Main Text#
In this era, people are increasingly quick to take sides. An event occurs, and public opinion crashes like waves 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 strangely, people often do not wait to see clearly before choosing sides; instead, they rush into the battlefield while the situation is still murky.
When faced with a public incident, we often only need to read a few lines of news summary before we start to firmly judge who is right and who is wrong. For example, the recent heated discussion about the engagement case in Datong, Shanxi, which involves multiple aspects of law, ethics, gender, and family, should have been a complex event worthy of calm discussion. But soon, the discussion slid 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 bow down and see the details of the facts.
This tendency is not merely due to "speed," but is also a habit deeply rooted in the contemporary context—we crave concise and clear answers and are unwilling to linger too long in ambiguous areas. But as Zhuangzi said:
There is one right and wrong for each side. 1
Between right and wrong, there is indeed a middle ground filled with twists and turns. Yet we always hurriedly skip over the process, seeking only a stance, a conclusion to rely on.
If the ancients had a degree of 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 twice 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 wars of "patriarchy" and "feminism." One side cites data, while the other presents examples, and then they deny each other in an infinite loop of exceptions and counterexamples, hurting one another. Meanwhile, the truly structural issues worth discussing often get washed away in these emotional clashes.
Take the controversy between Xiaomi and Huawei, for instance. From a technical perspective, both companies have their strengths and should be in a state of normal market competition. However, in the online context, it has evolved into a clash between "national spirit" and "common consumerism." Some people shout, "Anyone who does not 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 just a consumer behavior, but a statement laden with original sin.
Is this kind of opposition really just due to differing viewpoints? Perhaps not entirely. Sometimes, we are unwilling to admit that the other side may also have a point, because that would shake our obsession with "self-righteousness." And this obsession is further reinforced by platform algorithms in the digital age. The more intensely you express yourself, the more the platform pushes similar viewpoints to you, making the world you see increasingly singular, 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 turned around— 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 that we too easily label others as "enemies" at the first moment, rather than listening and understanding.
At times, this opposition is even intentionally amplified. For example, when certain accounts or platforms create polarizing topics for traffic; or whether there are "information manipulators" behind certain events, magnifying contradictions 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 to, as they say in movies:
Let the bullets fly for a while. 6
When something just happens, 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 taking 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 actually a form of cultivation and wisdom. The black-and-white, life-and-death opposition is neither elegant nor wise, and it does not help the truth to emerge.
Perhaps we should all learn to slow down, to be cooler, to be gentler. This may sound not brave enough, not passionate enough, 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. It is precisely because it is difficult that 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 to xLog by Mix Space. The original link is https://fmcf.cc/posts/life/why-do-people-like-opposition