



10幾年以前我能懂香港經濟好又自由,一堆大陸人躺著下來結婚生子,為了拿一張身分證
現在被嫌棄還要纏著香港人結婚,是為了什麼?
原子姐,我能理解你作为一个老年男性还有肉欲这块,但拜托能不能偷偷看,别放这种帖子出来恶心人?
其他的毛左、威权主义者、皇汉、安那奇也都可以加的,只要不随意骂人和刷屏就行
前情提要:牢A(斯奎奇大王)5月8日在微博上发文称“德国迷奸案”受害者是“良言难劝该死的鬼”,并表示这都是自己“经验之谈”。牢A的这篇微博随即引发了全网热议,很多网友指责牢A这是在搞“受害者有罪论”。
牢A在5月12日的直播中,回应了此前微博引发的争议,辩解称自己根本没有搞过“区别对待”。牢A告诉观众,去“小电影”网站分别搜索国人tag和外国人tag就知道为什么他不说男留子。
牢A希望观众能通过“小电影”反映的现象加以思考,小电影女主“抱在国人身上”和“抱在外国人身上”区别是什么?随后,牢A总结道,“三通一达”和“德国迷奸案”本质是承上启下的关系。
补充:牢A发明的“三通一达”黄梗,其中“一达”并不是很多人理解的“打胎”,而是“爽感直达天灵盖”,这是牢A在一次直播中亲口说出的解释。如果理解成“打胎”,那就低估了牢A在“德国迷奸案”语境下重提“三通一达”,对受害者的侮辱和恶毒。
May 16, 2026 marked the 60th anniversary of China’s Cultural Revolution(文革). On this day in 1966, the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China issued the “May 16 Notification” (五一六通知) nationwide, and Mao Zedong (毛泽东) announced the launch of the “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution” (无产阶级文化大革命). During the following ten years, violent political campaigns and armed factional struggles broke out across China. Millions died unnatural deaths, even more people suffered public denunciation and persecution, large amounts of cultural relics were destroyed, schools were closed, production stagnated, and social order fell into chaos. It was not until 1976, when Mao Zedong died and the “Gang of Four” (四人帮) was arrested, that the Cultural Revolution came to an end.
After Reform and Opening Up, the authorities officially defined the Cultural Revolution as a “serious mistake,” rehabilitated many victims of the Cultural Revolution, and implemented policies to rectify past mistakes and restore order. Subsequent generations of Communist Party leadership continued this official assessment. However, regarding the detailed history of the Cultural Revolution — such as its causes, process, and specific victims — the authorities maintained a long-term low-profile approach, with little reflection or commemoration, disproportionate to the event’s significance and enormous impact.
Especially during the past decade, the authorities have almost entirely avoided mentioning the Cultural Revolution and have also suppressed civil commemorations of it. For example, in 2016, the only Cultural Revolution museum in China, located in Shantou, was closed. On the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Cultural Revolution, official Chinese public opinion channels and major domestic media carried no related reports, reflection, or commemoration.
Among the public, however, there are two sharply contrasting attitudes toward the Cultural Revolution. One, represented by liberal intellectuals, views the Cultural Revolution as an extremely disastrous national catastrophe, blaming it and its initiators for causing immense suffering and severe damage to many individuals and to the entire nation and society. They also connect many contemporary social problems with the Cultural Revolution and warn against another “Cultural Revolution” occurring. People within the system and vested-interest groups likewise do not wish to see the Cultural Revolution reappear, lest their own privileged status and interests suffer.
Another perspective comes from the far-left supporters and worshippers of Mao Zedong (Maoists), as well as some other frustrated and strongly dissatisfied individuals. Such people often praise the Cultural Revolution, regarding it as a means to oppose bureaucrats, overthrow bad people, and realize “mass democracy.” These people are also dissatisfied with today’s reality. Rather than placing their hopes on achieving democracy and improving the rule of law, they instead hope for another “Cultural Revolution” to “sweep away all ‘monsters and demons’” (a political label for enemies).
In addition, some foreign leftists also hold romanticized fantasies about the Cultural Revolution, believing that it was a great revolution against oppression and for liberation. This is far removed from historical reality. On the contrary, the Cultural Revolution intensified the persecution of vulnerable groups, strengthened the constraints imposed on the oppressed, and did not eliminate privilege. Some foreigners who visited China at the time, such as Italian director Antonio Antonioni (安东尼奥尼), witnessed aspects of its darker reality. Yet even today, some foreigners still do not understand the true nature of the Cultural Revolution.
The authorities’ low-profile approach toward the Cultural Revolution, the mixed praise and criticism among the public, and differing views held by different people all arise from their respective positions, perceptions, and purposes. They also reflect today’s social contradictions and China’s complex reality.
Simply put, the ruling Communist Party of China cares deeply about maintaining political legitimacy and institutional continuity as well as current social stability. It wishes both to defend Reform and Opening Up and to avoid excessively emphasizing the errors and tragedies of the Mao era, thereby preventing further dissatisfaction and instability. Intellectual elites and liberals, especially Cultural Revolution victims and their descendants, strongly detest the Cultural Revolution because of traumatic experiences and value systems.
Some marginalized people at the bottom of society, however, envy the Cultural Revolution’s destruction of existing order and hope for another political movement through which they could “rebel” and rise up and overturn their status. Many ordinary people also know little about the Cultural Revolution or remain indifferent, and may be influenced by the above narratives,
developing only a partial understanding and wavering attitudes.
First of all, the Cultural Revolution was indeed a disaster. At that time, China was engulfed in political violence and turmoil. Law and order disappeared, many innocent people were publicly denounced and imprisoned, and large numbers of innocent people were killed or driven to suicide. This included former Nationalist Party members, intellectuals, industrialists and merchants, those labeled as “landlords, rich peasants, counterrevolutionaries, bad elements, and rightists,” Communist Party cadres, and ordinary people from all walks of life. Among those persecuted to death were Communist Party leaders Liu Shaoqi (刘少奇) and Peng Dehuai (彭德怀), former Nationalist generals who had surrendered such as Huang Shaohong (黄绍竑) and Chen Changjie (陈长捷), scholars Chen Yinke (陈寅恪) and Lao She (老舍), and scientists Yao Tongbin (姚桐斌) and Zhao Jiuzhang (赵九章).
Under the turmoil and the principle of “taking class struggle as the key link” during the Cultural Revolution, national economic and technological development was also severely disrupted, causing China to fall behind most countries in the world. At that time, China’s per capita GDP was not only far lower than that of Europe, the United States, Japan, and the Soviet Union, but was also below that of most developing countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Most people, especially peasants, lived in extreme poverty, and even basic food and clothing needs remained unresolved. Informing and reporting on others were encouraged during the Cultural Revolution, with relatives and friends reporting one another and everyone living in fear. Anti-intellectualism, personality cults, and extremism also flourished, leaving deep scars on people, casting shadows over society, and continuing to cause harm today.
If the causes and consequences of the Cultural Revolution disaster cannot be honestly confronted, discussed, and reflected upon, it would not only fail those who suffered at the time, but would also plant the seeds for the tragedy of the Cultural Revolution to reappear in various forms. For example, several years ago during COVID-19, various extreme “Zero-COVID(清零)” measures caused livelihood crises — especially restrictions on travel, shopping, and medical treatment, nucleic-acid testing for goods, and large-scale compulsory quarantine. Such epidemic-control measures, which violated scientific principles and infringed upon citizens’ rights, bear similarities in both motivation and consequences to the anti-intellectual policies under the principle of “politics in command” during the Cultural Revolution.
Another tragedy of the Cultural Revolution lay in personality cults and a system where one voice dominates all decisions, the absence of democracy and the rule of law, and the inability to constrain power. The accumulation of social problems and the difficulty of protecting civil rights in today’s China are similarly related to insufficient democracy and rule of law.
At the same time, those who praise the Cultural Revolution and even hope for its return should also be understood with sympathy. This too is a necessary requirement for honestly confronting history and reality. The causes of the Cultural Revolution were complex. It was not simply the result of Mao Zedong’s temporary impulse, but was also related to severe social contradictions, rigid bureaucratic systems, and estrangement and conflict between elites and the masses.
According to the views of Peking University scholar Qian Liqun (钱理群) and others, antagonism between officials and the public before the Cultural Revolution was already very serious. The masses were dissatisfied with the Party and government, and society resembled a pressure cooker. Mao’s issuance of the “May 16 Notification” merely lit the fuse that ignited these contradictions.
China in recent years has become politically rigid and conservative, with widening wealth gaps and increasing social stratification, while vested-interest groups monopolize resources. At the same time, reform has stagnated and public discourse has tightened. Coupled with economic decline, social contradictions have intensified significantly. Many lower- and middle-class people, educated but unemployed individuals, and marginalized groups live in poverty, see no hope, and lack proper channels for expression. Driven by resentment and their limited understanding of the Cultural Revolution, they long for another violent political movement that would overthrow those they hate and enable themselves to become masters of their own fate.
For example, many university students and young teachers resent the monopolization of resources and exploitation by academic oligarchs and hope to use methods like the “copper-buckled belt” (铜头皮带), a tool used for beating people during the Cultural Revolution, to publicly denounce teachers and academic oligarchs;
Workers exploited by sweatshops hope to overthrow capitalists and redistribute wealth equally;
Citizens who believe they have suffered unjust imprisonment, facing the power and indifference of Party and government institutions — especially the police, procuratorate, and courts — find considerable resonance in the Cultural Revolution slogan “Smash the Public Security, Procuratorate, and Courts” (砸烂公检法);
The poor struggling at the bottom of society wish to smash the existing order and vent their frustrations like the “rebel factions” (造反派) during the Cultural Revolution…
Such psychological paths and motivations can be understood and sympathized with. However, whether viewed from the perspective of society as a whole or most individuals, political movements like the Cultural Revolution are disastrous. To some extent, they did attack certain problems in ordinary society and damage some bad actors, but they simultaneously brought even greater consequences. Under social disorder, human-rights violations became more widespread and severe, and many innocent people lost their families and lives. The Cultural Revolution also destroyed trust between people and damaged social morality, worsening interpersonal relationships and social conditions. Even political opportunists who benefited temporarily often ended up suffering consequences themselves.
Nor was the Cultural Revolution truly equal. Cadres, workers, and rebel factions possessed privileges, whereas peasants and those categorized among the “Five Black Categories” (黑五类) were treated as social inferiors in both status and rights.
Although the early-stage “rebellion” of the Cultural Revolution did indeed challenge privileged cadres, its targets gradually shifted toward vulnerable groups such as the “Five Black Categories” while radical rebels and anti-privilege activists among the masses were also suppressed. Those who openly opposed Mao Zedong and criticized the Communist Party, such as Lin Zhao (林昭), Zhang Zhixin (张志新), Yu Luoke (遇罗克), and Huang Lizhong (黄立众), faced severe repression and were executed. Meanwhile, some senior Communist Party leaders were overthrown primarily due to the needs of power struggles rather than anti-privilege objectives, and this did not fundamentally change the unfair and unjust ruling system or social structure.
However, some disillusioned Chinese people embrace a mentality resembling, “If these days must perish, let you and me perish together,” seeking mutual destruction. Even knowing that the Cultural Revolution was destructive, they still attempt to overthrow the current order through radical means and vent dissatisfaction.
The rise of global populism in recent years has likewise been driven by public dissatisfaction with existing systems and hatred toward elite vested interests. The Cultural Revolution itself was also China’s manifestation of the global wave of left-wing populism several decades ago.
Although today’s China appears relatively calm on the streets under strict political control, it cannot remain untouched amid rising global populism and has accumulated even greater dissatisfaction and hidden dangers. Frequently occurring incidents involving class, ethnicity, gender, and other tensions are manifestations of populism bubbling beneath a political pressure cooker. Frequent tragedies involving indiscriminate attacks causing casualties, along with large amounts of extreme online rhetoric praising the Cultural Revolution and fascism, are also signs of worsening social contradictions and warnings of national crisis.
Most people do not understand the full picture of the Cultural Revolution and its historical background. Instead, they often possess selective understandings resembling the blind men and the elephant phenomenon, projecting their own circumstances and intentions onto the era of the Cultural Revolution, and then using people and events from that period to reflect and influence today’s realities.
Therefore, many people’s views of the Cultural Revolution are one-sided. Official suppression of commemoration and reflection prevents a more complex and realistic picture of the Cultural Revolution from being shown. Its cruelty has not been sufficiently exposed, resulting in even greater misunderstanding and distortion. Whether people praise or oppose the Cultural Revolution, they ultimately struggle to truly learn lessons from it and prevent the return of tragedy.
Therefore, whether regarding the history of the Cultural Revolution or China’s realities today, one cannot avoid them through a self-deceptive approach of “covering one’s ears while stealing a bell,” but instead must confront and sincerely understand their origins and development. Those in power and those at higher levels should also listen to the people’s demands and understand public difficulties, rather than remaining arrogant and indifferent or simply blaming the public’s ignorance and enemy manipulation.
Only by reforming institutions and distribution systems, promoting democracy and the rule of law, relaxing controls on public discourse, and allowing controversies to be openly debated can social contradictions be alleviated, harmony increased, and hostility reduced. Building an inclusive order, maintaining social fairness and justice, and eliminating motivations for social destruction are the fundamental ways to prevent another Cultural Revolution from reoccurring.
(The author of this article is Wang Qingmin(王庆民), a Chinese writer living in Europe and a researcher of international politics.)
大家好啊!欢迎来参加我们的小茶会!🥳
来一杯香气扑鼻的茶,坐在舒适的沙发上,和我们分享生活吧!最近有什么收获和感悟吗?说出你的故事,分享你的点滴。
🔮会聆听你心中的诉求,回应每个人的心声。正位有着带有力量与活力的积极意味,代表着充满希望的新开始;而逆位则注重自我理解和发展,用动力和勇气克服逆位指出的挑战,你会开启更具希望更加辉煌的新人生。
uu们有没有感觉自己长大后各个方面的灵气都消失了?至少我自己被身边几个人直说,并且个人也察觉到自己这几年变得很钝很俗。
尝试复刻以前的自己,看起来却如此拙劣。尝试着发展爱好,尝试服用药物治疗抑郁,可这些都没有帮助。脑子就像猪油糊了一层一样。
或许灵气从来就不是会跟随人一生的东西,长大以后你就能清晰地发现它不知在什么时候已经消失了……
同样都是妥协,大家一般都是要求弱者妥协,不会要求强者妥协。
同样都是以暴制暴,弱者会被认为是极端,强者会被认为是正常。
一群人整齐划一地挥舞着旗子用中文喊欢送欢送,热烈欢送,衣服配色还故意和空军一号保持一致,难绷。
女朋友说她以后想要去读神学。
最好是欧洲,古老的建筑,大大的草坪,长椅,三三两两坐着的人在谈恋爱或者闲聊。
你觉得怎么样,她问我。
我说很好啊,听上去很幸福。
我完完全全理解这样的感受。
在前小红书时代,图片还没有这么泛滥的时代,那时候的一些期盼和欲望还没有变成标题,图片,配上一篇前AI时代的模板文本的时候,一切的期盼还隔着一层层时代的滤镜,像是你手持着一台老DV。
你学生时代没有这样想过吗?她又接着问我。
我想了好久,我应该是有的,但记忆里完全搜寻不到深刻的有关的记忆。在天使.com爱格这些言情杂志流行并在班级里流传的那个年代,女主带球跑到国外都要一边读书一边当妈妈的剧情里,好像也只是会觉得这是一件了不起但要花很多钱,完全是有钱人才会发生的故事以外,为那种生活幻想却缺乏素材所以不具备真情实感的向往以外好像没有别的念头。
更别提,我在应试教育体系下完全没有获得任何成就和价值感,只是满足让父母期望以及一般价值观下能够说得过去的成绩罢了。
我真正会幻想的生活是那些偏离足够远的正常轨道下的人生直至走到筋疲力竭(突然闯进戈达尔的片场)。小时候看搭车去柏林,长大之后看猜火车,读上世纪垮掉派存在主义小说,看摇滚明星传记,被那些黄金时代的口号洗脑,背景音乐是neil young 的 heyhey mymy, rock&roll can never die。
整个青春期的感受就像是无所事事的夏日下午洗完澡躺在凉席上看不良内容(自我审查)后甜蜜的虚无,外面的阳光晒的晃眼,你感觉到轻松,世界在你的脑后,世界也从来没有变得那么可爱。
我猜,我没有那么严肃地幻想走入人类学术界的伟大殿堂,没有听到数学物理,世界宇宙理论严谨而永恒的呼唤,没有试图走进人类最伟大的思想哲学,没有想象改变世界拯救全人类的伟大革命里去,大概和青春期里高潮后的忧郁有关。
这样的忧郁过于狭窄,也过于具体,像针尖上的蜂蜜。在此之后的经历,我都能真切的看到,城市和人,空气里的政治穿过我,即使是在某个爆发冲突的晚上,我想,在拉起的红线,共享单车垒起的街垒,和人群的冲突里,我也没能获得某种能够贯穿生命的热情,我只是在消极抵抗这一切。在我的祖国和故乡,我吐痰,撒野尿,喝酒散德行,并真诚地对待朋友们,作为一个野蛮人,依靠直觉大于高贵的理性。
我并不恨一些东西,我会讨厌,但不会恨,东子哥的你不是我仇人也不是我朋友,只是路人,我也在一切还没那么坚定的时候尝试以为自己不会讨厌的东西,但谢天谢地在认清之后可以远离。
所以在我女朋友某天夜里深切幻想着,要是她决定三十岁左右拿到澳洲身份又到一个新的地方重新开始生活,我会不会对一切没有办法接受要提出分手的剧情而哭泣的时候。(我女朋友经常哭并且因为一些幻想的事情焦虑)。
她大声说到那个时候,你已经三十好几了,你肯定想要安定的生活!结婚!小孩!稳定的工作!
我几乎快要笑出声。
我说我们可能分手,因为其他各种各样的原因,但不会是因为这个。
我也并不觉得你的梦想有什么好笑的地方,相反我羡慕你人生的某种坚定的确定性,那种确定性是我不具备的。
我想,即使像德州巴黎里面在荒野里一直走的那个男人一样,无论是在中国,在我的故乡,在这个世界上任何一个角落里,两手空空的走着,我也会因为过去我曾经获得那么多珍贵的东西,很好的和我妈妈之间的感情,友情,曾经收获的爱和经历,此刻的天气,未来的经历,而感觉到被塞满的轻松。
天上下刀片,下几把,下连绵不绝的政治性阴雨,全球化的破碎,过去黄金时代的远离,一些伤感如痛风一样侵蚀着骨头,基督教的末日,耶稣的来临,即使是那些天外的星星砸下来,硕大的陨石,流星雨。
我也只是希望身边能够有足够相爱的伴侣,能够一起看星星,然后亲吻,说在这样的时代也不算太坏,即使我们变成宇宙的尘埃,时间穿过我们。
男女是如何定位自己的意识形态的?
1、盖洛普数据显示,美国年轻女性中约40%自认自由派,年轻男性约25%且较稳定。女性整体更支持民主党,性别差距长期存在(通常8-13个百分点),近年年轻一代中进一步扩大。
2、欧洲社会学评论上的这篇论文指出,在欧洲32个国家中的11个国家,现代青年性别差异随着时间的推移而明显扩大。且出人意料的是,在性别平等程度更高的国家(比如北欧),现代青年群体的性别意识形态差距往往更大。
3、经济学人著名社论,年轻男女渐行渐远
4、无意中看到的NHK民意调查:日本支持出口致命“武器”的比例为35%,反对率为52%,其中男性:48%支持,44%反对,女性:17%支持,65%反对。
意识形态是如何询唤的?
1、阿根廷右翼总统米莱,自2023年12月上任以来,以“砍掉浪费的官僚机构"和反对“性别意识形态”为名,推行了一系列被广泛视为“反女权”或反性别平等的政策。他在2024年6月完全关闭"妇女、性别与多样性部"。
2、韩国左翼李在明政府,将从2026年7月起启动名为“公共卫生巾Dream”的试点项目,计划于2026年7月至12月在约10个地区的公共设施中实施。适用对象:不限年龄、不限收入,覆盖所有需要卫生巾的女性。
现在中国书籍出版审核制度不是一刀切,而是偷偷去掉一些政府觉得不该出现的描述,甚至篡改原句意思,由于不影响上下文阅读,所以读者几乎发现不了,下面仅举几例让各位体会:
1.「伯恩斯情绪疗法」第一章,原文中有一句“达赖喇嘛说过”,简中版改成“一位名人说过”;
2.「仿制药的真相」中有一段讲中国药企和美国的法律纠纷,直接被删了;
3.「独裁者手册」(江苏文艺出版社)中删改达28处,大都是触碰到党的制度或实际国情的内容,例如「Sure, places like Singapore and parts of China prove that it is possible to have a good material life with limited freedom——」这句被删,「At that same income, a Chinese couple’s marginal tax rate is 45 percent.」这句被改成“其他某些国家“等等;
还有更多例子,由于懒得翻聊天记录恕我不能一一详述。如果一本书只是被删掉诸如达赖喇嘛等敏感词,那对读者而言其实还好,不太妨碍理解原意,但最可怕的是他们不仅删,而且还虚构一些句子加进去,那读者看的就是被译者篡改过的书,理解到的东西自然会偏离原作者的本意。
目前唯一解方只有摒弃国内出版多读台版或原版书,哦对了,不要买正式渠道进口的台版书,它们一样被审核过,可能有诸如缺页或部分被涂黑等问题(如下图,被涂黑部分为“台湾”),z-library暗网版本好用多用。
现有循证医学证据显示,手法治疗对部分非特异性腰痛有短期症状缓解作用,这一点Cochrane系统综述有所认可。但短期症状缓解与治疗疾病是两个完全不同的概念。推拿正骨的问题在于:
现代骨科对手法操作有严格禁忌症筛查——骨质疏松、肿瘤、感染、不稳定骨折、严重椎管狭窄等情况下施以旋转复位,后果可以是灾难性的。传统推拿正骨体系缺乏这套筛查机制,这是安全隐患。
不能解释机制,无法预测边界,无法优化参数,无法复现结果。这是它停留在经验层面、无法进入现代医学体系的根本原因。
脊柱手法治疗在物理治疗学中有完整的分级体系,有明确的力度、方向,以有疗效评估标准。这与"手摸心会"是两件事。
推拿正骨并非完全无效,但它缺乏安全筛查体系、缺乏机制研究、缺乏标准化,在现有状态下不应作为骨科疾病的主流治疗手段推荐给患者。