丘吉尔曾经说过：“以贫穷为代价的平等好呢，还是以不平等为代价的幸福好？”（Is it better to have equality at the price of poverty or well-being at the price of inequality？）丘吉尔这个问题是针对当时盛行的社会主义思潮提出来的。丘吉尔是一个获得了诺贝尔文学奖的、具有浪漫的理想主义思想的政治家，又是一个充满了政治野心的、具有卓越领袖才能的文学家，当今的世界还需要这样能够力挽狂澜的伟人吗？
I thought I had answered your question: The premise was stated by ziqiao. I don’t really know if it’s true or not. My point was: you should’ve asked her about this premise rather than adding words to her premise and attacking.
回复 'nightrider' 的评论 : 我觉得我们在Hate speech 的认知上相去甚远。你认为“Hate speech only exists in each individual's mind. It is an ill defined legal concept. ” 而我认为Hate speech is a form of crime，而问题是因为比较难界定，所以有被滥用的趋势。这个问题辩论起来太复杂了，而且我也不是太擅长于辩论。所以我们只能各持己见了。
Wow, you indeed can read my mind , that's scary：）我的下一篇文章确实是关于“on the Internet nobody knows you are dog.” 文章早上已经发了，请指教。
回复 'ziqiao123' 的评论 :
1) Sure, I agree that people are entitled to their opinion. My ideal procedure to have a meaningful conversation is akin to the Socratic method. That is to question one person or each other until a set of axioms is found. The two interlocutors can examine whether they agree with this set or not and whether this set is self contradictory. The key is this process would have to be based on correct logical deduction. It may be a tedious process, best carried out in a one-to-one conversation.
My contention regarding hate speech is that that concept violates the most basic principle of logical consistency. If we dispense with logic, there is no ground for any meaningful conversation.
2) Regarding gender, I was just curious about 清漪园's thought process in making that conclusion. That is all. Nothing more. I am looking forward to your article. Let me hazard a guess: you are going to say "On the internet, nobody knows you are a dog." ;-)
1) I accept your objection. Let me rephrase by dropping the word "largely". It does not change my argument. Can you now answer my question concerning the logic validity of your analogy?
You give an excellent example, exemplifying precisely the flaw in your logic. I do not know much about 周立波 and 关栋天. In any case, you presumed "当年周立波因为关栋天的帮助和自身的才气努力 ..." as a premise. Questioning it would of course be contradictory to that premise. In Thomas Sowell's case, are you already presuming that his success benefits from AA as a fact and therefore unquestionable? What is the truthfulness of that presumption? You are performing circular reasoning. Do you not see the fault in your logic?
Thank you for your compliment. My Chinese is just as good as my English. I choose to type English only because typing Chinese is so much more cumbersome having to deal with choosing the correct characters with the same pronunciation even with phrasing. I have little time to spare on internet.
看到你跟园姐说“By the way, why do you think I am a woman? Of course, in this day and age of gender fluidity, I can be of any gender I like or you like me to be. ” 我眼珠子都要掉出来了，难道你真能够 read my mind？：）因为我昨天晚上写了一篇文章，跟这篇文章一点关系都没有，而是一直以来就在想的一个网络上的普遍现象。我本来还想再修改一下再发，现在怕你有误会准备马上发，因为我不可能在读了你的留言之后十几分钟就写出那样一篇文章。
1) 很显然，你改变争论对方的语句出自习惯：你这个“largely”是额外加上去的。关于Thomas was benefited from AA 这事，我不清楚，我只是指出来你在争论时会改变对方的意思。你说 I cannot read your mind, 联想的你极出色的英文，你是不是英文比中文要好？若如此，倒好理解了。
You say "黑人右派...大部分水平是不行的。" That is your opinion. You are free to have any opinion in a free market capitalism --- and ironically, not in a liberal plagued society that you are advocating though. However, the liberal left wants to impose their opinions on other through coercive measures like AA. That is the essential difference.
You seem to be given to making far-fetched analogies, such as your current one between Chavez and Trump, without any logical and factual support, much like you did for William Barr and Nieng Yan of Princeton, ludicrously.
1) You give an excellent example, exemplifying precisely the flaw in your logic. I do not know much about 周立波 and 关栋天. In any case, you presumed "当年周立波因为关栋天的帮助和自身的才气努力 ..." as a premise. Questioning it would of course be contradictory to that premise. In Thomas Sowell's case, are you already presuming that his success benefits largely from AA as a fact and therefore unquestionable? What is the truthfulness of that presumption? You are performing circular reasoning. Do you not see the fault in your logic?
2) The topic《如何在完全自由市场经济下防止类似2008的经济危机》is a moot, since there would not be an economic crisis greater or equal to the scale of 2008 in a free market capitalism. All the acknowledged culprits of the crisis, such as the politically motivated, government policy encouraged and tax money supported large scale subprime mortgage loans, helped along by the government enterprises like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in collusion with myriad politicians, would not have been granted by profit seeking prudent private enterprises and thus would not have proliferated or even emerged in a completely free market capitalism.
Regarding hate speech, you still have not understood what I am saying. It is really not about our personal opinions. What I am saying is that the concept of hate speech is logically self-contradictory. It does not exist in the way you intend or took it to be. If you do not agree, give me a definition that can stand the test of logic.
You say “Why do you think Thomas Sowell attained his prominence through AA rather than his own academic excellence, just because he is black?”——这好像不是我的原意。" Maybe it is not what you intend to say. I cannot read your mind. I am just restating what your statement implies. I would not mind you rephrasing your statement and we can discuss your modified statement.
I understand your friendship with Ziqiao. Let me clarify in case there is any misunderstanding. My comments are directed at the statements of Ziqiao, as well as of others, not at her or others personally. In fact, I agree with most of what Ziqiao had said in her blog, except the two paragraphs I have pointed out.
I cannot agree more with what you have said about the pernicious effect of AA. I actually take one step further in saying that the AA had no positive effect but a counterproductive mistake from the very beginning.
Again, I agree with what you have said regarding Brexit. As a matter of fact, my stance with regard to Brexit has the same origin with that regard to AA and all other issues. My Grand Unified Theory of society is simple: the individual rights to private properties and the sanctity of contracts. From there one derives the free market capitalism and liberty. The limited government is but a corollary.
By the way, why do you think I am a woman? Of course, in this day and age of gender fluidity, I can be of any gender I like or you like me to be.
“When someone tries to lay a guilt trip on you for being successful, remember that your guilt is some politician's license to take what you worked for and give it to someone else who is more likely to vote for the politician who plays Santa Claus with your money.”
I agree with you. The British, in fact the Anglo Saxons, are pragmatic and shrewd. They are the worthy cousins and of course allies of we Americans. ;-) Brexit is a wise, though late coming choice, to extract Britain from a sinking mismanaged ship and entangling amalgam of a mess plagued by left liberalism/socialists that is the European Union. Teresa May is an ineffective leader. I originally thought she could be Margaret Thatcher II. What a disappointment!
Thank you for joining the conversation.
1) Yes, I was rebutting her statement 【他自己是AA的受益者，但是他认为AA是 racism 。但是正如你说的，他能取得今天的荣誉和地位又恰恰跟他是黑人有关，是不是有点可悲？】You asked "你居然没看出来两者之间差得其实是十万八千里？" Which "两者" are you talking about? Please be specific when you write. From your reference to my words "rather" and "just", I gather the answer to my question is affirmative. If so, I call you attention to her phrase 【他能 A... 又恰恰 B...】. How is that not asserting the sufficiency of B for attaining A? How substantially different is this phrase from my "rather... just... "
Moreover, whence does Ziqiao123 conclude 【他自己是AA的受益者】?
How is AA not racism just as Thomas Sowell asserts? Ironically, Ziqiao's own very assertion validates it. Had it not been AA, Ziqiao and others would not have reflexively attributed his success largely to his being black rather his own merit, with phrases such as【他能取得今天的荣誉和地位又恰恰跟他是黑人有关】. It layers on deep suspicion about the achievement by a black man and by extension a woman, white or black or yellow. How is that not judgment by racial stereotype and therefore racist? By the way, let me emphasize again, this kind of statement and phrasing can well be considered insulting, hateful and classified as hate speech. It demonstrates the self-contradicting absurdity of such concepts. Logically self-contradictory concepts always come back full circle to bite oneself.
2) Regarding the question of government control, how is it not easy? Sure, you are right that I cannot speak for Thomas Sowell. Here is my opinion. The optimal level of government control is roughly speaking to protect private property rights and guarantee the sanctity of contracts. The optimal complexity of the executive branch of the government should abolish all departments except those of the justice, defense and perhaps treasury. Any state between the optimal and the present state is better than the present state. Currently there are so many agencies that can be easily cut. At least stop adding more. How is that not easy and obvious? One easy thing to do pertaining to our topic of discussion at hand is to abolish Affirmative Action and disband the government agency charged with it enforcement.
你很雄辩，但有些问题。我先帮子乔说几句。你反驳子乔【Why do you think Thomas Sowell attained his prominence through AA rather than his own academic excellence, just because he is black?】到底反驳她哪一句？是不是这一句？【他自己是AA的受益者，但是他认为AA是 racism 。但是正如你说的，他能取得今天的荣誉和地位又恰恰跟他是黑人有关，是不是有点可悲？】如果是，你居然没看出来两者之间差得其实是十万八千里？请特别注意“rather than" and "just"，这两个词是你强加到子乔头上的。
我说Thomas【指责很简单，他有没有提供改进措施？】这是一个问号，他其实可能在别处已经提供改进措施了，只不过我不知道而已。但是你的回帖帮Thomas说【 Is it not obvious already? Less control! It is so easy to do.】很遗憾，除非你回答“no control”，那个才是obvious and easy to do，一旦“LESS”，那就绝对不是obvious and easy to do。首先，Less到哪里就不好回答。其次，哪些是要Less control哪些是要more control的？ 这些问题都是极其复杂很难有直接了当的回答，也因为如此才有两边都有很多的智者在争论。哪里是obvious and easy!
Why do you think Thomas Sowell attained his prominence through AA rather than his own academic excellence, just because he is black? His work speaks for itself. By the way, what you said could well be considered hate speech, by some people. Yet it is supported by others. So is it hate speech or not? Think about it, how logically contradictory and ludicrous this concept is.
Regarding surrendering power to the government, I see you want examples of an originally democratic country voting a dictatorial government into power. Well I gave you an example of Nazi Germany, which you also acknowledged. If you pay attention to the contemporary affairs and news, you would have discovered an Latin American country named Venezuela and its dictator Hugo Chávez who came to power through a legitimate election with highly popular votes. The Venezuela citizens VOTED to nationalize private assets and redistribution private wealth, surrender the redistribution rights and their individual property rights to the government. The rest is, as they say, history. I suppose you have not read or saw the dire economic strait the Venezuela people have gotten themselves into. Well, who do they have to blame, but themselves?
I do not understand your statement "即使以你的观点，也是因为‘仇恨言论’被别有用心的人利用为政治工具吧？" Could you please explain what you are trying to say?
Hate speech only exists in each individual's mind. It is an ill defined legal concept. How do you define hate speech? It is up to the interpretation of each individual. What is hateful to you may be lovely to me and vice versa. Whose standard should the society adopt? Words like Chinaman and Ching Chong are anathema only under certain circumstances in certain time period. Should we ban all speeches that hurt someone somewhere? Is "women have the right to decide the fate of the fetus in her womb no matter the gestation period and whether the pregnancy results from a rape" hate speech? It is hateful to a pro-lifer. It is music to the ear to a pro-choicer. What about "No abortion whatsoever"? Is it not music to the ear of a pro-lifer and hateful to a pro-choicer? If someone says most Chinese are shorter than most Norwegians, is this hat speech? What about Chinese girls are prettier than Russian girls? What about the opposite, Russian girls are prettier than Chinese girls, or Chinese girls are uglier than Russian girls? Blacks are not as smart as Chinese? Black are better at sports than Chinese? Each single one of the statements sure hurts and is hateful to someone somewhere. Are these hate speeches or truth or personal feelings, and to whom? Who decides?
What are the remedies? Is it not obvious already? Less control! It is so easy to do. Smaller government, less regulations, less interference with the liberty of the people and the market. Abolish the ludicrous and self-contradictory laws such as hate speech. The liberal left socialists hypocrites: keep your hands to yourself, stop picking other people's pockets in the name of greater good!
Agree. More over, none of Thomas Sowell's idea is extreme. It is nothing but the truth. Here are two of his interviews on Uncommon Knowledge of the Hoover Institute: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdHEbOAQFmY and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOMksnSaAJ4. It is a candid and honest look at the economic disparities, and a insightful review of the basic economic principles so often trampled and violated by the liberal left socialists in their hypocritical pursuit of the greater good.
Again, Thomas Sowell is right. His words are not extreme at all. Surrendering too much power to the government itself is the most 制度不完善. Circumscribing the power of the government is precisely a necessary condition for a good political institution. We have examples galore for the opposite: the Soviet Union, the pre-reform communist China, the somewhat better present day China, the Nazi Germany, North Korea. The government of every single one of them holds enormous power in the name of nothing but social justice, and every single one of them turns out to be dictatorial --- even blatantly and shamelessly claimed by the communists/socialists as "proletariat dictatorship" --- and totalitarian.
Thomas Sowell is right. You mention "'仇恨言论'的定义". There is no such definition. One can not give a logically consistent definition for hate speech. This alone makes the hate speech into a weapon wielded by certain political group in power to arbitrarily suppress freedom of speech of dissenting groups.