美国思想家：言论自由与政治正确 [美国媒体]

When 'Civility' Really Means 'Political Correctness'
By Selwyn Duke November 9, 2015

文明（用语）就是“政治正确”？



When leftists start talking about “civility,” watch out foryour freedom of speech. This again comes to mind with reports thatsome media outlets are eliminatingonline comments sections in civility’s name. And while it’s not a First Amendmentviolation (these are private-sector actions), it is largely motivated by the same mentality spawning speech codes on college campusesand “hate speech” laws overseas.

当左翼开始要谈论“文明用语”时，言论自由就要小心了。这让人再次联想到，某些媒体报道内容都是借文明礼貌的名义，把一些网上意见给滤掉了。当然这种行为还上升不到第一修正案范围（因为很难定性），这跟一些大学校园里催生出的大量替代语言和海外禁止歧视言论法做法一样。

And as with those phenomena,the nixing of online comments is justified with noble-sounding sentiments. Asthe AFP recently reported, “Last month, Vice Media'sMotherboard news site turned off reader comments, saying ‘the scorched earthnature of comments sections just stifles real conversation.’ It instead begantaking ‘letters to the editor’ to be screened by staff.”

正是由于此种做法，网上评论交锋才略显融洽。比如法新社近期的一篇报道：“上月，《Vice Media》把其主体新闻版面里的读者评论功能给关了，并解释说‘满篇毁灭地球的言论都已经让人无法正常交流’。该公司反而要通过人工筛查的方式来处理“读者来信”了。

That’s rich. Whatstifles conversation more than eliminating a comments section completely? Asfor “real conversation,” the content leftist media disgorges proves theyhaven’t the foggiest idea what that might be.

这是有代价的。节选言论同言论限制还有啥区别？至于“实话”内容，左翼媒体将证明他们完全不知道那说的是什么。

It’s also clearthat some types of incivility are more unequal than others. Consider that theAFP also cites University of Houston communications professor Arthur Santanaand writes, “‘Often the targets of the incivility are marginalized groups,including racial minorities,’ Santana said in the Newspaper Research Journal.Santana found readers referred to immigrants as‘cockroaches, locusts, scumbags, rats, bums, buzzards, blood-sucking leeches,vermin, slime, dogs, brown invaders, wetbacks,’ among others.” Oh, thehumanity!

同样可以肯定的是，某些做法并不比别的方式的高明在哪。想起法新社还引述过休士顿大学信息化教授亚瑟桑特纳的话…桑特纳曾在《新闻探索杂志》（Newspaper Research Journal）写到，“污言秽语针对的目标通常都是那些被边缘化的群体，包括部分少数种族。桑特纳发现读者们曾把移民称作“蟑螂，蝗虫，人渣，硕鼠，懒鬼，秃鹫，吸血虫，四害，恶心，野狗，黑暗入侵，偷渡者，等其他一些乱七八糟的东西 ”。哎~，人性啊！

Now, I’m not sureProf. Santana knows what a “marginalized” group is, but I invite him to visitsome left-wing sites and peruse what’s posted about Christians, andtraditionalists in general. And how about these comments, from undera viral 2012 YouTube video featuring a cute 6-year-old boy providing 10reasons not to vote for Barack Obama:

此时，我不清楚桑特纳教授了不了解谁才是“边缘群体”，但我特地请他去看了一些左翼网站，了解一下基督徒们和普通保守主义者的主张。然后对2012年YouTube视频网站发布的一段视频下面的评论谈下感想，视频中一位6岁的萌娃列出10条不投票给奥巴马的理由（于是出现如下评论）：

can someone kill that child… to teach     his parents a lesson!!!!

谁去把那个孩崽子给砍了…给他父母一个教训

Where is Jerry Sandusky when you     really need him? This kid needs a shower!

当你正需要杰瑞的时候他跑哪去了？这孩子肯定是个垃圾。

If I could id kill this kid. He’s     somewhat racist and brings up obama stereotypes. Dumb     redneck.

要是我我就把这孩子给宰了。他有点种族歧视，形容奥巴马像个木头。真没教养。

This child and his parents need to be euthanized.

必须灭了他全家

And here’s oneI’ve had to clean up (as much as leftists’ messes can be):
“GOF*** YOUR MOTHER YOU LITTLE ****-SUCKING HOMOPHOBIC GUN LOVING ****-SUCKER IFYOU WERE MY F****** KID I WOULD BE GIVING THE BIGGEST S**T KICKING OF ALIFETIME YOU LITTLE GOOD GOD FEARING GOOD FOR F****** NOTHING F**********-SUCKER!!!!!!”

下一条我不得不过滤一下（左翼的人基本都是这样，口无遮拦）：
“GO F*** YOUR MOTHER YOU LITTLE ****-SUCKINGHOMOPHOBIC GUN LOVING ****-SUCKER IF YOU WERE MY F****** KID I WOULD BE GIVINGTHE BIGGEST S**T KICKING OF A LIFETIME YOU LITTLE GOOD GOD FEARING GOOD FORF****** NOTHING F****** ****-SUCKER!!!!!!”

Funny thing,though, we didn’t hear about the pressing need to eliminate comments sectionsafter displays such as the above, which aren’t unusual in the vile netherworldof leftist websites (the Left is governed by irrational emotion). It’s only now-- in the midst of an anti-establishment revolution, as represented by supportfor Donald Trump and the anti-migration demonstrations in Europe -- that we hear,“Oh my, Scarlet, the Internet is so full of meanies! Cover your virginal eyes!”

有意思吧，虽说在出现上述言论过后我们没听说有要急着删除这些评论的声音，可在这些左翼网站中出现的这些下流字眼却极不寻常（这些左翼人士已丧失理性了）。现在——在反权威革命中，比如唐纳德特朗普所代表支持的，还有支持欧洲反移民的——我们所听到的是，“哎，罪孽啊，网上散布的刻薄声音！蒙蔽了你纯洁的双眼！“

Let’s be clear:This has little more to do with “civility” than Marxism has to do withimproving the lot of “workers.” And while some sites claim that nasty commentssections alienate readers, the feature likely yields a net gain in traffic;after all, it does inspire return visits by those who do participate. So whatdoes largely drive this “civility” concern?
Politicalcorrectness.

我们承认：处理“文明（语言）”不比马克思搞好那一帮工人轻松”。一些网站认为评论区里的污言秽语会吓跑一些读者，但这种特色可能会带来网络流量收益；毕竟，它会吸引那些置身其中的人们回来参与的。那么到底是什么使得“文明用语”得到如此大的关注？

It’s all about themedia’s effort to control the narrative. Think about it: a reportercrafts his propaganda.

一切都源于媒体想要对叙述故事进行管控。想想记者行业的宣传手段。

Then this isundermined by commenters saying that the emperor-media have no clothes.

但随后评论者会指出这不就是媒体皇帝的新衣吗。

For example, anews piece may quote a few citizens talking about how Muslim migrants in Europehave fled danger and have to be accepted in compassion’s name. But thencommenters not only point out that most are military-agemales, weren’t actually imperiled, are Sharia-minded and have no intention ofassimilating, but also exhibit great zeal while doing so, illustrating that theanti-media side has the facts and great passion. And the combinationof ethos, logos and pathos is very powerful.

比如，一篇新闻可以引用几位群众的谈话，内容是穆斯林是如何移民到欧洲脱离危难，他们必须是以怜悯的名义被接纳的。但随后的评论指出他们多数男性刚到服兵役的年纪，形成不了真正的威胁，转而又说他们都有伊斯兰倾向、没有融入的意图，仅是因向往而这么做，这说明在反媒体方面即有事实又有拥趸。民族精神、理念与悲情间相互结合极具威力。

And here’s anotherexample (these are random; countless others could be cited): an article willreflexively refer to, let’s say, French National Front leader Marine Le Pen as“far right.” This can be effective because what’s assumedis learned best.

这里还有个例子：有文章会刻意地指出，比方说，法国国民阵线领导人Marine Le Pen是个“极右派”。这肯定会让人印象深刻，因为有什么能比假设会更显得博学呢。

That is, it can beeffective unless commenters point out that she takes mostly statist positionsand only distinguishes herself by opposing Muslim immigration. Thenpop goes the agenda.

换句话说，想让人印象深刻，除非评论者指出，她采纳的大都是计划经济的观点，认清她反对穆斯林移民就可以了。然后，迅速进入议程。

So the media shapea message and then commenters point out that it’s misshapen and shape another.The media report in one way and commenters provide a kind of counter-reportage.And this can be intense. Consequently, when I see an article in certain newsorgans about, for example, immigration or a black-on-white bias crime, Igenerally know to expect something such as the following message below it:“Sorry we are not currently accepting comments on thisarticle.”

因此媒体制造消息，评论者会随后会指出那是走了样的被歪曲的。一方面，媒体报道和评论者发表的都是一些近似矛盾的内容。这势必会造成紧张。
所以，当我看到某新闻机构的文章，例如，在有关外来移民或黑白（人种）有罪推定的问题时，通常我猜在这条消息下面会出现如下字眼：“对不起，此篇文章目前不接受评论。”

Butas they might write incomments sections:

或许他们在评论区还可以这么写：

Sorry we are notcurrently accepting comments criticism on this politically correctarticle.”

“很抱歉，涉及政治正确的文章我们目前还不接受批评意见。”

Because that’swhat it really means. Under such pieces -- especially when Drudge links to them-- you can expect comments to run 15 or 20 to 1 against the article’snarrative. So the site won’t accept comments “currently” -- or later or ever.For such complete commenter repudiation of the content turns a would-bebrainwasher into an “is” laughingstock. It’s not virginal eyes that might beoffended by commenter incivility that the media worry about, you see, but naïve eyes that could be opened by commenter insightfulness.

这才是它的本意。受到这类文章的影响——尤其是当一些忙人看到到这些文章时——留下的15条或20条评论中就可能会出现1条反对文中内容的声音。正因为此， 该网站无论是“目前”、以后还是将来是不会接受评论的。对于被删掉的批评内容说成是洗脑的根本就“是”个笑柄。媒体担心，纯洁的双眼可能会被这些难听的批评字眼弄得不纯洁了，但你可知道，理性的批评才能引起人们的关注。

Then there’s thethreat to political correctness itself. It is the leftist media’s preferredsocial code, and they want us to assume it’s everyone’s preference. Butcomments sections replete with politically incorrect postings (thegood, the bad and the ugly) prove that pcness ismuch like the old Soviet Union’s state ideology: most everyone fears theideological machinery of the powers-that-be -- but relatively few trulysubscribe to the ideology itself.

其次，政治正确的自身威胁。这是左翼媒体首推的社会准则，他们希望我们能照顾到每个人的癖好。但评论区里充斥着政治不正确的帖子（有好的，坏的和下流的）证明这个政治正确跟前苏联的意识形态非常相像：大多数人都对意识形态的权威性感到敬畏，可只有极少数人真正认同这个意识形态的本身。

In a way, theshutting down of comments sections is akin to quelling street demonstrations.There’s strength in numbers, and these sections are virtual demonstrationswhere citizens can come together and speak truth to power; they enable peopleto join a phalanx of philosophical soul mates. Instead of asking, “Am I alonein thinking this article is bunk?” you can know that millions stand with you.But it serves the mainstream media’s agenda if you think you’re alone.

从某种程度上来看，关闭评论同镇压街头示威相比没什么差别。这是一批有影响力的人群，这是一批敢于一起向当权派说真话的虚拟市民；他们能够让大家坐在一起共同思考。而不是问，“难道只有我认为这篇文章是在胡扯吗？“你可知道，有无数的人跟你的想法一样。如果你认为只有你一个人这么想，那是因为这文章是为主流媒体话题服务的。

The AFP articlealso mentions how forcing people to post comments under their real names, asFacebook does, encourages “civility.” Many leftists love this idea, but it’smore rank hypocrisy. It’s easy to feign principle and bloviate about how peopleshould be man enough to take ownership of their opinions when yours arepolitically correct. But we live in a time when ex-CEO Brendan Eichwas forced to resign from Mozilla Corporation for supportingmarriage, a real-estate agent was fired for complaining about the flying of aforeign flag on U.S. soil, and pizza-shop owners were forced into hiding by death threats merely for saying they wouldn’tcater a faux wedding. We live in a time in whichtreason is the elitist norm. So why do some liberals favor theelimination of Internet anonymity? Well, how else can you know whom topersecute?

法新社的文章也自问到，何种手段才能促使人们进行实名评论？应该像脸书那样，鼓励“文明（用语）”。许多左翼人士也喜欢这个主意，但它更多的是彻头彻尾的虚伪。他们从容地站在道德制高点上，发表长篇大论，说，遇到政治正确时，人们应该要像个爷么似的坚持他们的主张。可在我们所生活的这个时代里，Brendan Eich总裁却为了维持婚姻而被迫从Mozilla公司辞职；一位房地产经纪人因抱怨飘扬在美国土地上的一面外国国旗而被解雇；比萨店老板因说不满假结婚，因此遭到死亡威胁而被迫躲起来。在我们所生活的这个时代，背叛成了精英的准则。那么，那些自由派为什么那么关心实名制？嗯，想象一下，是谁遇到了麻烦？

Having said this,true Internet incivility is a problem. I’ve often lamented the profanity rifeon the Web (kids sometimes see these things, you know), a phenomenon that justfurther coarsens society. But that’s not mainly what Leftists complain aboutwhen sanctimoniously speaking of “incivility”; in fact, they’re the very oneswho mainstreamed profanity (unfortunately, too many conservatives follow theirlead), as Hollywood movies attest. Yet their lying tongues are far worse thantheir dirty mouths. For the worst kind of incivility is insincerity indiscourse.

说到这里，网络不文明行为还真是个问题。我常常感叹网上污言秽语的盛行（你可知道，孩子们有时是能看到这些东西的），这一现象让社会愈加粗俗化。当假装圣母的人说起“粗俗”的时候，那些所谓左翼人士并不完全都在抱怨。事实上，以好莱坞电影为证，他们就是亵渎主流的那批人。然而，他们撒谎的技巧远不及他们说脏话的功力。因为话语中的这种不文明是最虚伪的。

William F. Buckleyonce observed, “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views,but then are shocked and offended to discoverthat there are other views.” This is the main reason Internet comments sectionsmay shock and offend liberals. They like their echo chambers and don’t want tohear other views. It’s “out of sight, out of mind.” And because they want tocontrol minds, they don’t want you to hear other views, either.

威廉·F·巴克利曾注意到，“自由派曾宣称要聆听不同的意见，但看到有那么些不同意见后反而感到既震惊又愤怒。”其中的主要原因是，网上评论环节有可能让自由派很为难。他们喜欢听到的是，有利自己的声音，不想听不同的意见。“眼不见，心不烦”，因为他们既想控制你的思想，又希望你听不到不同的意见。