I recently finished watching "No." in one sitting, and I thought it was a pretty good TV series. I excitedly went to the "No." bar to watch it, only to find that there was another shouting match...

There is no reason and discussion here, no communication and learning, only insults and personal attacks.

As in previous topics with similar themes, both sides of the argument call each other fifty cents or five cents. If you want to interject a word or two, you are simply asking for humiliation.

This once again confirms the confusion of current social thinking.

Sometimes it feels ridiculous when I watch the two sides criticize each other from different angles and positions. They each bring evidence from different places and quote scriptures while speaking eloquently. to expose the loopholes in the other party’s evidence. In short, no one can convince anyone.

"In order to fight foreign affairs, we must first settle our domestic affairs." Many people are now beginning to clamor for its correctness. In fact, it is very simple. The key to whether it is correct or not depends on your stance or perspective. If you look at it from the perspective of maintaining your own dominance in the world, it is absolutely scientific and correct. Measure China's material resources and the country's happiness, peace and foreign aggression, not domestic slaves, etc. All the wise sayings point to the stability of your own political power and rule. High and everything.

Even if the floods are raging after my death, is this sentence wrong? Is it wrong for people to punish themselves if they don’t do it for themselves? Looking at it in different locations, times and regions will lead to different conclusions. Is it the same to say this from the position of a ruler as to say this from the position of a commoner who is struggling with food and clothing? Is it the same in troubled times and prosperous times?

You know, being a traitor is definitely not a good job or a good reputation.

But on the other hand, is human life above all else?

Then do you think it is wrong to become a traitor in order to survive?

This issue cannot be discussed in different eras. People who were born in troubled times when their wives were separated and their families were destroyed hate traitors, but people who were born in peaceful times will suddenly feel a sense of sympathy when they look at the beautiful traitors in the past. and mercy.

Whether to empathize or stay outside the world is the key to whether an outsider can objectively understand the mood and values ??of the people in the world.

From the perspective of protecting the fruits of labor, landlords have a lot of hard-earned land, and it seems unreasonable to be divided and robbed; and from the perspective of farmers, let’s not talk about whether there are some male bullies. Female local tyrants and evil gentry, but from the point of view that the distribution of land will make 90% of the country's people, namely farmers, better off, and will be more conducive to the popularization and improvement of democracy and civil rights awareness, then which one is right and which one is wrong? Regardless of whether the winner of the political power and the dependents of victory are farmers or not, even from the perspective of a bystander, which one is right and which one is wrong?

As the saying goes, the poor can only take care of themselves, while the rich can help the world. The poor have the perspective of the poor, and the prosperous have the responsibility of the prosperous. If the wealthy and the poor have the same low worldview and values, in a pyramid-shaped society, what else can the poor, who make up the majority of the population, expect?

Ideologies are all related to the distribution of interests. Some ideologies are for the interests of a few people, and some ideologies are for the interests of the majority.

No matter what the history is, no matter what the original promises were, not to mention that history is not something that most of us can get the truth from published articles and history books alone. This is not historical nihilism, this is because History has never been absolutely true, only the history of the person who wrote it.

Think about it, even if you live in the contemporary era, do you think you can see it clearly? Different people will still write with different feelings, just like some people like tragedy and some people like comedy.

So we ordinary people should stop arguing about who is right and who is wrong about historical details. What we should pay more attention to is the present. No matter what the history is, the key is your position and belief. If you insist that you are right, more people will support it, so it is better to do something within your ability.

Internet article I hope my answer can help you and I hope you will adopt it