Read on Twitter
now that my previous thread has been flagged by a popular Chinese site and a wave of comments is coming, let me say:
1)TRY BEST not to assume bad faith "on the other side"
2)NEVER engage in personal attacks
1)TRY BEST not to assume bad faith "on the other side"
2)NEVER engage in personal attacks
1) if we conduct public conversations assuming "the other side" has unchangeable bad faith/ill intentions, that they are deliberately engaging in intentional distortion, then what's the point of conducting public conservations? Then everything just becomes anger-venting.
it's become unfortunately common for Republicans to assume bad faith by Democrats and vice versa, Americans assume bad faith by Chinese and vice versa, etc., in which case the public conversations become just counter-productive and meaningless, a waste of time.
And yes it's possible people "on the other side" do not carry enough good faith as "our side" would have hoped, but even so, it's still in "our" own interest to proceed upon the assumption of good faith - that's the only hopeful way, however minimal, to engage & connect
and possibly shape their understanding of things toward - even just a little bit nearer - to "our side".
If that's not "our" aim, I ask again, what is the point of conducting public conversations? Spend that time with your family while you still have them. In year 2020 no less.
If that's not "our" aim, I ask again, what is the point of conducting public conversations? Spend that time with your family while you still have them. In year 2020 no less.
2) Personal attacks are never productive, either.
Millions of people emigrate, change passports, work in a country different from their birthplace. That's just a fact and a personal choice widely accepted internationally.
It's possible some people do not like that, but
Millions of people emigrate, change passports, work in a country different from their birthplace. That's just a fact and a personal choice widely accepted internationally.
It's possible some people do not like that, but
at least understand that's widely accepted elsewhere.
Personally, I don't think that's wrong, unless, say, changing side to the Japanese or German in World War II.
or allow me to put it in this way: attacks based on this is destined to be alienating and counter-productive.
Personally, I don't think that's wrong, unless, say, changing side to the Japanese or German in World War II.
or allow me to put it in this way: attacks based on this is destined to be alienating and counter-productive.
I like to use "productive" and "counter-productive" not because I trade in Machiavellianism but because what's the point of being aggressive or even uncivil but counter-productive? I just don't get it.
Everyone is bound by their limits, let's say and do things that are useful.
Everyone is bound by their limits, let's say and do things that are useful.
by now I should have pissed off ppl "on both sides",
But subscribe to my newsletter http://www.pekingnology.com !
But subscribe to my newsletter http://www.pekingnology.com !
