snowvalley

Advocating scientific thinking and evidence-based discussion. Education, institutions, immigration & current affairs. Data over slogans. Evidence over ideology.

[snowvalley @snowyvally]

@KA594594 我也从一个普通读者的角度，写写王志安和李承鹏。https://t.co/bdfKilbGF6

[snowvalley @snowyvally]

李承鹏与王志安：谁才是真正的知识分子

王志安作为一名调查���者进入公众视野，留下过不少有价值的采访和调查。一个记者能够深入现场，追问事实，留下公共记录，这些能力本身值得肯定。但当一个人进入更大的公共讨论场域以后，真正值得观察的，就不只是他调查事实的能力，还有他的价值判断。因为一个知识分子看待世界的方式，最终决定于他在面对具体的人、具体的不公和具体的权力关系时，究竟站在哪里。

王志安在锁链女事件里跟董志民共情，毒奶粉事件里跟蒙牛共情，虐童案里与施暴者共情，还有聂树斌案等等。在过去十几年以来无数的重大公共事件里，他一次又一次站在了现代文明的对立面。抽签都不带这��整齐划一的。

当这些事情一个一个被放在一起看的时候，我看到的已经不只是某一次采访中的判断失误，而是一种反复出现的价值取向：在现代文明所强调的人的尊严、弱者保护和基本正义面前，他一次又一次把共情放在了另一个位置。这让我不得不重新思考，一个人的专业能力究竟能不能和他的价值判断分开来看。因为对于一个真正的知识分子来说，价值观就是他的灵魂，就是他内心最真实的模样。一个人如果常年不洗澡，哪怕外面的衣服永远穿得整整齐齐，头发梳得一丝不乱，甚至每天西装革履，也很难永远掩盖脚丫子散发出来的臭气。一个人的知识、专业和技巧，可以把他的外在包装得非常漂亮，但价值观最终还是会从他的判断里散发出来。

也正是在这样的比较中，李承鹏进入了我的视野。

在如今这个喧闹的公共舆论场里，能说话的人很多，能写字的人也很多。但李承鹏给我的感觉，是一个真正的知识分子。知识分子最重要的品质，是启蒙性和批判性。

他写《在中国，千万别当好人》，当然不是劝人从此不要善良，而是把一个更扎心的问题扔到你面前：在这样的现实环境里，做一个好人需要付出什么代价？而一个社会如果让好人必须先掂量自己是否承受得起善良的代价，这件事情本身是不是已经足够荒谬？

他的文字里经常有这种追问。别人说要做“社会主义接班人”，他说你可能只是“接盘人”。一句看似调侃的话，背后却把一个更大的问题扔给了读者：我们今天到底是公民，还是臣民？如果是公民，我们究竟拥有什么权利，又承担什么义务？

这就是启蒙。不是替你把答案写好，而是突然把一个你习以为常的词掰开，让你重新想一遍。这也是我觉得李承鹏和很多公共人物最不一样的地方。面对一个荒谬的现实，他的本能是追问，而不是急着替它寻找合理性。

锁链女就是一个最典型的例子。无论一个地方多么贫穷，无论当地婚姻和人口结构存在什么问题，无论可以找出多少社会背景，都无法跨越一个最基本的文明底线：一个女人不应该被铁链锁住。可是王志安却试图从当地的社会环境出发，解释这种关系为什么可能被认为是在“保护”女性。

我恰恰无法接受这种解释。面对这样的事情，一个知识分子首先应该做的，不是替野蛮寻找存在的理由，而是把野蛮本身撕开给人看：为什么到了今天，一个女人仍然可以被铁链锁住？是什么让这样的事情发生？又是什么让周围的人如此习以为常？

李承鹏的文字很少替这些不文明的现象涂脂抹粉。他甚至有点残忍。他把它们直接扔到你面前，让你看，让你不舒服，然后让你自己想。这就是我理解的启蒙，也是我理解的批判。

李承鹏的文字很幽默，但又非常犀利。很多时候，他让你先笑出来，笑完以后却觉得悲凉，因为笑话背后是一个真实得让人笑不出来的现实。你可以从他这些犀利的文字里，看到一个知识分子的坚持、善良和风骨。他的锋芒是有方向的，像一把利剑，所有的锋芒都指向现实中的黑暗、荒谬和不公。

王志安给我的感觉却很不一样。他在视频中对前妻恶言恶语，反复爆料、指责前妻；和读者互动时，也经常阴阳怪气，用反讽攻击别人，而且动不动就给自己贴上“全球最佳”之类的标签，高调自我表扬。这种表达方式给我的感觉，就是层次比较低。

所以���更欣赏李承鹏，不只是因为他文字里的幽默、智慧和深度，更是因为他知道自己的锋芒应该用在哪里。

在一堆喧闹的声音里，一个真正的知识分子不一定是声音最大的那一个，也不一定永远正确。但他应该有自己的判断，有启蒙的能力，有批判的勇气，更应该知道自己的剑应该指向哪里。

至少在我这个普通读者看来，李承鹏身上有这种东西。这也是为什么，看过那么多公众人物的表述之后，我还是觉得，李承鹏像一颗很难被忽略的耀眼星辰。哪怕置身多云的暗夜，他依然光芒万丈。那是随着人类文明一路前行的光，如同灯塔，让人看见希望，心生鼓舞，也重新获得继续向前的勇气。

[snowvalley @snowyvally]

李承鹏与王志安：谁才是真正的知识分子

王志安作为一名调查记者进入公众视野，留下过不少有价值的采访和调查。一个记者能够深入现场，追问事实，留下公共记录，这些能力本身值得肯定。但当一个人进入更大的公共讨论场域以后，真正值得观察的，就不只是他调查事实的能力，还有他的价值判断。因为一个知识分子看待世界的方式，最终决定于他在面对具体的人、具体的不公和具体的权力关系时，究竟站在哪里。

王志安在锁链女事件里跟董志民共情，毒奶粉事件里跟蒙牛共情，虐童案里与施暴者共情，还有聂树斌案等等。在过去十几年以来无数的重大公共事件里，他一次又一次站在了现代文明的对立面。抽签都不带这么整齐划一的。

当这些事情一个一个被放在一起看的时候，我看到的已经不只是某一次采访中的判断失误，而是一种反复出现的价值取向：在现代文明所强调的人的尊严、弱者保护和基本正义面前，他一次又一次把共情放在了另一个位置。这让我不得不重新思考，一个人的专业能力究竟能不能和他的价值判断分开来看。因为对于一个真正的知识分子来说，价值观就是他的灵魂，就是他内心最真实的模样。一个人如果常年不洗澡，哪怕外面的衣服永远穿得整整齐齐，头发梳得一丝不乱，甚至每天西装革履，也很难永远掩盖脚丫子散发出来的臭气。一个人的知识、专业和技巧，可以把他的外在包装得非常漂亮，但价值观最终还是会从他的判断里散发出来。

也正是在这样的比较中，李承鹏进入了我的视野。

在如今这个喧闹的公共舆论场里，能说话的人很多，能写字的人也很多。但李承鹏给我的感觉，是一个真正的知识分子。知识分子最重要的品质，是启蒙性和批判性。

他写《在中国，千万别当好人》，当然不是劝人从此不要善良，而是把一个更扎心的问题扔到你面前：在这样的现实环境里，做一个好人需要付出什么代价？而一个社会如果让好人必须先掂量自己是否承受得起善良的代价，这件事情本身是不是已经足够荒谬？

他的文字里经常有这种追问。别人说要做“社会主义接班人”，他说你可能只是“接盘人”。一句看似调侃的话，背后却把一个更大的问题扔给了读者：我们今天到底是公民，还是臣民？如果是公民，我们究竟拥有什么权利，又承担什么义务？

这就是启蒙。��是替你把答案写好，而是突然把一个你习以为常的词掰开，让你重新想一遍。这也是我觉得李承鹏和很多公共人物最不一样的地方。面对一个荒谬的现实，他的本能是追问，而不是急着替它寻找合理性。

锁链女就是一个最典型的例子。无论一个地方多么贫穷，无论当地婚姻和人口结构存在什么问题，无论可以找出多少社会背景，都无法跨越一个最基本的文明底线：一个女人不应该被铁链锁住。可是王志安却试图从当地的社会环境出发，解释这种关系为什么可能被认为是在“保护”女性。

我恰恰无法接受这种解释。面对这样的事情，一个知识分子首先应该做的，不是替野蛮寻找存在的理由，而是把野蛮本身撕开给人看：为什么到了今天，一个女人仍然可以被铁链锁住？是什么让这样的事情发生？又是什么让周围的人如此习以为常？

李承鹏的文字很少替这些不文明的现象涂脂抹粉。他甚至有点残忍。他把它们直接扔到你面前，让你看，让你不舒服，然后让你自己想。这就是我理解的启蒙，也是我理解的批判。

李承鹏的文字很幽默，但又非常犀利。很多时候，他让你先笑出来，笑完以后却觉得悲凉，因为笑话背后是一个真实得让人笑不出来的现实。你可以从他这些犀利的文字里，看到一个知识分子的坚持、善良和风骨。他的锋芒是有方向的，像一把利剑，所有的锋芒都指向现实中的黑暗、荒谬和不公。

王志安给我的感觉却很不一样。他在视频中对前妻恶言恶语，反复爆料、指责前妻；和读者互动时，也经常阴阳怪气，用反讽攻击别人，而且动不动就给自己贴上“全球最佳”之类的标签，高调自我表扬。这种表达方式给我的感觉，就是层次比较低。

所以我更欣赏李承鹏，不只是因为他文字里的幽默、智慧和深度，���是因为他知道自己的锋芒应该用在哪里。

在一堆喧闹的声音里，一个真正的知识分子不一定是声音最大的那一个，也不一定永远正确。但他应该有自己的判断，有启蒙的能力，有批判的勇气，更应该知道自己的剑应该指向哪里。

至少在我这个普通读者看来，李承鹏身上有这种东西。这也是为什么，看过那么多公众人物的表述之后，我还是觉得，李承鹏像一颗很难被忽略的耀眼星辰。哪怕置身多云的暗夜，他依然光芒万丈。那是随着人类文明一路前行的光，如同灯塔，让人看见希望，心生鼓舞，也重新获得继续向前的勇气。

[snowvalley @snowyvally]

@zannymb @elonmusk @andrewrsorkin I wrote a longer piece on why I believe this interview missed the mark—not because it challenged Elon Musk, but because it relied on labels instead of substantive questions. https://t.co/sg7RKRpPaq

[snowvalley @snowyvally]

A Good Interview Challenges Ideas, Not Labels
I've always believed that journalism is at its best when it helps the audience think more deeply—not when it tries to score points.
Watching this interview, I found myself disappointed, not because the journalist challenged Elon Musk, but because of how the challenge was presented.
Whether you admire Musk or strongly disagree with him is beside the point. I have mixed feelings about him myself. I respect his extraordinary achievements in technology and engineering, yet I also have concerns about some of his political positions and public statements. That is exactly why I wanted to see a strong interview.
Instead, the journalist opened with emotionally charged language such as "many people loathe you" and repeatedly relied on labels like "far right." Those may reflect the views of some people, but simply repeating labels does not help the audience understand why those labels are being used.
A stronger interview would have asked questions such as:
•Which of your specific policies do critics describe as far right?
•Why do you believe your immigration position is reasonable?
•How do you respond to accusations that some of your statements have encouraged division?
•What evidence supports your claims?
Those questions force a guest to explain and defend their reasoning. Labels do not.
Ironically, the interview gave Musk an opportunity to reframe the conversation instead of answering more difficult questions. Rather than examining his ideas, the discussion became a debate about the labels themselves.
The role of journalism is not to make the audience feel that the interviewer is winning an argument. Its role is to help the audience better understand the person being interviewed.
On that standard, I believe this interview fell short. Good journalism doesn't become stronger by being more aggressive. It becomes stronger by asking better questions.

@AP @Reuters @CJR @NiemanLab

[snowvalley @snowyvally]

A Good Interview Challenges Ideas, Not Labels
I've always believed that journalism is at its best when it helps the audience think more deeply—not when it tries to score points.
Watching this interview, I found myself disappointed, not because the journalist challenged Elon Musk, but because of how the challenge was presented.
Whether you admire Musk or strongly disagree with him is beside the point. I have mixed feelings about him myself. I respect his extraordinary achievements in technology and engineering, yet I also have concerns about some of his political positions and public statements. That is exactly why I wanted to see a strong interview.
Instead, the journalist opened with emotionally charged language such as "many people loathe you" and repeatedly relied on labels like "far right." Those may reflect the views of some people, but simply repeating labels does not help the audience understand why those labels are being used.
A stronger interview would have asked questions such as:
•Which of your specific policies do critics describe as far right?
•Why do you believe your immigration position is reasonable?
•How do you respond to accusations that some of your statements have encouraged division?
•What evidence supports your claims?
Those questions force a guest to explain and defend their reasoning. Labels do not.
Ironically, the interview gave Musk an opportunity to reframe the conversation instead of answering more difficult questions. Rather than examining his ideas, the discussion became a debate about the labels themselves.
The role of journalism is not to make the audience feel that the interviewer is winning an argument. Its role is to help the audience better understand the person being interviewed.
On that standard, I believe this interview fell short. Good journalism doesn't become stronger by being more aggressive. It becomes stronger by asking better questions.

@AP @Reuters @CJR @NiemanLab

[snowvalley @snowyvally]

Brian Tamaki is entitled to oppose immigration, trade agreements, or even the visit of a foreign leader. In a democracy, those debates are legitimate. But one part of his argument deserves to be challenged.

The idea that people born in India are somehow less committed to New Zealand simply because of where they were born is neither fair nor logical. A person's birthplace tells you nothing about their value to New Zealand.

No one chooses where they are born. That is an accident of history. What people do after they arrive here is a choice.

They choose whether to obey the law.
They choose whether to work hard.
They choose whether to pay taxes.
They choose whether to build businesses, teach our children, care for our elderly, volunteer in their communities, or serve this country.
That is how loyalty is demonstrated.

History has shown us countless examples of immigrants who became extraordinary New Zealanders, just as it has shown us that not everyone born here automatically contributes to society.

The same standard should apply to everyone.

If someone commits crimes, prosecute them.
If someone promotes violence, hold them accountable.
If government policy is flawed, debate it openly.
But don't judge millions of people by their birthplace. That replaces individual responsibility with collective prejudice.
A confident nation does not fear judging people as individuals. It has the confidence to expect everyone—whether born in Auckland, Delhi, Shanghai, London or Wellington—to meet the same standards of law, responsibility and contribution.
New Zealand has always benefited from people who chose to make this country their home and gave more than they took. That doesn't mean every immigration policy is perfect. It doesn't mean every trade agreement is wise.
Those are legitimate political debates.
But they should be argued with evidence, economics and public policy—not by suggesting that someone's birthplace determines their loyalty or their worth.

Birthplace is an accident.
Contribution is a choice.

New Zealand doesn't need to fear people because of where they were born. It should judge them by what they choose to give back.

[snowvalley @snowyvally]

A person's birthplace tells you nothing about their value to New Zealand.

Contribution does.

People don't choose where they're born.
They do choose whether they work hard, obey the law, build businesses, teach children, care for patients, pay taxes, or serve their communities.

Judge actions.
Judge character.
Judge contribution.

Not birthplace.

That's the difference between a confident nation and a fearful one.

[snowvalley @snowyvally]

@GeBiubiu 至少捐一半出去给自己长期支持的慈善机构，或者设立慈善基金。不劳而获，要舍得回馈社会。

[Barry Young @BarryYoungNZ]

This is my personal story...
I worked for Health NZ as a Senior Database Administrator.
A vaccine payment database system that I built clearly showed excess deaths were occurring.
I tried to reach out to the Leadership Team at Health NZ.
This was their response...

[snowvalley @snowyvally]

@linfavourite FBI 的“暴力犯罪率” 包括谋杀、强奸、抢劫、严重攻击。财产犯罪率 包括盗窃、入室、汽车盗窃。而骚乱、抗议中的打砸抢 往往被算作“破坏公物”、“非法集会”或“扰乱治安”，这些并不全部进入 FBI 的核心犯罪统���体系。因此，虽然大数据显示拜登期间犯罪率降低，但其实美国许多民众的感觉是治安恶化了。

[snowvalley @snowyvally]

@linfavourite 我的意思是美国总体犯罪率在拜登期间与特朗普首次执政期间对比。你的理解方式挺奇特。我从来没有骂过人，也谈不上川粉。他的某些政策我并不赞同。只是路过发表看法。你的格局不高，所以喜欢一棒子���晕一船人。凡是跟你看法不一致的都被你当做敌人

[snowvalley @snowyvally]

@xyztime66 @deguoziganwu 他自己发表这番言论的时候，是特指选择婚姻伴侣。

[snowvalley @snowyvally]

@saltyreigns No one should be proud or ashamed of anything that comes with his/her birth, as those are the things people can’t choose. People should be proud for the contributions or achievements they make through personal efforts.

[snowvalley @snowyvally]

@elonmusk @realDonaldTrump @Tesla Elon, it’s wise for you to stop criticising Ukraine or its leader. Your other contribution is well noticed. But if you stand with Russia and Putin, you have chosen the opposite side of modern civilisation and justice.

[snowvalley @snowyvally]

@kiwiwayne2 Chairman Mao promised that and he delivered. The result was not common prosperity but common poverty, and the nation experienced the darkest times in the human history, the culture revolution.

[snowvalley @snowyvally]

@deguoziganwu 你其实挺左的，只是自己意识不到。