r/LiberalGooseGroup

附上台湾雅虎新闻：外食不拉了！竟是被下「止瀉藥」目擊廚房整箱藥盒 知情人：很常見

最近不是有个新闻吗，就是一名昏迷的女子被按人中救醒后，打了施救者一巴掌。

有个叫做dashuju的sub就有人转发了这则新闻，还配文字说什么这就是国女本色，op就在这个帖子科普:这名女子的行为在医学上叫做谵妄，她在刚苏醒的时侯脑子还不是很清醒，所以下意识去打人是很正常的，因此这名女子的行为和道德水平没有任何关系，不应该受到任何责备，因为这个行为根本就不是他能控制的。

我发了科普的评论之后，一大堆人给我点踩，在那里骂我，我给其中一个骂我的人的评论写了很长一大段的回复，这个骂我的人姑且叫他a。我详细的向a论证了这名女子为什么不应该被责备，我还举了溺水者会死死拽住施救者等例子，为这名女子的正常的生理反应打辩护。我还找来了新闻媒体对当事人的采访，耗费了我大量的精力，结果你猜怎么着，a说我发这么一大段内容是在宣泄情绪，我全篇的回复没有一个脏字，反倒是这个a，一直说我没脑子，智商低。到底是谁在宣泄情绪我不说

紧接着，a又说:你的观点之所以得不到大家的认可，有没有可能是因为你的观点都是歪理。，然后我就问他，你为什么说我的观点是歪理，他回复道:你都歪了还怎么谈？我当时看到这里就气的不行，我发了那么多字，做了那么多论证，他上来就说我的话是歪理，问他为什么是歪理？他又不回复，紧接着他也把我拉黑了，精神胜利法这一块全让他玩明白了，不得不说，有的男人是听不懂人话的

In April, a conflict occurred in Shenzhen, China, between a smoker and a person trying to stop smoking, followed by police intervention, and it became an online hot topic. Some people supported the woman for stopping the smoking, condemned the harm of secondhand smoke, criticized the police strip search as damaging dignity, and considered the punishment improper. Others stood with the smoker and the police, believing the woman had no law-enforcement authority and should not have thrown a drink to extinguish the cigarette, while the police body search was also a normal procedure.

Smokers and those opposed to smoking, law enforcers and those subjected to enforcement, male perspectives and female perspectives—all held different positions. The same incident thus became two different narratives, each side amplifying information favorable to itself and unfavorable to the other. Looking across China and the world, social fragmentation and opposition among groups are widespread and increasingly severe realities.

The world in recent years has been turbulent and unstable, and people are no longer optimistic about the future. In China, although things appear relatively calm on the surface, people’s anxiety grows heavier by the day, and undercurrents within society continue, expressing themselves through online public opinion. Whether in China or abroad, this unrest and anxiety in people’s hearts have triggered various conflicts, along with the social fragmentation and global division reflected in those conflicts.

In China, people fiercely dispute issues because of differing macro-level political stances, class identities, gender and ethnic differences, as well as differing views on specific events. Examples include debates over “3,000-yuan monthly salary versus national affairs” (月薪三千与国家大事), the “Hengshui Model” (衡水模式) of education, pension disparities, young people “lying flat” (躺平), the Wuhan University sexual harassment controversy (武大性骚扰风波), whether to embrace “grand narratives,” international issues such as Russia-Ukraine, Israel-Palestine, and China-Japan relations, judgments on modern Chinese historical events, and evaluations of internet celebrities such as Hu Chenfeng (户晨风) and Zhang Xuefeng (张雪峰). People argue intensely, each insisting on their own version.

In these disputes, facts and reason are not valued. People more often choose sides based on positions and values, while “labeling” the other side. Chinese people in real life are also engaged in visible and invisible struggles within various oppositions, and society is fractured.

This is not limited to China; it is the same across the world. In the United States, the long-standing opposition between Democrats and Republicans greatly intensified during the Trump era. Globally, from Europe to Asia, from Africa to Latin America, the left and right, establishment forces and populists, ethnic groups with different identities, and people of different genders and sexual orientations are all locked in conflict. On issues such as abortion, guns, immigration, feminism, climate policy, and hot international topics involving Russia-Ukraine, Israel-Palestine, and Iran, people across different ideological spectrums confront each other sharply.

People not only argue online, but also clash offline, from parliaments to the streets, causing much violence. More broadly, wars between countries such as Russia and Ukraine, Israel and Palestine, the United States and Iran; the arrests of immigrants and refugees by U.S. ICE; Iran’s suppression of protesters; and opposition protests that create unrest are all extreme forms of conflict caused by opposing interests and values, and by inability to reach agreement over concrete issues. The world has moved from a former trend toward integration to a clearly visible fragmentation.

Such widespread division and confrontation occur not only between countries and ethnic groups, but also within countries themselves; not only in non-democratic states, but also under democratic systems; not only in developing countries, but also in advanced economies; not only because of macro political and ideological disputes, but also because of micro-level concrete conflicts. This shows that division and confrontation have little to do with whether a system is democratic or how developed an economy is, but instead stem from universal human problems and common defects.

The key problem and defect lies in the fact that because of differences in identity, experience, and ideas, as well as differences in interests and positions, people are unable to understand one another rationally, much less empathize emotionally. Thus they often see things in completely different ways and reach entirely opposite conclusions on disputed issues. Mutual incomprehension also deepens people’s disgust toward one another, allowing conflicts to continue and expand, generating more hatred and violence.

For example, different classes of Chinese people view disparities in pensions and welfare differently. Those with vested interests often tend to approve of a tiered social security system in which they receive more while the poor receive less, defending it on the grounds that they contributed more and paid more. They ignore the fact that farmers paid agricultural taxes for decades, and that poverty effectively deprived them of the ability to pay more into insurance systems. Someone receiving a monthly pension of 5,000 RMB can hardly empathize with someone receiving 120 RMB a month.

Going further, the powerful and the successful feel the country is good, the government is good, and life is happy, while finding it difficult to understand or care about lower-level laborers, the poor, and the unemployed. Even those who do sympathize with the lower classes are few, and cannot truly feel what they feel. Some people were fortunate and became rich after Reform and Opening Up (改革开放); others were unfortunate, went bankrupt through investments, and saw their families fall apart. People in different classes and situations therefore form different evaluations and expectations regarding the ruling party, the government, and the country’s future destiny.

Those in high positions of privilege and elites enjoying success mostly support the system and believe the future is bright. Laborers working overtime for hard-earned wages, unemployed people without livelihoods, and oppressed vulnerable groups are mostly resentful toward the government and vested interests, and pessimistic about the future. Supporters of the system possess the superiority complex of “heroic fathers produce worthy sons” and the obliviousness of “why not eat meat porridge,” believing ordinary people simply “do not work hard,” and that hatred of the government comes from “foreign instigation.” Anti-system people, meanwhile, believe those who support the system and speak positively of the country are the government’s brainwashed “base.”

But the real China is complex. It has achievements and problems; some people are happy and others unfortunate. Both the good and the bad are only parts of the larger social mosaic, and future prospects are a mixture of positive and negative, filled with uncertainty.

People in different circumstances and occupying different parts of society have conflicting interests and find it difficult to understand or empathize with one another. Like the blind men touching the elephant, people generalize the whole of China from their own limited perceptions, obtaining only a “partial truth,” while crudely denying others’ “partial truths,” and thus failing to grasp China’s real condition.

In the United States, progressive youth in big cities and artistic men and women cannot understand the beliefs and choices of devout conservative middle-aged and elderly people in inland rural areas. The former believe the latter are ignorant and backward, brainwashed by Trump and populism; the latter believe the former lack sincere faith and have been brainwashed by universities and “wokeism.” Both sides disparage the identity and values of the other while firmly believing themselves correct.

Communication is often useless, because each side has already fixed its position and preemptively confirmed its own “correct conclusion.” In exchanges where conflict outweighs communication, opposing sides usually do not become more understanding of others, but instead harden their own views, seek warmth within their echo chambers, reject dissent more strongly, and resent the other side more deeply. Freedom of speech and developed media in advanced democracies have not made people more loving or understanding, but instead have created more complex “information cocoons” and “echo-chamber bubbles.”

On the Israel-Palestine and Russia-Ukraine issues, opposing sides each care only about what they themselves care about, while ignoring the feelings and concerns of the other. For Israel and its supporters, the October 7 massacre was unimaginably brutal, with many women and children killed, and therefore “terrorism must be struck,” leading them to justify brutality in Gaza or ignore Palestinian deaths including women and children.

Palestinian supporters, meanwhile, focus entirely on condemning Israeli violence while avoiding Palestinian harm inflicted on Israelis. Both sides emphasize their own suffering and justice, erase the other side, and leave no possibility for sincere communication—only gunfire, smoke, blood, and slaughter remain.

On Russia and Ukraine, Western establishment figures and interventionists continually emphasize the justice and necessity of aiding Ukraine against Russia: how severe Ukraine’s humanitarian disaster is, how resilient Ukrainian soldiers and civilians are, and how threatening Russia is. But American and European isolationists believe they should not spend real money or risk involvement in war for a distant foreign country, and instead use the savings for domestic welfare, easing burdens on their own citizens who are struggling to survive. Europeans are at least geographically closer to Ukraine, while American isolationists have even more reason not to spend resources on a country thousands of miles away. The two sides differ in values, priorities, and fundamental demands, cannot persuade one another, and only the holders of power can determine national policy toward the Russia-Ukraine war.

Globally, ethnic differences, wealth polarization, class divisions, differing values, and cultural customs are even more severe and complex. Under the current order and the tide of globalization, some have benefited while others have been disappointed. Even people of the same ethnicity and class may experience either fortune or misfortune in their personal destinies.

Various injustices, inequalities, discrimination, and prejudice have bred dissatisfaction and resentment. European middle classes who live comfortably from birth to death under high-level welfare systems, and citizens of oil-producing Middle Eastern states, can hardly empathize with the poor in Asia, Africa, and Latin America who labor harshly or suffer under war. Some people grow up in happy and complete families, while others lose their parents in childhood; naturally their childhoods and adulthoods will be entirely different.

People’s mutual incomprehension and opposition have become forces driving further division in the world. The rise of the far right and far left in many countries today, along with the decline of centrists, is a vivid example.

When everyone believes they themselves are right and the other side is evil, communication fails, resentment increases, and people inevitably move toward extremes, embracing more attractive echo chambers and radical forces. Social fragmentation and factional hostility thus worsen further, pushing even more people toward extremism in a vicious cycle.

Historically, the two World Wars and many medium and small-scale wars were also tragedies caused by conflicting interests among various sides, and by one or both parties being unable to understand the legitimate concerns of the other. The Russian Civil War, the Chinese Civil War (中国内战), the Korean civil war between North and South, and the Vietnam War, all with enormous casualties, were cases in which different internal forces clung to their own doctrines, were unwilling or unable to coexist peacefully, and ultimately led compatriots to kill one another. Millions died in the flames of war, while many more were maimed and families shattered.

Humanity today seems to understand the lessons of history, since the world is after all more peaceful than in the past; yet it also seems not to understand them, because mutual opposition, incomprehension, failed communication, and accumulated hatred—the fuses and warning signs of those wars—are all still present.

Today, in the 2020s of the twenty-first century, a new world war has not yet broken out, but people are already using power, institutions, laws, rules, public opinion, the internet, demonstrations, and assemblies to wage many bloodless wars against one another, aimed at damaging each other materially and spiritually.

For example, the author personally experienced Wikipedia editing wars and internal struggles. There was no physical violence, and everything formally proceeded according to rules, yet in reality all factions selectively used those rules to attack dissidents—for instance, finding excuses to “revert” days of painstaking work by opponents back to zero. As an encyclopedia platform with enormous influence, Wikipedia articles also shape many people’s perceptions and judgments of people and events.

Those who hold an advantage in discourse power can tilt Wikipedia content toward their own side, while weaker groups lack such influence and are easily stigmatized. Although Wikipedia officially advocates neutrality, compromise, and assuming good faith, on controversial issues the norm remains entrenched disagreement, irreconcilable hostility, mutual hatred, and factionalism.

Similar struggles, contests, and miniature wars occur every day both offline and online across the world—in governments, parliaments, media organizations, universities, and elsewhere. These less noticeable conflicts resonate with policy changes, popular movements, and broader international waves of confrontation. For example, conflicts between mainland Chinese and Hong Kong administrators on Wikipedia were closely tied to the anti-extradition movement and the subsequent implementation of the National Security Law (《国安法》) happening at the same time.

Overall confrontation drives local conflicts, while local conflicts intensify overall confrontation. A contradiction arising in one place pulls in related contradictions elsewhere and creates more of them. In situations of conflict and opposition, people become less willing to understand one another or respect opponents. Instead, positions determine behavior, and rules are used selectively. Quoting out of context and distorting facts become normal.

People care only about themselves and their own side, while ignoring others and outsiders, even harming others for the benefit of their own group. Unity within each camp is not for broader unity, but for more effectively confronting enemy camps and suppressing dissenters.

Can a world so full of division, confrontation, and endless conflict improve? The author once believed that institutional development, educational enlightenment, cultural advocacy, and the building of civil society could bring improvement. But in recent years, both historical realities disproving optimism and personal lessons from witnessing human malice have made the author pessimistic.

Because people of different identities and circumstances have different interests, opposition exists naturally, conflict is inevitable, and harmony is difficult and fragile. As Lu Xun (鲁迅) said, “The joys and sorrows of humanity are not shared.” People cannot truly empathize with all the suffering of others, nor can they treat everyone’s demands with perfect equal balance. As the saying goes, “Some relatives still grieve, while others already sing.” Even sympathy that crosses interpersonal boundaries is usually directed toward specific targets rather than universal love. Those sharing the same suffering may pity one another, while those in different circumstances may become even more distant than ordinary strangers.

Forming an alliance with some people often means becoming more hostile to others. Where interests conflict, beliefs differ, and values diverge, communication is rarely effective. It may instead involve deception, insult, and injury through words, deepening distrust and resentment.

All of this stems from the biological fact that human beings are independent individuals who cannot truly see into one another’s hearts. Misunderstanding and separation always exist. This is true even between spouses and between parents and children. Two close friends facing each other still cannot know with certainty what the other is thinking inside. That too is impossible.

The communicative power of language is limited, and lies are always present. Moreover, different peoples of the world possess different languages and modes of expression, further increasing the difficulty of communication and deepening barriers.

Human beings also naturally exist in competition with one another. No matter how much total resources grow, the sum can still be viewed as one whole. Therefore disputes inevitably arise over how much of that total different people receive. Interests determine status and dignity, material gain, spiritual enjoyment, and relative advantage or loss among people. People fight bitterly for these things. Losers live in hardship and emotional despair, while winners are filled with happiness and satisfaction. Distribution is sometimes based on effort and contribution, and sometimes it is not; unfairness is common.

The complexity of society and diversity of humanity also mean contradictions will always exist; conflicts of interest cannot be eradicated. Under such a fundamental premise, no matter how hard humanity tries to improve itself through institutions, education, or public discourse, it cannot make humankind loving and harmonious as if it were one person. Liberalism, socialism/communism, and conservatism are all unable to cure human ugliness and social contradictions at the root.

On the contrary, many ideas, institutional designs, and practical movements that in name or original intention sought human harmony and universal unity instead produced tragedies of deception, brainwashing, resentment, and even broader contradictions. Human relationships became more complicated, social conflicts more tangled, and matters increasingly difficult to repair.

More than two thousand years ago, Laozi (老子) repeatedly argued in the Tao Te Ching (《道德经》) that some efforts to improve society and make humanity better would instead become tools exploited for evil, causing society to become more chaotic and humanity more corrupted. Facts have shown that Laozi’s view contains considerable truth.

Because of certain unusual experiences and dramatic ups and downs in life, the author has unexpectedly undergone many different circumstances, including great rises and falls. In different situations and different periods, the author has held different views on the same or similar matters, even reaching completely opposite conclusions, while personal values have also changed greatly over time.

For example, the author’s attitude toward grassroots populism shifted from dislike to greater sympathy, and views of the stubbornness of older generations changed from aversion to greater understanding. The present self opposes some words and actions of years ago, and the earlier self would surely disapprove of some of today’s values. The author considers himself someone who actively reflects and often tries to see from others’ perspectives, with empathy stronger than that of many people.

Yet the more this is so, the more one realizes the limits of one’s own thinking and empathy, and how difficult it is for people in the world to understand one another and sustain compassion. Even if a person can somewhat empathize with several specific experiences, emotions, and certain individuals, it remains difficult to extend that widely to many more people and groups. Human experience, vision, knowledge, and energy are all limited.

The story of the Tower of Babel in the Old Testament is precisely about how humanity finds it difficult to become one, and how barriers are unavoidable. What prevents mutual understanding is not merely linguistic difference, but even more the difference of spirit. Every person’s soul and thoughts are unique and self-contained, and cannot become identical with another’s. From birth to the present, people differ in identity, life experiences, education received, and patterns of thought. Thus they naturally sort into groups of different identities and positions, attacking one another. Conflicts of interest also cause even like-minded people to part ways, and many relatives and friends turn into enemies.

These are objective realities, unaffected by the will of those who seek to transform human nature and remake society. Internal contradictions within countries, international conflicts, and their immediate causes are only surface appearances. These deep-rooted negative realities of human society are the true foundation. If the roots cannot be cured, then prescriptions for specific problems will always merely “treat the symptoms but not the disease,” or solve one problem only for another to arise.

This means mutual incomprehension and attacks between people are difficult to avoid, and the world’s division and conflict will continue. Even knowing many lessons of history, people will still repeat mistakes to one degree or another. We can only strive and hope for fewer conflicts, more peace, and a world that does not spiral completely out of control, but can continue to function imperfectly and with difficulty.

(This article was written by Wang Qingmin (王庆民), a Chinese writer based in Europe and a researcher of international politics.)

一直都不想寫這篇吐槽，本身也並不喜歡li的寫作（除了where reasons end，要不是cusk書評真錯過這部動人的書寫了），更不想在大量中文惡意指責家長責任裡加重對她的積屎。

吐槽純粹是面對li簡中熱潮的疲憊。她最近因為獲得普利策回憶錄書寫獎後又又又站在中文討論聚光燈下，墻內此時的討論熱度甚至可以和德國的中國人強奸案媲美（這次明顯有state參與轉移熱點，廣場裏蛆塊鏈和尚存的文藝博主分庭抗禮）。上一次引發簡中文藝圈討論是她第二個兒子的自殺，再在前一次是她的作品被首次中文翻譯。只有這次擴大到簡中政治輿論場（大致瀏覽下有項立剛，帝吧等泛政治養蠱類粉紅博主），大抵是因為普利策象徵著”美國官方意識形態試圖抹黑影響中國家庭價值觀“。不想參與這樣弱智的討論，只想吐槽下li為甚麽會讓自己又一次陷入這樣的境地，準確的說，逃離中國成功後並明確表明不想讓自己的作品被翻譯成母語後為何讓食言呢？

也不知掉是因為reddit只有浪系中文看多了的影響，我對li的遭遇除了照常的自由派觀點外。還有不正確的”回頭看索多瑪的下場“想法。

早些時候，豆瓣，海外采訪，英文媒體也好，她不允許自己的創作被翻譯成中文一直是個會飽受爭論的話題，我想她自己應該也有些厭煩無休止的媒體追問，17年出版的dear friend在我看來就是她又一擰巴的辯解（說實話，不如趙婷一句謊言布滿的土地直接了當）。

【我個人比較偏頗的看法是因為她早期寫作的白人閱讀者意識太強了，所以自從開始非中國異域書寫便允許中文翻譯。而之前英文的中國書寫在中文讀者那應該討不了好，同時又是MFA的生產模式，第一部短篇小說集名為《千年修得共枕眠》就是最好的側寫。在where reasons end出版前，她和guo xiaolu（還依稀記得她給白人男友讀海明威的老人與海…以及最近推特上小火的寫白鯨去殖書寫），wang weike (again白人男友的文化隔閡，推上最近有位Rucy cui申請到了Stanford獎金的又一白人男友寫作甚至遭受了破圈的批評) , qian jianan （那個文革小狗真的...）等在印象裏都屬於asian women diaspora writing，而相關的吐槽不要太多（cut fruit poetry diaspora/ my white boyfriend diaspora）。至於li作品翻譯後可能會遭受的審查，我個人認為除了涉及89天安門短篇可能難以出版外，其他文革的書寫大概不會遭受太多的阻力，畢竟簡中出版的文革書寫可要殘酷多了（當然可能這幾年來愈發困難，以及，想吐槽下她備受西方批評贊譽的殘忍有些像是老中自帶的出廠設置）】

但無論li用怎樣的作家語言辯解，她還是允諾作品翻譯回母語並成為了簡中文學圈的熱點。

隨意列舉下她的標籤：中國出生用英文寫作獲得巨大成功，北大畢業，普林斯頓任教，第一個兒子自殺。出版社怎麼會愁素材宣傳呢？這已經是項飆級別的行走的自帶討論熱點人物了。

果不其然li的書籍熱銷，並成為小紅書和微博閱讀圈的熱點人物，有專門的博主中文翻譯她的採訪文章。到了她第二兒子自殺時，我甚至是幾天後通過推特fyp的中文博主得知的，回簡中一看已經討論得熱火朝天了（again非常糟糕的討論，似乎還有人截圖她的私人ig，即使充斥著10%的惡意揣測就已經渾濁不堪了）。

對比下是英文文學圈毫無波瀾（dalkey 出版個the tunnel都比這熱火朝天），推特搜索也是華人英文或中文討論。

li在英文書寫獲得的巨大聲譽似乎並未轉化到輿論場。反倒是隔海的大陸因為翻譯引進知曉後產生了層出不窮的討論，大量的讚美和批評，不管她願不願意成為這樣的熱點，但已經被翻譯出版了就沒回頭路了，真的有點像和惡魔做交易。

另一個明顯對比是新書的一部分最早刊發的紐約客文章影響。即使紐約客推特發了無數次營銷號標題的引流推文都沒幾個互動（不如每次發agnes callard和新西蘭總理的rage bait互動高），反倒是民間翻譯後的文章在簡中圈繼續被廣泛閱讀和討論。

有趣的是li因新書接受中英文媒體採訪時的表達。英文各大媒體的采訪都是直接問她兒子自殺，她也不曾迴避，而她接受魯豫的中文訪談對此事卻模糊處理只宣傳中文翻譯新書，但卻又又在簡中引起了大討論。

準確的說倒也不是真的“回看了索多瑪”般的浪式劇情，英文書寫被翻譯後獲得的巨大關注和討論倒有些像和梅菲斯特的交易。但她所有的表達倒是印證了一個經典的浪系悖論：“你越想擺脫中國人的身份，你就越是中國人”。

至此，只想說，liyiyun 你永遠都是中國人。

edit:最開始手打的吐槽，現在改的稍微有邏輯些

edit: 朋友給我發了她最近的又一個採訪，我真的。。。

*“在采访过程中，当李翊云表示不愿谈论和回忆录有关的问题时，我表示接受。但在访谈接近尾声时，她放下了之前的防备，谈起了对于被舆论错误指责和审判的看法。*这是《鹅之书》出版之后，李翊云唯一接受的中国大陆媒体的当面采访，也是她首次回应与舆论争议相关的问题。”

*“****李翊云：***不谈我母亲的事情。你既然问中国的舆论，我可以聊一聊。我当然知道，公众人物的私人生活会被大众舆论当作谈资，这是无法避免的。但是我的经历是大众虚构我的生活，把它们当作真相来传播，然后用这些虚构之事来评判我。我可以给你举一个例子。你可能也注意到了——我是一直在关注这些言论的，因为我想知道这些舆论到底有多糟糕。“

然後詳細地描述自己看到的評論和自己的看法

gurl 這個時候你真有點像最近的contrapoints上各種tankie節目尋找自我羞辱了🙄

以及，這麼推薦naipaul也是一種選擇吧，她不可能不知道naipaul在最近這些年和achebe的比較。

一图送给天天推推背的⏰神棍

5月8日，OPPO母亲节宣发文案引起舆论争议。其相关内容采用不当调侃表述，将追星行为与家庭婚姻关系强行绑定。

文案中，母亲设定被为拥有两个“老公”：一个是孩子的父亲，另一个（指其喜爱的明星）一年仅见两次；和孩子父亲约会时基本不打扮，见明星时却“恨不得穿婚纱”。

目前，该争议内容已被OPPO下架处理，账号也同步开启了“评论精选”功能。

大家在这个组玩的原因是这里崇尚liberal，不像太监区神奈川一样大佐粉红满地爬，也不像鹅组一样拉偏架搞性别优先，氛围比较平和，或者说正常人比例较高，至少前面几年看起来是这样的。但最近mod执法标准越来越迷了。

随手截了几张图。图1的账号karma不足，所有发言都需要被approve才能看见，所以这条是被mod手动放出来的，我不太能理解为什么流浪大佐随机咬人可以被放出来，但这显然很不liberal；图三满嘴逼屌的原教旨主义反跨女权流窜到本组有些时日了，前阵子也有版友发帖吐槽，但似乎毫无影响；还有图四，看到的时候我差点以为自己错入了鹅组，但显然mod也没做任何事。

我记得一个月前吧，本组的周访问量是比鹅组高的，而现在鹅组比本组还高1.5k，本组俨然一个没性别限定的赛博精神病院，大佐激女开趴联欢，把正常人都熏跑了。无论是谁，只要不如意了都要来本组魔怔一把清一下情绪呕吐物。我能理解大家把相对安静的本组当赛博树洞，但这里不是奇行种的赛博粪坑。

我看视频里还有人对脚作出膜拜姿势的，是有多压抑……现在视频全网疯传，很多男性觉得她被摸脚时“表情自然”所以骂她骚。