Original link: https://ioerr.github.io/posts/siyue-zhi-sheng/
Someone made and uploaded a video called ” The Voice of April “, which was recorded through many people’s phone calls for help, reflecting the pain caused by unreasonable epidemic prevention and management measures to the people of Shanghai during the new crown epidemic.
The video spread rapidly on WeChat Moments and various social media, and soon triggered the red line of public opinion control, which was quickly deleted.
This video is real and restrained, which is conducive to facing up to and solving problems, and there is no need to use control methods to arouse more dissatisfaction among the people.
On the contrary, most people are too tolerant of unreasonable means of execution. If there is a lot of resistance at the beginning, it may not have such a wide range and hurt so much that they think of making a sound.
So I think “The Voice of April” should also have this paragraph :
The system is fucked up.
It’s ridiculous.
It’s a disgrace.
It’s a joke.
This is insane.
It’s a piece of shit.
It’s chaos.
It’s like a kindergarten.
There’s no logic.
It’s random.
It’s not working.
It makes no sense.
This is really shameful.
Update April 24th:
After reading a few of Taleb’s books, “Asymmetric Risk”, “Antifragile”, “Black Swan”, “Random Walk for Dummies”, and “Wisdom and Curse”, I jumped to read after feeling the same.
With a little knowledge of evolution theory and statistics, and exposure to bureaucracies and various scholars, it is relatively easy to understand his ideas.
The most impressive words:
You can never convince a person that he is wrong, only reality can teach him.
People who don’t experience risk sharing don’t know the simplicity of the road.
If you can’t take the consequences for what you say, then you’re saying nothing.
It is in line with the principle of risk sharing in evolutionary theory, that is, decision makers must experience risks and bear the consequences.
Without risk sharing, there is no evolution.
Risk sharing restrains the arrogant tendencies of human beings by weeding out the arrogant.
The secondary disaster of the city closure is inevitable, but compared with the secondary disaster in the United States (nearly 1 million excessive deaths without covid), the problems in Shanghai are almost negligible. The only thing I don’t understand is why the citizens of Shanghai are so vulnerable and unreasonable.
This sentence reminds me of Taleb’s words – without being in it and experiencing the risks, you naturally don’t understand why “fragile and unreasonable”.
Soulogic :
The original words are indeed very stupid, because many things are obviously done very badly, and complaints and even anger are well-founded. The whole country is like Shanghai, so I support the American invasion and the establishment of a puppet regime.
But remove the previous “compared to a million deaths”, this is taken out of context, right?
Calon:
I intend to do so.
No matter how severe the suffering elsewhere, it does not mean that the current suffering is negligible and that there is no connection between the two.
I don’t think it’s called out of context, it’s called teaching people to talk.
In other words, it is more convenient for people to see who is not speaking.
In addition to the lack of expressive ability, one of the main reasons for “don’t speak human words” is that they dare not or do not want to express clearly, directly and unambiguously.
When someone who is in suffering shouts, directly saying that their suffering is negligible, it is estimated that even themselves feel inappropriate, but it seems that it makes sense to pull a suffering that can be compared unnecessarily.
This unnecessary practice eventually changed from “not speaking directly” to “not speaking what people should say”.
“Yes, Minister/Yes, Minister” has exposed complex expressions with purpose:
Years of political training and experience in politics have taught Huck to use twenty words where one word is enough, and to dictate millions of words where thousands are enough, and to use language By obscuring the problem, it avoids the problem so that it is difficult for others to understand. Difficult to comprehend may provide sanctuary for some politicians. Because they can temporarily seek safety in it.
Civil servants are very good at obscuring simple and easy-to-understand concepts, making them sound complicated.
What was otherwise unacceptable seems acceptable, and everything is “reasonable” by being vaguely or circumspectly uttered by someone on the sidelines.
The ultimate goal is to deprive those who take risks and suffering from having a voice.
This article is reprinted from: https://ioerr.github.io/posts/siyue-zhi-sheng/
This site is for inclusion only, and the copyright belongs to the original author.