Three Sentences of Toxic Chicken Soup#
I often hear three sentences that are full of energy and incredibly powerful, but in fact, they are toxic chicken soup.
1. If you can't change the environment, then adapt to it#
This sentence is a typical expression of cynicism, surrenderism, and complacency. A netizen said, if a person falls into a cesspool, should they just adapt to the cesspool? If one does not work hard, they will be destined to eat shit for a lifetime.
In fact, even if you fall into a cesspool, even if you cannot escape it, we can still change. For example, we can utilize the cesspool, adapt to the local conditions, plant many flowers, creating a riot of colors, competing in beauty, as flowers bloom slowly along the path.
If you can't change the environment and haven't tried to change it, how do you know it can't be changed? If you can't change the larger environment, then start by changing the smaller environment, starting with yourself, and take joy in every small progress. You can't expect to achieve everything at once, nor can you expect instant success.
The South Korean film "The Crucible," based on true events, tells the story of substitute teacher Kang In-ho, who discovers that the principal and other staff are abusing and assaulting deaf children. He is furious and resolutely fights against the dark forces, even if it means throwing himself into the crucible.
There is a line in the film that moved the whole world: "We rise up in resistance, not to change the world, but to prevent the world from changing us." That is what it means to be human, truly human. People have dignity, and this dignity comes from the fact that humans are the only animals capable of thought, the only animals with a conscience that cannot be tamed.
2. Justice may be delayed, but it will never be absent#
This sentence sounds righteous and full of a sense of justice, often used when justice finally arrives after many hardships. But the problem is, this sentence provides a safety net for "injustice" and creates conditions for the "delay" of justice, offering a theoretical basis for it.
Justice may not be absent, but if you arrive late, the food has gone cold, and even people may have died. Is there still meaning in restoring justice at that point?
Delayed justice is injustice. At best, it is merely a truth discovered after the fact, which only has historical reference; but for the parties involved, it fails to embody justice and has no practical significance.
Justice must simultaneously adhere to the principles of "timeliness, gratuitousness, and sufficiency." Any justice that does not meet these three conditions is hypocritical and is, in fact, injustice.
In 1999, Zhao Zuohai, a villager from Shangqiu, Henan, was convicted of murdering villager Zhao Zhenshang and was sentenced to death with a two-year reprieve in 2002. However, on May 9, 2010, the "victim" Zhao Zhenshang miraculously returned. This created an awkward situation, and Zhao Zuohai was subsequently declared not guilty and released, while a responsibility accountability mechanism was initiated.
For Zhao Zuohai, we can say that although justice was delayed, it was not absent. But the problem is, what if the "victim" Zhao Zhenshang had not miraculously returned? What if Zhao Zhenshang was forever absent? Wouldn't justice then be absent? More importantly, even if justice arrives, what about the harm Zhao Zuohai suffered over the years? What about the youth he lost? Is this the price of delayed justice?
Delayed justice is a desecration of justice; it is not something to boast about, but rather something to reflect on deeply. As a netizen said, who made justice late? I get penalized for being late to work; shouldn't delayed justice also be held accountable?
3. Tighten your belt and live a hard life#
From preparing to live a hard life, to getting used to living a hard life, to enjoying living a hard life, and finally to tightening your belt to live a hard life.
Why tighten the belt? In fact, it is to constrict the waist, causing intestinal obstruction, eating less, and working more. But the question is, whose belt are we tightening? If it is your own belt, then you can tighten it as you wish, and no one will interfere.
If you require others to tighten their belts, then is everyone tightening their belts? On what basis should others tighten their belts?
Over the years, we have come to understand one principle. Those who tell us to tighten our belts generally do not tighten their own; those who ask us to consider the bigger picture are certainly considering others, not us; those who say they will spare no effort are certainly not the ones paying the price, but rather are the ones who will not spare anything.
Those standing on the moral high ground are not good people...