将下面的内容翻译成英语，然后用英文写一篇评论文章：
关键词：
科学已经不会讨论了
耍政治无赖
能不能共鸣和文学性高不高它不是一回事
鸡汤文学
诉诸多数和诉诸人身
取消你参与讨论的资格，堵住你的嘴
只要不高度赞美
撒泼、打滚、耍无赖
我们今天很多人已经不会好好讨论问题
都在原地打转
毫无进步
这是某一个时代留给我们最大的伤害
要以几代人来清偿代价
情绪、站队、做道德表态的符号、它就迅速廉价化
解释权在谁
到处耍无赖
耍无赖、扣帽子、爱举报、不让说话
Commentary Essay by ChatGPT
When Debate Collapses: From Reason to Rhetoric
The text presents a sharp diagnosis of a widespread problem: the erosion of genuine discussion. What appears on the surface as disagreement often turns out to be something else entirely—performance, signaling, or coercion.
At the heart of this problem is a confusion between argument and alignment. Instead of evaluating claims based on evidence and reasoning, participants increasingly judge them based on identity, emotion, or group affiliation. Once this shift occurs, discussion becomes secondary; what matters is not whether something is true, but whether it signals the “correct” position.
The example involving Ordinary World illustrates this transformation clearly. A literary question—about aesthetic quality—is replaced by a political one: whether one belongs to “the people.” This shift is not accidental; it is strategic. By redefining the terms of the debate, one side avoids engaging with the original issue altogether.
This is what the text calls “playing political hooliganism.” It is not merely bad reasoning; it is a form of discursive power. By labeling opponents, questioning their legitimacy, or threatening exclusion, one can win an argument without ever addressing it.
Philosophically, this represents a move away from the ideals associated with thinkers like Karl Popper, who emphasized criticism and falsifiability, toward a model where ideas are protected by social mechanisms rather than tested by reason.
The consequences are profound. When ad hominem attacks, appeals to the majority, and false dichotomies dominate discourse, several things happen:
Complexity collapses into binary choices.
Concepts degrade into rhetorical tools.
Participation narrows, as dissent becomes risky.
Over time, this leads to intellectual stagnation. Discussions loop endlessly because they are no longer oriented toward truth, but toward positioning.
The text’s observation that “we are all going in circles” is not just metaphorical—it is structural. When systems reward conformity and emotional alignment over reasoning, progress becomes difficult, if not impossible.
Equally important is the critique of collective language. Words like “the people” carry moral weight, but when used irresponsibly, they become instruments of exclusion. The issue is not the concept itself, but its abuse—especially when it is used to override individual voices.
A healthier discourse would require a shift back to individual accountability: speaking in one’s own name, defending one’s own arguments, and accepting criticism as part of the process. This aligns with the spirit of logical education emphasized in works like those of Li Xiankun, where reasoning is grounded in clarity rather than rhetoric.
Ultimately, the problem is not that disagreement exists, but that the conditions for meaningful disagreement are eroding. Restoring those conditions requires more than better arguments—it requires cultural change: valuing precision over slogans, reasoning over identity, and dialogue over dominance.
Because without the ability to truly discuss, even the most important questions become unanswerable—and society, like the donkey in the earlier metaphor, risks moving endlessly without ever moving forward.
Translation
Keywords:
Science has forgotten how to discuss.
Playing political hooliganism.
Resonance is not the same as literary quality.
“Chicken soup” literature.
Appeal to the majority and ad hominem attacks.
Disqualifying others from discussion, silencing them.
If you don’t offer high praise, you are attacked.
Throwing tantrums, acting shamelessly.
Many people today no longer know how to properly discuss issues.
We are all going in circles.
No progress at all.
This is one of the greatest harms left to us by a certain era—
a cost that will take generations to repay.
Emotion, taking sides, moral signaling—they quickly become cheap.
Who controls the right to interpret?
Shameless tactics everywhere: labeling, reporting, silencing.
Recently, I recommended a book by Li Xiankun titled Basic Knowledge of Logic. Someone asked whether I could analyze a concrete example.
Last night, I came across an online debate about the novel Ordinary World.
Person A said: “It is not good literature; its literary quality is low.”
Person B replied: “If ordinary people can resonate with it, then it is good literature. Literature should serve the masses.”
A responded: “Resonance is not a criterion for literary quality.”
B then said: “Anyone who cannot understand Ordinary World has forgotten their roots and should be expelled from the people.”
At this point, the discussion had already collapsed. Why? Because several classic logical fallacies appeared.
First, equivocation and shifting the issue:
A was discussing literary quality, while B shifted to emotional resonance. These are not the same thing. Resonance may be common in good literature, but it is not a sufficient condition. Many “chicken soup” texts or sentimental videos can move people emotionally—yet that does not make them great literature.
Second, appeal to the majority and ad hominem attacks:
Instead of addressing the argument, B attacked the person—questioning identity, background, and moral standing. This is not literary criticism; it is identity intimidation, aimed at silencing participation.
Third, false dichotomy:
Either you praise the book highly, or you are “not one of the people.” But in reality, a reasonable third position exists: one may acknowledge the book’s popularity and social impact while still questioning its literary merit.
At this point, the discussion is no longer a discussion. It becomes emotional manipulation—tantrums, labeling, and coercion.
Today, many people no longer know how to engage in rational debate. Public discussions often devolve into identity judgment rather than argument evaluation. As a result, discourse stagnates—we go in circles, making no progress. This may be one of the most damaging intellectual legacies of a certain historical period, and its cost may take generations to repay.
A deeper issue lies in the abuse of concepts like “the people.” Originally, this is a meaningful and concrete idea—real individuals: neighbors, family members, people we know.
But when it is turned into a rhetorical weapon—used to claim authority, silence dissent, and enforce conformity—it becomes empty and cheap.
Whoever controls its interpretation can redefine it at will:
Today you are “the people”; tomorrow you are not.
Over time, such misuse degrades the concept itself, just as over-simplified and sensationalized narratives can destroy the seriousness of history. What was once meaningful becomes something people no longer take seriously.
The correct attitude should be the opposite:
Precisely because something is important, it must not be distorted or trivialized.
If “the people” matters, it should not be used as a mask for anonymous authority or as a tool for silencing others.
Those who truly speak for others tend to use such terms cautiously.
In discussion, we should return to a simple principle:
Speak as individuals—say “I think,” not “we think.”
(00:00:02):
我最近在推荐李先坤先生的《逻辑基本知识》这本书就有网友问我说是不是可以做点具体的案例分析昨天晚上我正好看到一段对话我们就来试一下就是有一条视频是讲路遥的平凡的世界评论区里两个人杠起来了A说平凡的世界不是好文学文学性比较差那B说老百姓感同身受的就是好文学文学就是服务于大众的
(00:00:28):
那么A又回复他说感同身受并不是文学的评价标准B又说凡是无法读懂平凡的世界的人就是忘本应该开除出老百姓的队伍这两个人一来一往盖了好多层楼那这两个人的观点您站哪一边呢
(00:00:45):
那最后我给他们俩总结了一下我说从开始耍政治无赖就没有必要讨论下去了为什么因为这段对话里出现了几个非常典型的逻辑错误先说明我们讨论的不是平凡的世界到底是不是好文学我们只是对这段对话做逻辑错误的分析那第一就是偷换概念转移议题A讨论的是文学性高不高B回答的是老百姓能不能感同身受
(00:01:12):
可是能不能共鸣和文学性高不高它不是一回事这里是把文学审美标准偷换成了个体情感反应共鸣也许是很多好文学作品常见的特征但不是充分条件能让人感同身受不等于文学性就高比如说鸡汤文苦情短视频很多都能让人哭得稀里哗啦让人共鸣但他们是好文学吗
(00:01:36):
如果只要老百姓喜欢就在文学上无条件成立这就是在讲政治了不是在讲文学了对吧文学性啊通常讨论的是语言结构叙事张力人物复杂度相争层次审美创造啊等等这些东西那这是另外一个议题了我们今天就不展开讲了那么第二个逻辑错误就诉诸多数和诉诸人身啊其实这是两个
(00:01:59):
那你讀不懂平凡的世界是因为你没吃过苦你忘本你精致利己要把你开除出老百姓的队伍其实就是从这里开始在耍政治流氓了因为这就已经不是在反驳观点了而是审查你的身份审查你的资格开始化成份这不是文学批评这是身份恐吓目的是取消你参与讨论的资格堵住你的嘴
(00:02:23):
这里还有第三个问题叫虚假二分就是你只要不高度赞美平凡的世界你就不是老百姓你就忘本了可现实中完全可能存在第三种判断就是我承认这本书影响很大很多人喜欢但是我也同时可以认为它在纯文学意义上的价值是值得商榷的这明明是很正常的判断
(00:02:45):
结果对方非要把人赶进两个阵营你要么站队要么滚蛋这就不是讨论了这是撒泼打滚耍无赖我们今天很多人已经不会好好讨论问题了几乎所有公共议题的讨论最终都会导向身份的审判它导致很多公共议题的讨论都在原地打转毫无进步这是某一个时代留给我们最大的伤害要以几代人来清偿代价
(00:03:11):
那么最后我要说一个我认为最重要的议题就是谁是我们老百姓或者说一个本来有分量的公共概念是怎么被反复滥用然后失效的您肯定看过抗日神剧吧为什么大家今天都如此讨厌这种神剧当然大家也不是从一开始就讨厌的对吧很长时间里都是喜闻乐见老少贤疑收视高峰的但正是抗日神剧毁掉了抗日叙事的庄严感从而彻底毁掉了这一剧种
(00:03:41):
过度迎合大众过度简化过度工具化它就变成了一个不需要被认真对待认真理解不需要被尊重的历史经验而变成了一个刺激情绪站队做道德表态的符号它就迅速廉价化那么久而久之人们一看到这种故事第一反应不是庄严理性思考而是疲惫麻木想笑这就麻烦了本来严肃庄重的抗日叙事神句话了这个概念就完蛋了
(00:04:10):
那回到前面网络上被滥用最广泛的我们老百姓我们什么群众那么很多人习惯于在公共表达中隐藏起自我顶上这俩大帽子实际上这是一种鸡贼就是抽象的概念它不牢靠重点就不是谁是人民群众而是解释权在谁那今天说你是你就是
(00:04:33):
明天说你不是你就不是了当总是有人滥用这个概念利用这个概念把它总是跟耍无赖扣帽子爱举报不让说话关联在一起那这个概念也会很快变成一种廉价的话术道具然后就会像抗日神剧一样被抛弃掉那正常人的思维方式应该是就是抗日太重要了所以怎么能忍受他被神剧化怎么能忍受他被虚假化求真才是对他最大的尊重
(00:05:03):
那我们老百姓这种概念为什么不应该被滥用因为它太重要了本来它应该是一个个具体的人鲜活的人可能是我的邻居我的家人我周围我熟悉的这些人怎么能被一帮鸡贼的人不敢用自己的身份发言顶着老百姓的身份到处耍无赖的人滥用呢
(00:05:22):
所以往往越是想替大众说话的人越会谨慎地使用这个词因为这个概念一旦和身份审查封口独嘴不讲理绑定在一起他就完蛋了所以希望大家在讨论的时候一定要改改这个习惯多用我我仅代表我自己来表达而不是习惯于用我们那么最后关于商务印书馆的李先坤先生写的《逻辑基本支持》这本书最近我一直在推荐这本书
(00:05:48):
一是老先生写的书还比较扎实,比较简单好读,他的第一版是1987年出版的,他本身就是给一线教学的教师做教学辅助的,所以他不像今天很多书一样那么功利,老先生也不需要靠这个杨明立万,也不是靠这个赚大钱的,所以他写的比较真挚,写的也比较浅显和实用,作为逻辑知识的基础入门是非常合适的。
(00:06:11):
他也是从日常阅读和语境的大量案例入手做分析但也提醒一下如果您有了一定的逻辑学基础了那这本读起来可能就有点简单了我们橱窗中还有很多其他的逻辑学著作比如说那本著名的教科书《逻辑学导论》但它确实不太适合初学者适合想要系统学习的人因为要啃下来还是有点费劲的大家各取所需吧李先坤先生的这本就在左下角链接入一本吧
