Morality is the cheapest thing; it requires neither studying nor independent thinking. Just picking up a few phrases passed down over thousands of years can make one appear "noble." Standing on the moral high ground is even easier than climbing a step.
The matter of Wu Liufang is merely common sense, but what is surprising is that quite a few short-sighted influencers are still leading the narrative, saying she is a world gymnastics champion and has brought shame to the country.
Those who criticize her for being suggestive, please open your eyes. What exactly did she reveal in her video? Did she wear less than during the competition?
Moreover, on what basis does the platform of a certain billionaire from the post-80s generation ban her? Isn't this moral coercion and selective enforcement?
What is not prohibited by law is permitted.
Behaviors not explicitly prohibited by law are allowed, while those not authorized by law should not be arbitrarily banned. You always mention this boundary or that boundary, but may I ask, what exactly is the standard for defining "boundaries"? Who decides?
Just like in sports, there is also the term "borderline," but as long as the borderline is reasonable, it counts as a valid score.
Wu Liufang chose to retire due to injury. She neither relied on the state nor on her parents' support but became an internet celebrity through her own efforts to make a living. What is wrong with that?
Compared to those who appear morally upright but are actually full of schemes and misconduct, isn't such a choice worth affirming?
If Wu Liufang's actions are considered borderline, then should Guan Chenchen, who also features thigh-baring dance, be questioned for being borderline as well?
Is it because she is an Olympic champion that she can show her thighs, while world champion Wu Liufang cannot?
If Wu Liufang is to be banned, does that mean Guan Chenchen and other influencers with similar styles should also be banned?
If the platform takes punitive measures against Wu Liufang, should the regulatory authorities also deeply investigate the platform's regulatory responsibilities?
The moral decay of society does not begin with the potential "borderline" behavior of former gymnastics world champion Wu Liufang, but rather stems from the wrongdoing of the platform.
Some say that banning Wu Liufang concerns values and the face of the national team.
May I ask, how come former weightlifting champion Zou Chunlan, who has fallen to the point of only being able to work as a massage therapist, is not concerned about face?
Is it possible that Olympic champions and world champions are selected based on the three obediences and four virtues?
Many self-media accounts that criticize Wu Liufang appear exceptionally brave and righteous regarding this matter, yet at crucial moments when their voices are truly needed, they often choose silence.
In the face of social injustice and corrupt officials, they are timid and do not dare to speak up, only showing bravery when criticizing Wu Liufang because it is safe and generates traffic.
They are only brave when it is safe, generous when it is free, emotional when it is shallow, and sincere when it is foolish.
They have an almost pathological tolerance for the powerful, while lacking sympathy for the weak, filled instead with disdain and contempt.
Mo Yan wrote in his book "The Late Bloomers": "The ugliness of human nature is to pick faults in the powerless, powerless, and kind, while finding merits in the powerful, powerful, and immoral. When the powerless, powerless, and kind are harmed, they still stand on the so-called moral high ground, hypocritically advising the powerless, powerless, and kind to endure and be magnanimous."