主题：一块红布---看西方愤老之理屈词不穷，成怒恼不羞 (一） -- 不悱不发

因为已故房东的缘故，一直在他创办的一国际政治网上论坛（过半网民年龄超过70）挂名潜水。最近实在受不了西方的良心们在西藏问题上的思维定势， 借上传一篇在西西河看到的英国卫报的中性评论，传达另一种声音。（坛子里有一法轮功，时不时血泪控诉，因为实在看不到他的逻辑，从未尝试鸡同鸭讲。）不想激起一德国籍坛中元老的酸水，既而是肝火。两轮帖子下来，急速上升为如何保持坛子精英水准的大讨论。西方愤老的优越感和尖酸算是意料之中，然而其思维之固执，心胸之自闭，深失我望。虽其理性之匮乏，不代表与中国传统理念抗衡一方的真实水平，然其直觉上的抵触和不容， 多少反映西方社会一部分人对中国的心态。把来往对帖及中文翻译贴在这里，理解或有偏差，愿闻各位解读。

我的发难帖1（回复法轮功人士关于TG伪装暴徒说）

——————————————————————

从逻辑上讲，罪行最有可能是从中受益者所为。从这一点上说，最近在西藏发生的事件中，TG不大可能是应该被谴责的一方。

Logically, crime is mostly likely committed by the one who would

benefit from it. From this point of view, the Chinese government is

not the one that should be criticized for what has happened in Tibet

recently.

那些把中国描绘成“很大很邪恶”的人，或者有意这样做，或者是基于脸谱化的思维定势。

Those who are depicting the Chinese as "Big and Evil" are

doing this either purposefully or by default through stereotyping.

如果你认为自己可能属于第二种情况，而想在西藏问题上得到一些更理性的理解，英国卫报3月25号的这篇评论可能有所帮助。

If you think you might be of the second type and care about to get a more

thoughtful understanding of the Tibet issue, the following article

from the UK's *Guardian* of March 25, 2008 may be helpful.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/25/china.tibet

——————————————————————

（我承认自己这篇帖子不够心平气和，不过话糙理不糙吧。 另外，也是应该传达给西方主流的另一种心声的真实表达。本以为老学究们能摒弃我的愤青语气，在史实和道理上跟我较真。不料却激出一西方愤老。）

挖坑攒分。

• 一块红布---看西方愤老之理屈词不穷,成怒恼不羞(二）

极左翼的有些人愤青到脑残, 这不是夸张的说法. 举个例子, 左翼最近的一个思潮是逐步消灭人类, 原因是人类的存在是以欺凌地球上所有其他动植物为基础, 地球上要是没了人类会是个更美丽更公平的环境. 具体做法是大家都停止生育.

和这种人能讲出什么理来?

接上文

http://www.cchere.net/article/1523091

奉上愤老精彩回帖。

愤老David回帖

——————————————————————

关于犯罪你知道多少？就我有限的经验，获取好处决不是犯罪的唯一逻辑。当然犯罪的定义也值得商榷。

Do you know much about crime? In my limited experience, "benefit" is

hardly the only "logic" of crime. And there is of course the little

matter of the definition of crime.

（愤老开篇即尽尖酸。 语气上甚是跟我一般见识，未见长者的厚道。逻辑上也误入旁枝。）

不过让我把作为律师的异议放在一边。你是对的。反对权威的一方要被谴责，因为根据定义，他们从反对中获益。我当然要谴责那些造反的黑人自1860年以来在美国南方造成的不幸。南非也是一样，不是吗？在这方面，也包括各种中国人因不满东京或伦敦的统治的种种所为。我还没说犹太人呢。不过，既然中国不是“很大很邪恶”，藏人又是乱中获利，我们可以安心认定现政权没有错。所以我们大家，尤其是象你这样受过教育的中国人，可以不必在政治上思辨是非了。多好的解脱呀。作为一个德国人，我完全理解你的处境。

But let me put aside such lawyerly objections. You're right.

Clearly, those who oppose authority are to be blamed, by definition,

since they "benefit" from opposing authority. I of course blame those

uppity black folks for all the unhappiness that has befallen the

American South since, let's say, 1860. Just like South Africa, no?

For that matter, just like various Chinese, on various occasions, less

than happy with rule from Tokyo, or London. I could go on; I haven't

even gotten to the Jews, but since China is neither "big nor evil,"

and the Tibetans stand to "benefit," we may rest assured that the

current regime can do no wrong in Tibet. Which saves us all, and most

importantly, educated Chinese like you, from the hassle of having to

think critically about politics. Such a relief. As a German, I

understand your position entirely.

（这一段语多反讽，不过可以看到他的思想症结所在：他认为我无条件认同统治政权。下次需要向他讲清政权合法性的基础是代表大多数利益。另外，为什么德国人这次反弹强烈， 是否与纳粹失败的民族复兴有关？）

我也不认为卫报的文章支持你。它的用词，“灭绝”，“种族隔离”很难说正面。 不提卫报也罢。我不需要我们的论坛提供国际杂志链接，我早已淹没其中。我们，至少是我们中不住在中国的人， 可以自由上网，自由浏览媒体，不仅是卫报， 还有维基百科。

Nor am I convinced that the *Guardian* article supports you, speaking

as it does of "annihilation" and "apartheid." Hardly positive talking

points. But never mind the *Guardian*. I don't need WAISers for

links to international journalism; I'm drowning in it already. We

all--well those of us who don't live in China--have unfettered access

to the Internet, and the flow of journalism. Not just the *Guardian*,

but Wikipedia, too!

（老头这段不像老姜，倒像一小辣椒。一叶障目的尖酸，窃以为正是西方对中国思维定势的来源。）

现在我提出我的直白的问题。你可能了解一些中国的情况，说一下你个人的所闻所想，也许对我和其他人更有帮助。你对那里的情况做何判断，你为什么会那样想。请不要象你今天这样用暗指1）对中国的仇视 （我不仇视中国），或2）无知（正如苏格拉底说，我们谁不是呢？）来代替你自己的思考。另外也请不要通过引用我可以在别处找到的别人的论述来回避争论，除非你判定这些材料的权威性值得花时间研究。这不完全关乎中国或西藏，或者是你的读者的失望， 它同时对你作为一个独立的知识分子也至关重要。我想知道你，我们坛中一员，怎么想。你似乎支持一些在外部世界，比如很多西藏人，也许某些核心内的中国人(天安门事件后,这一点就很难说了), 看来是高压虐待政策。 为什么？

Here's my prosaic question. Since you presumably know something about

China yourself, it would be helpful to to me, and perhaps others on

the list, if you report on what you, personally, know, and have

thought through. How do you, xx, judge this situation, and why

have you come to this place in your thinking? Please refrain from

using, as you did today, the tropes of (i) hatred of China (I for one

don't hate China), or (ii) ignorance (who isn't? said Socrates) in

lieu of expressions of your own thought. Please also avoid

argument by mere citation to material written by others that I can

find elsewhere, unless in your judgment such materials constitute

authority worth the expense and bother of study. This is not entirely

about China or Tibet, or even about your readers' failings--it is also

about you as an individual intellectual. I want to know what you,

xx, the fellow WAISer, think. You appear to support a set of

policies that appears to much of the outside world, many Tibetans, and

perhaps some number of Chinese in the heartlands (though it is hard to

say, after Tienanmen) as rank oppression. Why?

（这段老头对自己独立意识的优越感溢于言表。然而深以为，这种依重个人见闻而忽略基本史实的“独立思考”正是西方自由人士对中国认识限入误区的原因之一。老头心态似乎很不端正，无意讨论事实，却不断要我表态站队，同时又早已把我贴上支持邪恶政权的标签。用意合在？ 这种自鸣得意，无意讲理的态度葬送了真诚沟通的条件，让我决定回帖中继续打击他的逻辑漏洞。对不想听道理的人，苦口婆心恐怕是一厢情愿， 在逻辑和心理上beat他是唯一可能做到的。）

不象我们有些理想主义的论坛成员认为的那样，事实上，丑陋的政治经常或总是有理由的。美国有理由入侵伊拉克，越南；雅典人有理由入侵西西里； 等等。卫报将中国的西藏政策和历史上美国在北美大陆的扩张相类比也大有问题，附和这种论调是小儿科。有些理由根本就是悲剧性的或完全就是愚蠢。辨别哪些属于这种性质正是政治思辨的要义所在。 善良的人们参与非正义战争是有原因的。我这里不做道德评判，我也不急于谴责中国，自我辩护是不必的。

Despite what some more idealistic WAISers think, there are often,

perhaps always, reasons for ugly politics. There are reasons that the

US went to war in Iraq or Vietnam, that Athens invaded Sicily ("your

empire is like a tyranny"--Thucydides), and so forth, and it would be

child's play to join the *Guardian* in making (troubling) analogies

between China's Tibet policy and US manifest destiny. Some reasons,

of course, are tragic or merely stupid, figuring out when that is the

case is part of what it means to think critically about politics.

There are reasons good people prosecute unholy wars. So I'm

not asking for simple moralizing, nor am I eager to condemn

China--defensiveness is hardly called for.

（这段其实回复到前面引出的为什么支持现政权的问题。老头几次三番的谈到这点，也验证了这是其思想结扣。但心态仍是叽讽不屑，从其对中美对比的态度中可略感一二。看不到平常心。Again， 决定在下面的对答中将心比心，以损对损。）

我既不是中国人，对西藏也知之甚少。你引出的问题是，作为在美国的中国知识分子，你如何判断西藏的形势？期待你思考后的回答。

In fact, I'm not Chinese, and know little of Tibet. The question you,

xx, have put on the table is, as a Chinese intellectual operating

in the US, how do you judge the situation in Tibet?

A thoughtful answer would be very much appreciated.

• 一块红布---看西方愤老之理屈词不穷,成怒恼不羞(三）

yeh, 愤老送我出兵营！填坑以谢各位丢花鼓励。

接上帖

http://www.cchere.net/article/1523411

（小注：帖中关于 US Manifest Destiny 翻译有误，已在原帖中修改。）

——————————————————————

我给愤老的回帖的回帖

看起来，大卫更关心我的判断，而不是我们大家做出判断所应依据的事实和逻辑。

Apparently, David cares more about my judgment than the facts and

logic that should guide us to form a judgment.

我3月28号的帖子只关乎事实。大卫好像没有理解这点，比如他指出卫报的文章不支持我。完全正确。我并不是先在心里形成一个观点，再过滤支持它的事例。相反，我认为我们大家都应尽力避免这样做，而是从事实开始， （构建观点）。

My previous post (28 March) was simply about facts. David seemed to

misunderstood this by saying, "nor am I convinced that the *Guardian*

article supports you." Exactly; I didn't start with a judgment in my

mind and then filter things to support that. Instead, I think we

should all try to avoid that and start from the facts.

事实是什么呢？卫报作者， 一个可以用“灭绝”这样的词的人，的版本，一定比我，一个大卫认为“支持高压虐待政策”的人，的版本，更加不偏向中国人。这也是我引用卫报文章的原因。这样即使他陈述的事实有些许歪曲，这种歪曲更可能背离中国的立场，而不是偏向中国的立场。

What are the facts? The version from the author of the article, who

can use the word "annihilation," should be much less likely biased

toward the Chinese than the version from me, who David thinks "appear

to support a set of policies that appears ... as rank oppression."

That's why I refer to the *Guardian* article. So even if the facts

there were distorted to some degree, It's most likely biased against

China, not towards China.

即便在这种设定下，我们看到的事实是：

1． 西藏和新疆属于中国

2． （当地）中国政权的建立和维系是以给当地带来发展和现代化为基础的

3． 中国文化包容而不是去除少数民族文化

以上事实决定了中国政府的目标和当地人民的利益是一致的。这就是我做出判断的依据。

Even under this setting, the facts are:

1. Tibet and Xinjiang belong to China.

2. The authority is built and maintained by bringing development and

modernity to those areas.

3. The Chinese culture contains not expunges the minority culture.

These facts makes the government's goal agree with the local people's

interest. That's where I find my judgment.

相反，任何想改变以上事实的企图，其实施不可能避免颠覆和流血。达赖正确的一点是他不宣称独立和暴力。不过，事实显示，他或者言行不一，或者对他的追随者失去掌控。CIA和藏青会绝不是甘地的学生。

On the contrary, any attempt to change these facts cannot be

practiced without overturn and blood shedding. Dalai Lama is right by

not proclaiming independence and violence. However, reality seems to

indicate either he does not mean what he is saying or he's losing

control of his followers. Neither the CIA nor the Tibetan Youth

Congress are students of Gandhi.

感谢大卫的认真讨论。希望我回答了他的提问。

I appreciate David's serious engagement in this discussion and hope I

answered his question.

（我的回帖无非是揭露愤老逻辑误区，明示不可否认的事实。以愤老之刚愎自负，自不会反思内省，恐怕只有恼羞成怒了。愤老的回帖还是出我意料，怒则怒矣，未见其羞啊。诸位请看。）

——————————————————————

愤老再回帖

在我看来，尽管有John Eipper（所在论坛的铁手）所作的可敬和策略的编辑工作，我们WAIS的帖子的总体质量明显下降， 和网上其他博客的趋势相同。

In my opinion, and despite John Eipper's heroic and diplomatic

efforts as editor, the general quality of WAIS posts has declined

substantially, and in directions familiar from elsewhere in the

blogosphere.

（有趣啊有趣，真没想到愤老能化悲愤为思考，上升到如此理论高度。）

太多的帖子完全是鼓吹个人立场，争论过时的结论，而不是说点有趣，或者更高层次一点，有利于我们思考的事。我们WAIS成员，总体上说都是过着精彩人生的智者，他们想什么是值得重视的。但是思考不是也不应该是罗列成见。然而，我们经常，尤其是最近，发的帖不是通过批判性思辨得出的思考或思考过程，而是强力推销很久以来就确定的立场。太多的帖子只是在复述重复的论调，也许援引一下意见相同的媒体。这种帖子里陈述的所谓“事实”一般被忽略，因为这种帖子的狂热鼓动性, 会使谨慎的读者对那些明显是居心叵测的人陈述的 “事实” 大打折扣。这种“事实”， 我们需要到WAIS来找吗？

Far too many posts essentially advocate positions, argue to foregone

conclusions, rather than show us anything interesting or (a tall

order) help us think. WAISers are, by and large, smart people who

have led interesting lives, so what they think is worth some

attention. But thought is, or should be, more than the rearrangement

of prejudices. And far too often, of late, we've posted not what we

think, or have come to think, in some sort of critically reflexive

way, but what we have long ago decided, the positions we have adopted,

which are then set forth as forcefully as possible. Far too many

postings are merely recitations of well-rehearsed arguments, perhaps

with a cross reference to a like-minded journalist. What "facts" are

presented in such postings are generally ignored, because the zealous

advocacy of the post causes the prudent reader to discount anything

presented as "fact" by somebody who, clearly, has an ax to grind. For

that, who needs WAIS?

（彻底无语啊。这就是某些自认理性良知的西方知识分子在认知和心灵上的不归路。我已经把他逼到了“任何事情只要是你说的或引用的，我就是不信”的逻辑死角，他要死扛到底，我也只能旁观了。）

再下是老头关于论坛建设的拳拳之心， 与我辈无关了。

综观两轮对话，我与愤老，都自认为讲理，沟通尚如此之难，何况怀恨斗狠的双方？道理有时不是讲出来， 要硬生生做成现实。大多数人撞到现实感到痛，才会去想道理。 同胞们各尽其职，一起造就中国的硬道理吧。

• 【讨论】西方愤老论坛里的中国愤青视频

道理确实不是讲不出来的～～～

总感觉这些外国FQ,真是比牛还要不可理予啊

已经有人查到是2003年拍电影时候,要请武警演戏拍下的,这批人连基本证据都是假的

夫子说：如果我不气愤，我就不发帖子。

原来孔子也是在网上灌水的。