配的土地正在缩水。两场所谓的”世界大战”（它们目前看来还算不上世界范围）意味着小而进步着的欧洲从内部自我毁灭，进而成为自己的掘墓人。下一场战争（不一定非得是核战争，我自己就不相信会有核大战[就不相信非核战不可]）很有可能把欧洲文明永远埋葬。_
<br>
_你们的历史如此有价值，你们对自由的认识如此之高，并且显然对其投入如此之深，在面对这样巨大的危险时怎么可能丧失自我保护的意志力到如此严重的程度？"_
<br>
这些就是索尔仁尼琴指出的问题。为什么会出现这些问题呢？索尔仁尼琴认为，造成这些问题的是世俗社会和人本主义。人们不信上帝，失去了精神追求，一味追求物质，整个社会就成了物质至上的社会。而在物质至上的社会中，极左的思想便所向无敌，"自由主义不可避免地被激进主义所取代，激进主义必须降伏于社会主义，而社会主义却无法阻挡共产主义的到来。"他还认为，社会主义是人本主义的自然产物，因为马克思就说过："共产主义是自然化的人本主义"，而共产主义的口号也都是关于人和人的俗世幸福的。为了解决这些问题，索尔仁尼琴认为，西方需要重拾宗教以及宗教责任，重拾精神上追求，超越物质主义。
<br>
在我看来，索尔仁尼琴并没有给出可行的解决方案，他对近现代文明的看法也过于负面和简化，但是他对西方社会的观察确实很敏锐，他提出来的问题是也都很值得思考的问题。例如，在民主社会中，如何制约媒体的力量，抑制媒体行业的垄断？如何在保证新闻自由的情况下对新闻媒体进行追责？如何在一个商业发达的社会中让民众保有朴素的公民美德，学会在享有自由的同时承担责任？在学术界，如何避免学者追寻时髦，不去追寻真理，而是故作深奥地玩文字游戏的这种现象？后现代理论，种族批判理论，政治正确，取消文化，身份政治这一系列危害社会的东西都是从学界出产的，为什么学界会出产这么多病态观念？在和平稳定的年代，如何让人们保持居安思危的意识和对共同体的热爱？在一个宗教丧失其影响力的世俗社会，如何让人们拥有富足的精神生活和超越物质的价值追求？如何避免中左和中右和思想被极左和极右的思想取代？这些问题是自由民主的社会无法回避的，如果中国建立了民主政治的话，我们迟早也要面对这些问题，这也是这篇演讲的的现实意义所在。
<br>
演讲的视频：https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WuVG8SnxxCM
<br>
演讲辞的中英文文本则在这可以在这里找到：http://www.majinxin.com/2009/08/09/speech_solzhenitsyn/
我对该网页中的部分中文文本进行了修改，使其更适合阅读。

意识形态神话可以是共产主义，也可以是民族复兴。理科生对意识形态神话并没有什么天然的免疫力，文科生同样如此，按部就班的人固然大不会质疑正统思想，但思想浪漫的人同样会倾向于在神话中寻找寄托，意识形态的神话真正害怕的是普通人的常识和敢于表达真相的勇气。

@sexybiggetje@mastodon.social @finlaydag33k http://techrights.org/2021/03/27/objective-look-at-phony-scandal/
https://linuxreviews.org/Grass-roots_Richard_Stallman_Support-Letter_Has_Reached_3600%2B_Signers
https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web
https://rms-open-letter.github.io/
https://rms-support-letter.github.io/
https://www.vice.com/en/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing
https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-appendix-a-a7e41e784f88

@mur2501 What we've seen in the 20th century and at present is that the vacuum left over by traditional religions would be quickly taken over by ideologies that are much more murderous, intolerant, and tyrannical.
Communism and Nazism are modern religions, wokeness and social justice are postmodern religions, the former have lead to the death of millions, the consequences of the later are remained to be seen.

@fsf I think it's not Richard Stallman, but the low-grade "journalists" and woke "activists" (And probably the big tech oligarchs behind the scenes) who cancelled him in the first place with defamatory lies and unfounded accusations by means of harassment and intimidation that owe us an apology. The woke should pay a price.

@doliu666 Yes, I think he's not alone in thinking so, many other people would also agree that a lot of these parasitic ideas derives from the academic left, especially the French leftist intellectuals. Intellectuals are particularly susceptible to religion-style Ideologies. The French historian Raymond Aron have written about this in his book 「The Opium of the Intellectuals亅, although he was mostly criticizing the widespread intellectual adherence in his time to Marxism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Opium_of_the_Intellectuals
https://www.amazon.com/Opium-Intellectuals-Raymond-Aron/dp/0765807009

“人必须接受自己的出生，一如接受自己的死亡：这就是成熟。” —威廉·莎士比亚

@doliu666 From what I heard, he seems to be suggesting that academic institutions that spend too much time on Social Justice scholarship should be defunded, did he mention that in the book ?

@timorl @freemo
1.backgrouds and experiences
<br>
No, we still have major differences, the differences include the meaning the word systematic(or systemic) I don't think this word bears enough clarity, I think the system is complicated and does not necessarily lead to similar experiences, let alone similar ways of thinking. You can not separate one factor of the so called system from the other, for example, if a poor black man is having a hard life, maybe it's because he's black, maybe it's because he's poor, maybe it's because he didn't have a father, maybe the culture where he grows up from has a negative effect on his accumulation of wealth. If one is a black millionaire then I don't think he shares the oppression the poor blackman suffers , and certainly I think he is more privileged than a white truck driver. The woke people you interact with talks a lot about race? What if I say the woke I interact with don't? How representative are the people you interact with? The rise of identity politics is often analyzed in combination with the decline of class politics, by dividing people according to their inherent biological identities of combating interests you are inevitably going to wreck the unity of the working class. One of the major opposing voice against wokeism from the left has been coming from the traditional economical-class-oriented ones. Robert Reich, Zizek Slavoj, Russel Brand, Paul Embery, to names just a few, have long been critical of the new left's obsession of identity politics,
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9bgkBrFoOOo
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=472lCEy4dBw
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vwbq5T1gRmc
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iIZb1dCc8AA
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/left-behind-how-labour-betrayed-its-base
The word socialist website was one of the first and most firm adversaries to counter the woke narrative of American history after the NYtimes had published the 1619 project, saying,「The interaction of racialist ideology as it has developed over several decades in the academy and the political agenda of the Democratic Party is the motivating force behind the 1619 Project. Particularly under conditions of extreme social polarization, in which there is growing interest in and support for socialism, the Democratic Party—as a political instrument of the capitalist class—is anxious to shift the focus of political discussion away from issues that raise the specter of social inequality and class conflict. This is the function of a reinterpretation of history that places race at the center of its narrative.」, and「The racialist campaign of the New York Times has unfolded against the backdrop of a pandemic ravaging working-class communities, regardless of race and ethnicity, throughout the United States and the world. 」 If the woke were so concerned about class politics, why would the traditional socialists and economic leftists consider the woke to be reactionary forces? I don't think the woke ideology, the woke movement, or its rationalizers placed much significance to class.
<br>
Now you've acknowledged that inner differences within a group might be bigger than between the groups, yet you gave the argument that treating people as individuals you might miss actual problems caused by society, the word "might" is quite subtle, I'm sure you do recognize the fact that the word "might" isn't the same as "surely", so what's the problem here? Of course you "might" neglect something while not focusing entirely on one specifics issue , but to which degree? And the question could come in the other way round: By focusing on the group identity, you might miss the other factors, which of course does not just include invidual decision making, but also Class, Culture, Region, Religion, etc. Isn't it also a problem? If you think you have to eliminate the possibilities implied by the word "might". The biggest problem with not treating people as individuals but as members of a group is that when you stop viewing people as real humans with flesh and blood, but instead, cogs of machines, incarnations of abstract forces, you opens the door for dehumanization and demonization, which then clear the pathways for genocide, mass murder and starvation, as human had experienced during the 20th century, many of which were started with good intentions. Should we improve the living conditions of individuals by not making their outward biological characteristics become reasons for discrimination?(which in the process, might lead to the temporary focus on certain group categories) Yes. Should we treat individual as means for the collectivist utopia? No.
<br>
2.Systematic racism
<br>
Yes, I'm tired of the discussion, I'm wasting my energy, but I didn't forbid you from offering arguments for systematic racism, and yed it's a very relevant question, if you feel the need to do it, write whatever you want.
<br>
3.Empirical data
I've responded to your first two claims in previous paragraphs, so let me just answer your third claim: The results in social sciences are quantifiable. What do you mean by the word results? The results of what? The results of the entire social science? I'm afraid that's too broad. The question I asked was "Too which degree people's thinking are affected by the external factors, such a identity backgrounds, are they quantifiable?" The example I gave is whether you can tell the exact percentage numbers attributed to each factors when you replied to my toot.You still can't do that. And no social scientist was able to do something similar, for instance, trump was elected in 2016 as the US president, did any social scientist figure out the reason X Y Z why he was elected, and attribute the right numbers? For example " The reason Trump's election as president is 20% due to people's dissatisfaction of the establishment, 10% due to Trump's stance on border issue, 25% due Hilary Clinton's unappealingness, 20% due to Trump's economical policy, etc" So far I've seen none of them. Neither have I seen analysis like "Racism in today's America is 15% due to historical injustices, 20% due to capitalism, 10% due to unconscious bias, etc" What? Percentage numbers are insignificant, prediction is what really matters? Well, did any social scientist before 2020 successfully predict that there would be a pandemic in the next year, we would be living under lockdowns, and America would handle it poorly? I don't see any. Were there any social scientists in the 1980s who could successfully predicted that Soviet Union would collapse in 1991? I don't think so, probably by survivorship bias someone did the right predictions. But no social scientist would say it with the certainty of a weather forecaster that these and these(such as a pandemic) would happen, or wouldn't happen in the next year, the next month, even the next day. You can't predict human events in the same you predict weather, I'm surprised to learn that a man like you, who values so much of the importance of uncertainty, would be so sure in our ability to predict something as unforeseeable as our human society.
<br>
4.Intentions and incentives
<br>
What do you think are behind the statistics? Feelings, motives, experiences, objective factors? or are they merely results of random data distribution? The definition of the word incentive on Wikipedia is that 「An incentive is something that motivates or drives one to do something or behave in a certain way.An incentive is something that motivates or drives one to do something or behave in a certain way. There are two type of incentives that affect human decision making. These are: intrinsic and extrinsic incentives. Intrinsic incentives are those that motivate a person to do something out of their own self interest or desires, without any outside pressure or promised reward. However, extrinsic incentives are motivated by rewards such as an increase in pay for achieving a certain result; or avoiding punishments such as disciplinary action or criticism as a result of not doing something.」, do you agree with this definition? If you don't please offer a better one, the current one you provide is indeed too abstract, and too detached from real life. So I agree with Wikipedia that an incentive is an factor that leads one to certain actions, whether it's intrinsic or extrinsic, subjective or objective. So do the woke have the incentive to to bad things? Of course they do, as I mentioned before, the desire to accumulate or maintain power, as you agreed, many woke people are not marginalized at all, they are very often privileged middle class white liberals, very often the media people, the academics, the bigtech oligarchs or the establishment politicians. So the resaons these people embraced the woke ideology, were, at least in part, due to the fact that the woke ideology helps establish or reinforce their moral authority, grants them the censoring power, diverts people's attention from their own corruption. Even an average woke person were able to benefit materially from the woke ideology, for example, the call for more diversity in high paid jobs make get some wokish blackman or transwoman into a position of privileged without a fair competition. Today, diversity training has become a multi billion industry,(while knowing it won't work) about $8 billion a year is spent on diversity trainings in the United States alone, according to (https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/gender-equality/focusing-on-what-works-for-workplace-diversity#)
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/despite-spending-billions-companies-cant-buy-diversity/2019/11/21/d8907b92-fb1a-11e9-ac8c-8eced29ca6ef_story.html)
Those who are engaged in the training industry—the crital theorists, woke activists, certainly benefit a lot from this. https://www.commentarymagazine.com/christine-rosen/the-hard-truths-of-the-latest-anti-asian-attack/
A black New Yorker is over six times as likely to commit a hate crime against an Asian as a white New Yorker, according to New York Police Department data. In 2020, blacks made up 50 percent of all suspects in anti-Asian attacks in New York City, even though blacks are 24 percent of the city’s population. Whites made up 10 percent of all suspects in anti-Asian attacks in 2020 in New York City but account for 32 percent of the city’s population. Yet according to the woke narrative, Asians and Jews are stripped of marginalized status due to the comparative economic success of their demographics, their participation in “whiteness,” or other factors.
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_599f0757e4b0cb7715bfd3d4
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/08/the-whitening-of-asian-americans/563336/
www.cjnews.com/living-jewish/check-your-jewish-privilege.
Affirmative action were also used to disadvantage Asians(who are stripped or the victim status by woke ideology) in favor of African Americans https://southerncalifornialawreview.com/2019/01/01/justice-or-just-us-sffa-v-harvard-and-asian-americans-in-affirmative-action-note-by-cynthia-chiu/
The woke supporter could benefit a lot materially from this by discriminating the other groups in favor of their own.
Ibram X Kendi said on the Atlantic that “To oppose reparations is to be racist. To support reparations is to be anti-racist.” So by advocating woke politics, people like Kendi were able to be paid materially using someone else's money for their historical victim status, which is a benefit.
<br>
Could the woke be incentivized to do bad things? Absolutely.
<br>
5.Merits of bad ideas
<br>
Relevance of being good or bad – it’s not about being inherently incorrigible. Why it's not incorrigible? Your understanding of the texts seems to be very different from average people? If what you do as an individual agent doesn't matters because you are hopelessly incentivized to be a rasist, not matter how anti-racist you are as a person, you are considered incorrigible. Unless you join the woke and dismantle the system, you are racist. What if one disagrees with the woke's take on the system? What if one think the system systematically benefits the woke? Why is it that the non-woke should check their privilege, not the woke themselves? As I talked before, the woke are also incentivized to do bad things. The woke have absolute certainty about their claim of the system as if it is the truth, but shouldn't they realize that their own framework have their own blindposts that they are not the arbiters of truth? You have claimed yourself to be well aware of existent models' imperfections and the importance of uncertainty, why aren't you being uncertain now? You seems to be absolutely sure that the woke ideology is true? It's very had to believe you are the one spending so much time trying to prove 2+2 is laiden with historical baggage. Maybe your absolute certainty of the wokeness is exactly the result of dismantling 2+2=4.
<br>
6.2+2=4
<br>
Oh, there you became a skeptic again, maybe a person need to become a 2+2=4 skeptic first, in order to embrace something as absurd as wokeism.
<br>
7.On objective knowledge
<br>
Did you feel I just asked too many questions? Yes, indeed. So what about just answering the first three of them? How do you know you subscribe to utilitarianism and realism? How do you know you are sure your knowledge of moral objectivity is neither neutral nor objective? How do you know what racism is? Please answer them in the language of common folks, no jargons, no specialist expressions, would you?