Original link: https://onojyun.com/2022/06/04/6175/
△ 155｜A villain is a kind of person if he is successful, he is cheap, and he is good at being good?
This was one of the topics I contributed to the debate competition back then, but unfortunately it was not adopted, probably because the content of the debate stimulated the debate team leader who I really wanted to satirize. Because he is a typical “little man who gets his ambition”, but some people say that he is “getting cheap and selling well”, so the topic of this debate has very interesting practical significance.
However, this debate does not actually have much “guidance” significance for reality. Because even if two kinds of people are distinguished, “the villain is successful” and the one who is “cheap and good”, in fact, they still haven’t undergone any change in nature. Until he has any suspicion of “selling good”. The fundamental reason is that it is not the parties themselves who define a person as “a petty person who is successful” or “gets a bargain and sells well”, but those of us who are bystanders, that is, the so-called “others are hell” .
Let’s talk about “villains gain ambition” first. The “official” explanation is: the old refers to people with low morals or immoral behavior, and it also refers to people with low personalities who gain power. That is to say, the “power” actually obtained by the “little man” is a state of incompatibility of virtue . Here I discovered a problem very early on – people in the process of subjective processing will definitely determine their own subjective judgments. Find a lot of “evidence” and “corroboration”. For example, when a “villain” gets power that is not worthy of virtue, we often use the point of “the villain gains ambition” to cover the “unmatched virtue” because we can’t get to the bottom of the reason. To put it simply, it means that a person may gain some kind of power, there is a deeper reason, and outsiders have no way to know or want to investigate, so they choose the simplest and easy-to-understand point to evaluate him. The reason for gaining a certain kind of power—that is, “the villain gets the will.”
Let’s say “get it cheap and sell it well”, although this is not an “official” term, so the “official” explanation seems to be much gentler: it means that you get the benefits, and you have to say some good words. But in practical use, even without this “official” explanation, you can quickly search for a few annoying faces from your memory, they get benefits, and they get benefits from the parties, and then they You also need to appear disgusting, and even feel that these benefits from others are well deserved. There is a very important discussion point in “getting cheap and selling well”: is what they get what they deserve? If it is what they should get, if they show a smug face after getting it, it seems to be more in line with the definition of “viciousness”; if what they get originally belonged to someone else, after getting it, they show a dissatisfied expression. You know, when you think that you are harmless, cute, and cute, it naturally makes people think that you got it cheap and sold it as a goddamn good.
As an opponent, I am also one of the most critical points of debate that I uphold—whether “the villain is successful,” or “they get cheap and be good”, what we are discussing is not how annoying their faces are, how much their behaviors are The idiots don’t know it, but they want to discuss whether what they get is a “vested interest”.
According to whether their interests “deserved” or not, the “little man” did get the benefits they deserved, but others felt that his virtue was unworthy, but there was nothing that could prove that he “doesn’t deserve it”. Only after the proof of “achievement” can I use “the villain’s achievement” to balance the imbalance in one’s heart – you see that person, it is really a villain’s achievement, just like who can’t achieve that kind of achievement;
On the contrary, what a person gets is what he “does not deserve”, or even robs one party of the benefits. After he gets “undeserved”, he still shows that he is not aware of it, or even reverses it. Say something nice to the party who loses the benefits. The worst thing is that you feel that you “deserve” it, and that it is taken from someone because the other party “doesn’t deserve it.” At this time, we have to use the word “be good at getting cheap” to describe each other, because they get “undeserved”, and even take away our own “vested interests”.
How about it, did you find that you fell into the trap I arranged? If both parties feel that the benefit is their own “vested interest”, then no matter who gets it, they are in the eyes of the other party “get it cheap and sell it well” ”; if both parties feel that it is not “deserved” by the other party, but because it does not belong to either party, it is “correct” only when the other party gets it, then once the other party gets it, it must be “small.” People get will.”
If a third party is added, the fun will be even more prominent: A intends to delegate a certain power to B, but C does not think that B is qualified to obtain that power, and B believes that since A wants to give himself power, it is his own “Vested interests”, the so-called “deserved”, and C believes that B is not qualified, so the power delegated by A is B’s “undeserved”. After careful consideration, A decided to temporarily delegate power to C, and let C act for a period of time in order to hand over to B.
So the question is, in this triangular relationship, who is the “little man who is successful” and who is “the cheap one who sells well”?
This article is reproduced from: https://onojyun.com/2022/06/04/6175/
This site is for inclusion only, and the copyright belongs to the original author.