关于“那么主义”的趣事 [美国媒体]

-------------译者：龙腾翻译总管-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------



ting_bu_dongUnited States 于 1 天前 发表
Arguments that the West (typically the US) are hypocritical such as "Peaceful multilaterilism? You guys unilaterally invaded Iraq" "Democracy? Your politicians just do waht they want and give themselves more money" "Free speech? More like free-speech zones amirite" or the always-classic "Human rights? You lynch blacks" are all just examples of where we acted (or continue to act) illiberally. Where a faction/group with power used it in disregard/at the expense of others.
I mean well obviously that's why it's considered hypocritical.

有关西方国家（典型代表美国）是虚伪的争论，例如“和平的多边主义？是你们单方面入侵伊拉克的。”“民主？你们的政客只做自己想做的，然后往自己的腰包里塞更多的钱。”“言论自由？更像是言论自由区，我说的没错吧？”或者那永久经典的“人权？你们的黑人（女性司法部长）林奇事件又是怎么回事。”这些都是我们曾表现出（或继续表现出）的不自由民主的例子。其中有权力的组织/团体以漠视/牺牲他人为代价来做事。我想说，嗯，很显然，这就是我们为什么会被认为是虚伪的原因。

（译注：Free speech zones (also known as First Amendment zones free speech cages and protest zones) are areas set aside in public places for the purpose of political protesting.言论自由区（又称“第一修正案区，言论自由牢笼和抗议区”）是指在公共场合用来政治抗议的区域。）

But this argument basically just boils down to "See? You guys are bad too!"

但这些争论基本上可以归结为“看见了没？你们自己也不是什么好货！”

Which means that it acknowledges that liberal principles are actually superior to might makes right. It's just saying that we could be a bit better in practicing what we preach. Well yeah.
But we're not wrong.

也就是说这实际上承认了自由主义原则优于强权即公理的概念。这只是在说我们可以在实践我们所宣扬的理念方面上做得更好。嘛，是这样没错啦。

...
I'm bored.

.......我现在很无聊。

【译注：whataboutism（摘自一段微博视频的内容）=“那么主义”的定义：

It's the pratice of changing the subject to someone else is perceived wrong doing.

这种方法是改变话题到其他被认为是错误的事情上。

It's actually an old Soviet propaganda tool.It implies that all actions regardless of context share a moral equivalency and since nobody is perfect all criticism is hypocritical. And everybody should do whatever they want.

它其实是以前苏联的宣传工具。它暗示了所有的行动不管是处在什么语境下，都是道德等同的，既然人无完人，所有的批评都是虚伪双标。所有人都应想做什么就做什么。】


-------------译者：龙腾翻译总管-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

–]WhereTheHotWaterAt 47 指标 1 天前 
The good thing about whataboutism is that if you don't live in USA/UK you're immune to it because they don't know shit about your country

关于“那么主义”的好处是，如果你不是在美国/英国生活的话，你对这个词是免疫的，因为他们根本不了解你的国家。

[–]ting_bu_dongUnited States[S] 16 指标 1 天前 
There are other countries?

还有其他国家？

[–]butthenigotbetter 14 指标 1 天前 
At least five.

至少有五个。

[–]ting_bu_dongUnited States[S] 2 指标 1 天前 
I bet that you can't name them!
Well I bet that I can't name them at least.

我打赌你根本列举不出是哪些国家！好吧，至少我做不到。

[–]BlazeMiskulinUnited States 3 指标 12小时前 
I bet that you can't name them!
Mexico (where all tequila and immigrants come from)
India (the guys who answer the phone when your computer is broken)
France (unless they surrendered to the UK)
Russia (something about Facebook and the President.... or something)
Federated States of Micronesia (I heard about it on West Wing).
Puerto Rico (or maybe that's part of Mexico?)
Irackistan (we're fighting that hot librarian/super-hero chick over there).
There. 7 others.

“我打赌你根本列举不出是哪些国家！”
墨西哥（所有的龙舌兰酒和移民都来自于这里）；
印度（当你电脑坏了打给售后维修中心时接听你来电的人)；
法国（除非他们向英国投降）；
俄罗斯（关于脸书和总统的一些事....或者其他别的东西）；
密克罗尼西亚联邦（我在白宫西厢那儿听说过）；
波多黎各（或者它其实是墨西哥的一部分？）；
Irackistan（我们正和那里性感火热的图书管理员/超级女英雄战斗)。
看。我说了七个国家。

[–]Aan2007 2 指标 20小时前 
yeah and some of them never had any colonies or slave business so nobody can guilt us with being white

是的，其中有些国家从没有过殖民地或者奴隶买卖，所以没有人能让我们因自己是白人而愧疚。

[–]WhereTheHotWaterAt 1 指标 19小时前 
Come on no one does that in real life

拜托，没人会在现实生活中那么做。

[–]Aan2007 3 指标 18小时前 
not in China but many try to use white man guilt elsewhere

在中国是没有，但很多人试图在其它场合利用白人的愧疚感。

-------------译者：Oriri-审核者：hht288------------

[–]derrickcopeUnited States 20 指标 21小时前 
I would like to add that the reason US problems are so obviously visible is that as a society we American citizens discuss them in public in our newspapers and in our public forums. The ammunition for "whataboutism" is American society's discussion of problematic issues that we feel need to be addressed and improved. We don't bury our problems and not discuss them and then defend those problems to others by saying it none of anyone's business. America airs it's issues in public discusses them tries to find a solution and then we move on to fix other problems. Some problems take longer to fix than others but unless they get fixed society cannot move forward on this subject. This leads us to China which is doing the opposite. They bury their problems and punish anyone who dares to discuss it. Thus you have the antiquated unstable political system that is China.

我再补充一点，为什么美国问题如此明显可见的原因是，作为一个社会团体，我们美国公民会在公共场合、新闻报纸和公共论坛上讨论这些问题。“那么主义”是美国社会正在讨论的话题，也是我们觉得必须解决和改善的问题。我们并不会故意无视掩盖以及禁止讨论这些问题，然后抱着这问题不是我力所能及的态度将问题推到别人身上。美国人会将问题在公共平台上进行讨论，并试着找到解决方法。之后，再接着处理其他的问题。某些关键的问题处理起来耗费时日，但是如果这些问题不被解决，在这方面社会将无法进步。这令我想到中国正在做着相反的事，他们对问题视而不见，并处罚那些勇于表达的异见人士。因此他们的政治体制已经过时且不稳定。

[–]mt55645 7 指标 18小时前 
pretentious bullshit. did discussing them stop you from killing half a million kids in iraq using sanctions? is it stopping you killing more even now through the use of financial warfare all around the world. go stick your discussions up your arse.

自命不凡的扯淡。难道美国公民的谈论真的阻止了因制裁而被杀害的50万名伊拉克儿童？讨论有阻止美国政府利用金融战争在全世界范围内杀害更多的人吗？这种讨论有毛线用。

[–]valvalya 4 指标 17小时前 
Funny thing...Discussing them created a bogus statistic that sanctions killed half a million kids in Iraq. The paper claiming 500k deaths was actually retracted! The author reinvestigated after flaws in original paper were identified and found that she could not stand by her conclusions in the initial study.

真是有趣....讨论他们，伪造通过制裁手段杀害50万名伊拉克儿童的数据。那份宣称造成50万人死亡的出版文章实际上被撤销了。原文的作者反复斟酌原始文件中的漏洞，发现最早的调查无法佐证她的结论。

[–]mt55645 -2 指标 17小时前* 
it you google enough i'm sure you'd find that Hitler killed no jews too

要是你谷歌搜的足够多，我相信你也会发现希特勒其实没有杀害过一个犹太人。

[–]valvalya 3 指标 16小时前 
Try some critical thinking hun.
Why would an author retract a very influential study?

试着批判性思考一下哈。为何一位作者会撤销自己一份很有影响力的研究（成果）？

[–]mt55645 1 指标 16小时前 
who wants to end up like david kelly?

谁想最后落得跟大卫·凯利一样？

-------------译者：兜兜风ddf-审核者：hht288------------

[–]TheDark1 13 指标 23小时前
Whataboutism is a direct reflection of party realpolitik: there is no crime there are no morals there is only what you can get away with.

"那么主义"是政党“现实政治"的直接反映：不论是非曲直，不讲道德对错，只要能甩锅就行。

(译者注：现实政治，是指当政者应以国家利益作为内政外交的最高考量，而不应受其自身的感情、理想、道德伦理观影响)

[–]ting_bu_dongUnited States[S] 4 指标 23小时前
A fair assessment.
The authoritarians have gone post-modern.

很公正的评价。独裁者已经走向后现代派了

[–]kulio_forever 4 指标 21小时前
Its a good point none of the defenders here ever focus on what is right or beneficial they only defend the expression of power

这个观点不错。拥护者对于真正对的和有益的事情从来不关注，他们的辩护只是为了服务于(当政者)的权力。

[–]ting_bu_dongUnited States[S] 1 指标 20小时前*
Well I mean when your starting philosophy is "all politics flows from the barrel of a gun" it's pretty safe to say that your political outlook will be based on power.

我的意思是，如果“枪杆子里出政权”是你的启蒙哲学的话，那我可以打包票地说你的政治观是基于权力的。

This is why violent communist revolution was nonsensical to begin with. How are you going to create a classless egalitarian society based on the foundation that might makes right? It's madness.

这就是为什么暴力的共产主义革命从一开始就是荒谬的。你如何在强权即公理的基础上创建一个平等的无等级的社会呢？这真是疯狂。

[–]Wusuowhey 3 指标 20小时前
Bored? Tax season just started you could file a form 1040 and a 2555 to pass the time.

感到无聊了？报税季才刚刚开始，你可以填写1040和2555表格来打发时间。

[–]Koda_Brown 1 指标 17小时前
I'm still waiting on my w-2

我还在等我的W-2表格。

（译注：1040、2555、W-2美国纳税申报表）

-------------译者：龙腾翻译总管-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

[–]the_kongman 2 指标 17小时前 
You know what I find funny about whataboutism? How people who accuse others of it think that it automatically shuts down the debate and they win.
I’ve read through all the messages here and you seem to be neglecting one very basic fundamental point when rebutting peoples arguments. You seem to think of your definition of logic as the one thing that should rule all discourse and unfortunately that’s not how things work. You’re missing on crucial component that all strict logisticians ignore morality.

你知道我觉得那么主义有趣的地方是什么吗？那就是那些指责他人这么想（将话题转移）的人最后终结了话题辩论然后笑到最后赢得胜利的点。我看了帖子里的所有回复，发现你遗漏忽略掉了一个非常重要的基本点那就是你反驳人们的辩论观点。你似乎认为你对逻辑的个人定义是一种决定所有话语的事物，但很不幸，世事不是这样运作的。你错过了重要的一点，那就是所有严格的数理逻辑专家是忽视道德的。

You’re right that whataboutism cannot be used to win an argument because it’s not really a rebuttal nor is shitting on someone for pointing out another persons blatant hypocrisy.

你有点说对了，那就是那么主义不能用来赢得辩论，因为它不是真正的反驳，也不是指出他人虚伪将锅甩给他人就是赢得辩论。

I’m not talking about the stupid “You lynch blacks” Russia example that’s just plain stupid. What I am talking about is people on this sub who bring up legitimate concerns of hypocrisy.

我并不是在说那愚蠢的俄罗斯例子“黑人林奇事件”，那事简直愚蠢之极。我说的是在这帖子下提出的对虚伪的合理疑虑。

Morality is important and there is a human instinct to recognize when someone is being hypocritical and call them on their bullshit. From a pure logic standpoint it doesn’t make sense but we’re not robots we have feelings emotions and moral codes.

道德很重要，人类有一种本能直觉，能辨别出一个人为人虚伪，在满嘴跑火车胡说八道。从纯逻辑的角度来看，这根本讲不通，然而我们并非冰冷的机器人，我们有七情六欲，我们讲道德准则。

So when a person is lecturing you about not doing something and then you discover they themselves are guilty of doing the very same thing it makes it hard to Believe any arguments the person has already made (even if the arguments are very logical) because he’s broken the moral code (lying hypocrisy being a sanctimonious knob) and you now have a legitimate claim to doubting the authenticity of their arguments or recommendations.

所以当一个人在教育你别做某事，然后你发现他们也在做同样的事，他们也是有罪时，你很难会相信他之前说过的任何观点（即使这个观点很合逻辑），因为他打破违反了道德准则（撒谎、伪善、道貌岸然假装虔诚），然后这给了你一合理要求去质疑他们观点或建议的真实准确性。

If the call out on hypocrisy is related to the argument being made then of course it’s relevant. You might not put a lot of weight behind morality but a lot of people do. That doesn’t make you wrong or them right but that’s the world we live in.

如果虚伪跟正做出的该观点有关，那么它自然是相关的。你可能不把重心放在道德准则上，但很多人会。这并不是说你是错的而他们是对的，但我们生活的这个世界就是如此。

[–]chinagemer 4 指标 1 天前 
Ultimately both sides say the same thing about what is right. But neither do what they preach (to different extents at different points in time). In the end the true rule is still "might makes right".

最终双方在何为对上说了同样的话。但是没有哪方做了他们所宣扬的事（在程度和时间上各有不同）。最后，永恒的真理仍是“强权即公理”。

[–]ting_bu_dongUnited States[S] 4 指标 1 天前* 
“In the end the true rule is still "might makes right".”

最后，永恒的真理仍是“强权即公理”。

Does this lead to the conclusion logically that say the US should be more belligerent maybe becoming a true empire? We certainly have the military might.
That say whites in America should have more power over minorities?
That politicians/government military etc. should not be accountable to the people?
If might makes right and all.

这是否在逻辑上得出结论，那就是美国应该变得更好战，然后可能最后成为一个真正的帝国？我们确实有这军事实力。这是不是在说，在美国白人应该比少数族裔有更多的权力？是不是在说政客/政府，军队等不应该对人民负责吗？如果强权即公理的话。

we can argue is vs ought all day if you want

只要你想，我们可以就“强权即公理”与“应该（合乎道义）”这二者辩论一整天。

Edit: I guess that's kinda the point at the end of the day. It's an is vs ought argument.
"China ought to be more liberal."
"Oh ho! Here I will now list examples of how the US is not liberal!"
"OK. Then then US ought to be more liberal too. ... But it is already more liberal than China."

另注：我想那就是我们辩论了一天后得出的观点。这是场对比“应不应该”的辩论。
“中国应该更自由些。”
“你看！我现在要举一些美国不自由的例子了！”
“好吧，美国也应该要更自由些....但它已经比中国自由多了。”

[–]Mitleser1987 1 指标 13小时前 
“We certainly have the military might.”
For what? America is not more belligerent because of the costs not because Americans are better people than Chinese or others.

“我们确实有这军事实力。”
为了什么？美国不应该更好战是因为军事费用，而并不是美国人比中国人或其他国人更优秀。

[–]diffianWales 1 指标 16小时前 
I also feel this way too. Everyone wants to be an idealist but often life demands pragmatism of you especially in China.

我也深有同感。每个人都想当个理想主义者，但生活经常要求你要实用实际，特别是在中国。