Graceless brawls degrade name of public intellectuals
By Zhou Sitian
When I saw the video showing Wu Danhong being beaten up by a group of people, as onlookers cheered, I was reminded of the scene when the red guards were spreading chaos across the country some 40 years ago during the Cultural Revolution (1966-76).
At that time, supposed "rightists" were labeled as counter-revolutionaries and attacked while nowadays, pro-government bloggers known as the "50 cents party" (referring to the 5 mao reportedly paid by the government to fake posters) face fierce insults online and may even be physically attacked, as in this instance.
It is astonishing that the two main figures in the issue are a professor of law and a journalist. Freedom of speech is regarded as basic common sense both in the law and media. Given their professions, Wu and Zhou should have a better understanding that the right to speak should be defended.
But although the issue is a personal incident between Wu and Zhou, it reflects recurring problems among Chinese intellectuals.
The popularity of Weibo, China's microblogging service, has greatly expanded the participation of pubic intellectuals in social affairs. Many public intellectuals have gained their own popularity through commenting on hot issues on Weibo. In order to attract followers, public intellectuals advanced unique and eye-catching ideas. They even fight with each other while their followers queue to support them.
For example, in the flame war between Fang Zhouzi, an anti-fraud campaigner, and best-selling author Han Han early this year, the two celebrities weren't the only parties involved. People found a vicarious sense of satisfaction through being involved in the fight between two well-known public intellectuals.
This incident is much more severe than Fang and Han's fight. The irrational sentiments of the public have been stimulated, which resulted in the confrontation between the two camps.
Public intellectuals, especially with an academic background, should have a critical spirit and the proper values to help the public and improve society.
And they should promote social rationality through their own actions. Those public intellectuals who only aim at attracting attention are in fact public entertainers. They should stop misusing the name of public intellectuals, otherwise, the term will become a purely derogatory one.
The author is a Shanghai-based lawyer. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn
By Peng Xiaoyun
The rapid development of the Internet, particularly the rising popularity of social networking sites, has provided people with an open domain to discuss public affairs.
However, we haven't been educated as to how to participate in proper discussion. Since childhood, we've been told Manichean fairytales about how there are "good guys" and the "bad guys."
And when we discuss public affairs and politics on the Internet, we are often dominated by our own political correctness, believing that criticizing the authority is always morally right while defending it is always morally wrong.
For instance, by using political labels like "50 cents party," one group of people can easily disqualify those with different opinions from participating in a discussion and cancel their ideas' legitimacy.
In this playground scrap between Wu Danhong and Zhou Yan, with figures like Ai Weiwei on the sidelines, people were predominately influenced by their political stances and made their judgments purely based on their own existing prejudices.
They labeled Wu as a "50 cents party member," and thus claimed that Wu's defeat was "just," and that he "deserved to be punished." Their rhetoric reminds me exactly of the class warfare in the old days.
Yet the duel was triggered over a discussion of the Shifang factory project. Wu's view on the seriousness of the factory's pollution somehow offended Zhou. They had a fierce debate about the issue, but the online discussion eventually ended up with a real fight.
Whatever our differences, we need to be mutually respectful so that our discussion can be carried out within a proper frame and manner.
Mutual respect requires more than tolerance, as it asks people of different ideas to show appreciation of others' thoughts. This can help put aside conflicts and enable the coexistence and exchange of divided ideologies.
Unfortunately, for people who can't even decide which moral conflicts can be respected, asking them to become mutually respectful to different ideas is too difficult. They cannot tolerate doubt of their stance.
This indicates that our society lacks respect for different opinions. To avert this, we need adjustment to both our system and our own individual mindset to provide a more tolerant environment for different opinions.
The author is a media commentator in Guangzhou. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn
VoxPop
@yaowuyun
The people involved in the incident are all intellectuals who have received good education. But their poor tempers and lack of emotional intelligence have really shocked me. It seems our education system has only taught them how to survive, but nothing about social morality.
@ranyunfei
Building up a democratic society isn't about setting up a set of high moral standards, but a set of appropriate rules that the public can recognize and agree with.
Thus, the whole logic of idolizing people who call for democracy and demanding they become morally flawless, then blaming them for failing to achieve those high standards and accusing democracy of being a failure is completely groundless. And if people switch views because of this, it only shows they lack faith.
@routangseng
Whatever society an individual is with, the obligation of a citizen should always be honored. This is especially the case for liberals.
However, even though some people who participated in the mass brawl in Chaoyang Park claimed that they are liberals, they unfairly overwhelmed one man and physically assaulted him.
And they just escaped when the police arrived, leaving a woman to shoulder all responsibility.
What kind of liberals are they? Where is their sense of responsibility? Where are their obligations and duties?