Main Text#
In this era, people are increasingly quick to take sides. An event occurs, and public opinion surges like waves crashing against the shore, instantly dividing into left and right, male and female, black and white. It seems that matters in the world are either this or that, with no middle ground, no gray areas. Even more remarkably, people often choose sides not after seeing clearly, but in the midst of chaos, they rush to the battlefield.
When faced with a public incident, we often only need to read a few lines of news summary before making definitive judgments about who is right and who is wrong. For example, the recent heated discussion surrounding the engagement case in Datong, Shanxi, which involves multiple aspects of law, ethics, gender, and family, should have been a complex issue worthy of calm discussion. But soon, the discussion slipped into extremes: one side viewed the woman as the embodiment of morality, while the other questioned her motives and sincerity. Both sides shouted for "justice," yet no one was truly willing to lower their heads to see the details of the facts.
This tendency is not merely due to "speed," but is also a habit deeply rooted in contemporary context—we crave concise and clear answers and are unwilling to linger too long in ambiguous areas. Yet, as Zhuangzi said:
There is one right and wrong on each side. 1
Between right and wrong, there is a middle ground filled with twists and turns. Yet we always hastily skip the process, seeking only a stance, a conclusion to rely on.
If the ancients had some restraint in disputes, it was because they understood that judgment takes time. Confucius said:
Listen to their words and observe their actions. 2
Yet today, we often only "look at the headlines" and become angry. Zeng Guofan advised his brother in a letter:
In dealing with the world, harmony is precious; think thrice before acting. 3
Unfortunately, such reminders seem to have long been drowned in the tide of information.
Not only in public events, but in all aspects of life, opposing emotions are rapidly spreading. For example, in gender discussions. Almost every discussion about gender relations cannot escape the label battle of "patriarchy" versus "feminism." One side cites data, while the other presents examples, then they deny each other in an endless loop of exceptions and counterexamples, causing mutual harm. Meanwhile, the structural issues that truly deserve exploration are often washed away in these emotional clashes.
Take the controversy between Xiaomi and Huawei as another example. From a technical perspective, both companies have their strengths and should represent the norm of market competition. However, in the online context, it has evolved into a clash between "national spirit" and "common consumerism." Some shout, "Anyone who doesn't support Huawei is unpatriotic," while others mock, "Those who buy Huawei are just putting on airs." It seems that choosing a smartphone is no longer merely a consumer behavior, but a statement laden with original sin.
Is this opposition really just due to differing viewpoints? Perhaps not entirely. Sometimes, we are unwilling to admit that the other side might also have a point, because that would shake our obsession with "self-righteousness." This obsession is further reinforced by platform algorithms in the digital age. The more intensely you express yourself, the more the platform feeds you similar viewpoints, making the world you see increasingly monochromatic, ultimately turning into a silent echo chamber. You think "everyone thinks like me," but in reality, it is just a fictional resonance with your own echo chamber.
The Book of Songs states:
Those who speak are not guilty; those who hear should take heed. 4
Today, this saying might be reversed— we are not always innocent in our speech, and we should learn to reflect on ourselves from the words of others. But the reality is, we too easily label others as "enemies" at the first opportunity, rather than listening and understanding.
At times, this opposition is even intentionally amplified. For instance, when certain accounts or platforms create polarizing topics for traffic; or when there are "information manipulators" behind certain events, magnifying conflicts and stirring emotions, turning the entire public opinion arena into their traffic factory. We may not be able to see these clearly, but we must remain vigilant.
The English poet Yeats wrote in "The Second Coming":
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity. 5
Translated as: "The best remain silent, while the worst are full of passion." This statement is quite fitting in today's information society. The voices most worth listening to often drown in the noise, while the most extreme and emotional expressions are the easiest to see.
What should we do? Perhaps what we should do is not to participate immediately, not to rush to take sides, but rather, as they say in movies:
Let the bullets fly for a while. 6
When an event first occurs, the information is always incomplete, and the statements from all sides often contradict each other. What is most needed at this time is to patiently wait, to let the anger cool down first, rather than treating the first impression as the final truth.
Understanding the world is all knowledge; understanding human feelings is the essence of writing. 7
Understanding others and the complexity of events is, in fact, a form of cultivation and wisdom. The black-and-white, life-and-death opposition is neither elegant nor intelligent, and it does not help the truth to emerge.
Perhaps we all need to learn to slow down, to be cooler, to be gentler. This may sound less heroic and less passionate, but it is precisely these seemingly mild qualities that are the necessary path for a society to mature.
After all, opposition is too easy, but understanding is difficult. Precisely because it is difficult, it is worth trying.
References#
- "Let the Bullets Fly" movie script and interviews
- Datong case, Huawei and Xiaomi controversy
- East China Normal University, School of Communication, "Risk Communication of Social Media in Natural Disaster Events"
This article is synchronized and updated by Mix Space to xLog. The original link is https://fmcf.cc/posts/life/why-do-people-like-opposition