Chen Danqing's Why Don't I Show off My Wealth and the Red Cross.

On June 29th, 2065438+0/kloc-0, I participated in the program "Qiangqiang" to talk about Guo Meimei's topic. I protested publicly. The next day, my friends told me intensively: Dude, you are in trouble. The key point is not to mention the Red Cross; The second point is that the siege is suspected of problems left over from the Cultural Revolution. In short, it caused public outrage. My friend urged me to stand up and make it clear, so I seemed to see the crowd coming around. Is it useful to debate the radio program afterwards? The key to "public anger" is not "anger" but "public"-if someone is angry with me, don't say it. Now people are angry with me, and pride is not good.

I really seldom surf the Internet and don't wear a "collar". I only heard about showing off my wealth when I went to the recording studio that day. Wendu Tao first mentioned that the focus of public anger was the Red Cross and asked me what I thought of it. I said: I am not interested in showing off my wealth, or I can talk about the modern communication behind the incident; The Red Cross doesn't even want to talk about this, because I never believe in bureaucrats, especially those high-sounding organizations that have moved the name of international brands and morality ... Tang Qiang programs usually don't reconsider the network events and public opinion that have been hotly debated, but try to find some negotiable points behind the events and start a dialogue. Therefore, a little opening is to enter topics such as Weibo that are easy to expose someone and lead to a siege. At this time-or temporarily-I suddenly remembered the "Cultural Revolution". I don't remember what I said specifically, because I don't watch TV.

A talk show about Guo Meimei's incident did not show off wealth and the Red Cross, but talked about the double-edged sword of modern communication and the legacy of the Cultural Revolution. People who pay attention to this case will of course be angry, at least it is unacceptable. It is impossible for inland TV stations to broadcast it publicly. Although "Tang Qiang" is just an entertainment chat, it is also an open media opinion to some extent. Who doesn't want to get some positive responses from it? So the next day, when I learned the anger of some netizens, I realized that my speech was out of place with the context of the case, as always: "It hurt the feelings of the masses".

Why am I not interested in showing off my wealth? It's like I have nothing to say about the rich leftovers in the restaurant. Once a citizen who has been poor for decades or hundreds of years becomes rich, you can't stop someone from showing off. Just like today's memory of hunger lurks, you can't control the time when people order food, so you severely retaliate against the era of food stamps and oil stamps. In short, it is a collective psychological revenge for memory loss and self-indulgence. Decades later, will the memories of previous generations still be useful? This is a collective subconscious, not only an atavism, but also a collective gene, which will be passed on to the next generation with little knowledge of history and no interest: some younger generations will instinctively retaliate when they get money.

Why don't I want to talk about the Red Cross? Because I don't believe it, just like universities now, they are nothing more than officialdom and bureaucrats. My disbelief also includes my deep disbelief in all the possibilities of monitoring it and changing it. This year, the university where I resigned celebrated its anniversary. Several media asked me to say something, but I declined: what can I say? Say what? What's the use of saying it or even publishing it? Therefore, in recent years, apart from "Tang Qiang", I no longer accept interviews from other TV stations, and I no longer openly talk about education. The underlying reason is that I don't trust, and there is nothing to talk about. I know, don't believe it, don't say it, it's already a disadvantage, it's already the worst policy. But netizens have never been at a disadvantage and always have the worst plans. Now they have a "collar", but they play with their small mobile phones all day-fortunately, they have mobile phones.

So at the moment when public opinion stopped at the mobile phone, I suddenly talked about the problems left over from the "Cultural Revolution", which was really misplaced. I feel sorry for this and sympathize with the anger of netizens. This is anger that needs to be defended, just like we have to hold the mobile phone tightly and express a little justice and anger-although only expression, only anger-as a private right.

I want to use this essay to explain why I don't talk about showing off wealth and the Red Cross. Next time I want to talk about why I sat in the studio for a while and suddenly remembered the people of the "Cultural Revolution". I have read Mr. Li's rebuttal to me. He is right: the top-down uproar of the "Cultural Revolution" should not be confused with today's civic awareness and public opinion. Therefore, I am glad that today's young people have clearly seen the "Cultural Revolution". However, angry netizens are probably mostly post-70s. Although they have knowledge of the source of the Cultural Revolution, they have never experienced the disaster of the Cultural Revolution: history is woven by countless details. I will tell a short story about the Cultural Revolution. Yes, from top to bottom, it has become a farce, tragedy and tragedy from bottom to top.