This article comes from the WeChat public account “See the ideal” (ID: kanlixiang) , Text: Li Houchen, the title picture is from CFP.
The “Houlang Theory” exploded the entire network. In “Flip Radio”, I took out the most intense criticism since I was a radio station, and I was undoubtedly attacked by groups.
In defending this “Houlang speech”, two kinds of remarks caught my attention, one is “Isn’t this just an advertisement”, and the other is “This is not for Houlang, but for Qianlang watch”. The implication is that the content does not agree, but for these two reasons, it seems that this content can exempt our criticism.
Why is it an advertisement, or is it for “Qianlang”? Does this content need to be criticized? The truth is not obvious, but there is a faint existence.
I will introduce another example first. On April 30th, after the infamous public account “Youth Courtyard” was restored after the two-month ban, it published a second article called “Bao Yuming is retreating in full body.” The article received a “Looking” of “100,000+”, and the number of readings must be more than 5 million. Of course Bao Mou is hateful, but it is really not an easy decision to point “looking at” the article of “Youth Courtyard”.
Is this a kind of prejudice and intolerance? Is the value of the article not more important than the source of the article?
“Understanding” and “value consensus” have always been lacking.
In public speaking, we generally also directly conduct “value speaking” with the intention of reaching a “consensus”. Driven by the epidemic, at some point we believe that the consensus has been difficult to accomplish through “pain.” However, after experiencing the challenges of the event, the consensus we thought was vanishing.
We must have missed something particularly important.
This year is getting very hot, the summer is far from coming, and the weather is like midsummer.