笨狼發牢騷
發發牢騷，解解悶，消消愁
試想你的親人被殺了，你會是怎麽一個感覺？或者你的一族正在與其他部落交戰，你死我活，你的一個族人被殺了，而且敵人是用卑鄙手段殺的，你又會怎麽感覺？
那咬牙切齒，恨不得將敵人千刀萬剮的欲望，也是自然的了。
現代不會千刀萬剮了，不過“以人道的”方式將“犯罪者”加以處罰，包括擊斃、炸死等方式，是完全合服今天的道德標準的。言論上，我們還會義憤填膺的表達憤怒，我們的無辜和敵人的邪惡，我們的正義和敵人的反人性，我們的道德和敵人的惡魔行徑。等等。
此刻能冷靜下來追究根源的人不多。想想，美國的無人飛機不是每天都在轟炸、殺人嗎？從來沒有人覺得是一個問題（自然是指在美國和西方主流媒體了）。以色列和巴勒斯坦呢？即使在美國，難道在平時我們就一點兒責任都沒有嗎？
巴黎血案，自然讓人悲痛、憤怒，極端穆斯林分子的行為令人發指，無法容忍。這是人生悲劇，義憤是正常的。不過人們極少反思自己的行為，很少因為自己是不是道德發愁，大概是每個人都覺得自己是按照”道德標準“來潛移默化地約束自己每天的行為，自然是守道德的了。
我說世人一般是守道德的，但虛偽、雙重標準的行為，不是不少，而是基本上伴隨著我們的日常行徑。冰凍三尺，非一日之寒，巴黎血案，更應該讓人反省。
我要是說這話，大家該給我上綱上線了，覺得我沒同情心，非人道，甚至邪惡。另一個公開說這話的，是紐約時報專欄作家David Brooks，中偏右，頗受尊敬。這一慘案，實際上是當代人，尤其是西方長期的以自己獨斷和偏見強加於人的態度的結果。
反思，反思。
Glenn Greenwald on Democracy Now
Jeremy Scahill on Democracy Now
外交政策雜誌：
‘Where’s Our Unity March?’ China Wants to Know
Social media users ask why the West wept for Paris, but not for Kunming, also the site of a deadly attack
I Am Not Charlie Hebdo
David Brooks，紐約時報專欄作家
The journalists at Charlie Hebdo are now rightly being celebrated as martyrs on behalf of freedom of expression, but let’s face it: If they had tried to publish their satirical newspaper on any American university campus over the last two decades it wouldn’t have lasted 30 seconds. Student and faculty groups would have accused them of hate speech. The administration would have cut financing and shut them down.
Public reaction to the attack in Paris has revealed that there are a lot of people who are quick to lionize those who offend the views of Islamist terrorists in France but who are a lot less tolerant toward those who offend their own views at home.
Just look at all the people who have overreacted to campus micro-aggressions. The University of Illinois fired a professor who taught the Roman Catholic view on homosexuality. The University of Kansas suspended a professor for writing a harsh tweet against the N.R.A. Vanderbilt University derecognized a Christian group that insisted that it be led by Christians.
Americans may laud Charlie Hebdo for being brave enough to publish cartoons ridiculing the Prophet Muhammad, but, if Ayaan Hirsi Ali is invited to campus, there are often calls to deny her a podium.
So this might be a teachable moment. As we are mortified by the slaughter of those writers and editors in Paris, it’s a good time to come up with a less hypocritical approach to our own controversial figures, provocateurs and satirists.
The first thing to say, I suppose, is that whatever you might have put on your Facebook page yesterday, it is inaccurate for most of us to claim, Je Suis Charlie Hebdo, or I Am Charlie Hebdo. Most of us don’t actually engage in the sort of deliberately offensive humor that that newspaper specializes in.
We might have started out that way. When you are 13, it seems daring and provocative to “épater la bourgeoisie,” to stick a finger in the eye of authority, to ridicule other people’s religious beliefs.
But after a while that seems puerile. Most of us move toward more complicated views of reality and more forgiving views of others. (Ridicule becomes less fun as you become more aware of your own frequent ridiculousness.) Most of us do try to show a modicum of respect for people of different creeds and faiths. We do try to open conversations with listening rather than insult.
Yet, at the same time, most of us know that provocateurs and other outlandish figures serve useful public roles. Satirists and ridiculers expose our weakness and vanity when we are feeling proud. They puncture the self-puffery of the successful. They level social inequality by bringing the mighty low. When they are effective they help us address our foibles communally, since laughter is one of the ultimate bonding experiences.
Moreover, provocateurs and ridiculers expose the stupidity of the fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are people who take everything literally. They are incapable of multiple viewpoints. They are incapable of seeing that while their religion may be worthy of the deepest reverence, it is also true that most religions are kind of weird. Satirists expose those who are incapable of laughing at themselves and teach the rest of us that we probably should.
In short, in thinking about provocateurs and insulters, we want to maintain standards of civility and respect while at the same time allowing room for those creative and challenging folks who are uninhibited by good manners and taste.
If you try to pull off this delicate balance with law, speech codes and banned speakers, you’ll end up with crude censorship and a strangled conversation. It’s almost always wrong to try to suppress speech, erect speech codes and disinvite speakers.
Fortunately, social manners are more malleable and supple than laws and codes. Most societies have successfully maintained standards of civility and respect while keeping open avenues for those who are funny, uncivil and offensive.
In most societies, there’s the adults’ table and there’s the kids’ table. The people who read Le Monde or the establishment organs are at the adults’ table. The jesters, the holy fools and people like Ann Coulter and Bill Maher are at the kids’ table. They’re not granted complete respectability, but they are heard because in their unguided missile manner, they sometimes say necessary things that no one else is saying.
Healthy societies, in other words, don’t suppress speech, but they do grant different standing to different sorts of people. Wise and considerate scholars are heard with high respect. Satirists are heard with bemused semirespect. Racists and anti-Semites are heard through a filter of opprobrium and disrespect. People who want to be heard attentively have to earn it through their conduct.
The massacre at Charlie Hebdo should be an occasion to end speech codes. And it should remind us to be legally tolerant toward offensive voices, even as we are socially discriminating.
沒什麽不妥的。
但是，但是，你讀懂他了嗎？