On the South China Tiger Incident

8,607 characters2006.01.08

http://hps.phil.pku.edu.cn/bbs/read.php?tid=282

Lately it’s felt a bit like repressed feelings have suddenly burst out in one concentrated explosion, with momentum gushing up from the stomach~ Maybe it’s borrowed from Schopenhauer’s stimulation?

As for the South China tiger affair, I’d long wanted to say a few things, but had never managed to get them out. Taking the repost on the forum, and riding this surge of momentum, I finally can’t keep quiet anymore.

This is a joke post—surely I can see that, can’t I? Of course I can. The moment I saw “reposted from XX forum” and “repost MP,” I knew it was only a joke, and a really brilliant one at that.

Why am I being so serious when everyone else is joking? So out of place? Maybe I’m just like this: when others are dead serious, I don’t necessarily follow suit and get serious; when others are joking, I end up being dead serious instead.

Although my sense of humor is average at best, I do usually crack a fair number of jokes myself. But not everything can be joked about. Matters that touch on other people’s reputation and dignity absolutely are no joking matter. Even if the evidence is conclusive, that evidence is nothing more than hearsay and secondhand talk. I am neither a party to the case nor a witness, much less a judge—what right do I have to sneer at and insult Zhou Zhenglong?

By the way, back when there was that “not-grateful college student incident,” I did in fact scold those “female entrepreneurs.” But I was only speaking to the matter itself; in light of the background provided by the news, I was aiming at such a phenomenon, such a type of person, and not naming any particular individual and cursing them out. I’m preemptively offering this as my own defense.
If it’s true, it absolutely could be made into a film: the latest developments in the South China tiger affair【zt】
The following is reposted from Rainbow Bridge Forum,
Whoa!
I think my imagination is as bad as my logic ability……
http://www.rainbowplan.org/bbs/topic.php?topic=81455&select=&forum=1
Repost, I’m a repost.
======================================================
Explosive! Latest news on the South China tiger! (reposted MP)
From the beginning of last month until now, there has been endless debate in the media, over the authenticity or falsity of the wild South China tiger in Zhenping. Today, at last, there is an ending no one could have imagined____the tiger is real, and has been found! However, it is already dying, and is now being rescued at the Shaanxi emergency animal rescue station. This was disclosed today by the investigation team of the State Forestry Administration.
According to expert observation and analysis, this tiger is precisely the one photographed by Zhou Zhenglong, which shows that when Zhou took the picture it was already seriously ill, which is why it remained motionless for dozens of minutes.
What will surprise you even more is that this tiger has numbered holes in both ears, no incisors or canines, and experts judge it to be a tiger lost from a circus.
What will really make your glasses fall off is that it is also the tiger on the New Year picture. According to the ear-number archive, it has been verified that this tiger belonged to Hebei *** Circus, and in 2000 Beijing ** Picture Agency specially photographed images of this tiger for commercial use (the two sides had an agreement), after which the pictures were printed into New Year pictures by Zhejiang *** Company, so the New Year picture really did have a basis.
So how did this tiger, far away in a Hebei circus, end up in Zhenping, Shaanxi? It turns out that back in 2004, the newly established Qinling Wild Animal Park in Xi’an reached a leasing agreement with Hebei *** Circus, but a traffic accident occurred during transportation: the truck carrying the tiger overturned in a gully beside National Highway 108 at the foot of the Qinling Mountains, causing the cage to break open and the tiger to escape. Local public safety experts and the public searched for more than half a month to no avail. Yet it unexpectedly appeared in Zhenping, and thus triggered this tiger storm.
Who could have imagined such an ending……

Ancient .udder

Indeed explosive……

Even if it’s a made-up joke, the imagination of the person who wrote it is enough to go make a movie……

Actually, what I’ve always wanted to say is that no matter how conclusive the evidence is, it can never exhaust all possibilities; and what’s more, the so-called evidence for the various fake-tiger stories we’ve encountered is nothing more than hearsay on the Internet. Of course, as individuals, we can believe that the tiger photo is absolutely fake, but if we are not acting as witnesses, we have no right to heap endless mockery on Zhou Zhenglong and the others.

In legal terms, if a person has not received a final verdict from the court, then no matter how conclusive and ironclad the evidence may be, we can only call him a “criminal suspect,” not a “criminal”; anyone who has not been tried and convicted by a court is presumed innocent. If we are “witnesses”—for example, if I am the owner of the New Year picture factory, or if I witnessed some insider deal, or if I happen to have professional photo-authentication skills—then we do have the right to identify the criminal. However, a witness is a very serious role, and a witness must be “responsible” for every single word he says.

But the problem now is that many of us are neither witnesses nor parties to the case, let alone arbiters, yet we still act as though we know best, subjecting Zhou Zhenglong and others to the full force of our acidic, mean-spirited sarcasm and ridicule. But to what extent can those who jeer and pile on be “responsible” for their own words?

Even if a person really has committed a crime, even if you saw with your own eyes that he was the criminal, if there is only isolated evidence and no conviction has been reached, then the other side remains “innocent” all along. In that case, to go on insulting, mocking, and jeering at him is, in serious cases, an act of rumor-mongering, defamation, or personal insult. Whether or not the other person really committed a crime, you yourself have already broken the law.

The Internet is a thing that seems to make everyone feel that speaking on it carries no responsibility, so people are enthusiastic about joining the chorus and making noise. It is certainly a good thing that netizens were able to expose a fake tiger through collective effort, and the netizens became even more pleased with themselves, imagining themselves to be righteous heroes. But whatever the outcome, joining the chorus is joining the chorus, insulting is insulting, and irresponsibility is irresponsibility.

Of course, a healthy society also needs a group of people who make noise, but I believe that clustering together to join the fray is not something intellectuals ought to do

Latest comments

Mist
2008-01-08 17:25:57 Anonymous 124.17.16.46

If evidence is seen as the 100% basis for conviction, then it would seem that no one would ever be convicted of defamation, because there is no such thing as 100% evidence
Ancient
2008-01-08 23:27:42 Anonymous 125.34.40.220

No one has ever said that evidence is the 100% basis for conviction.
The only people who might think that way are probably those who have studied natural science until they’ve gone dazed.
Mist
2008-01-09 09:30:09 Anonymous 124.17.16.79

That’s exactly it; they feel that is already enough to show that it’s a scandal, so they begin to curse it harshly. Why can’t one sneer?
When people speak, they do so on the basis of reasons they think are sufficient; when they also take a silent stance toward ugly phenomena, perhaps that is precisely why the call for conscience is necessary. Silence is a form of indulgence.
As for hidden evidence that has not yet appeared, no one knows; people can only speak on the basis of evidence they already know or can infer (guaranteed knowledge or information).
Ancient
2008-01-09 10:39:24 Anonymous 123.112.84.6

Calling this attitude a “call for conscience” would make Heidegger die of anger. This is plainly the “they” state of “people say this and that,” as Heidegger put it.
Besides, you’re confusing one thing: a “ugly phenomenon” should not be met with silence, but there is nothing to be done about a single “phenomenon” taken as a target. Even if the concrete incident that served as the spark is not true, such a “phenomenon” still exists after all. Correct what is wrong if it exists, encourage what is good if it does not; it is not aimed at any one person. However, the problem now is not that netizens are targeting a kind of “phenomenon,” but that they are naming specific individuals. This is not conscience at all; it is simply piling on. If this were not on the anonymous platform of the Internet, if not for so many people joining in the chorus, how many people would be able to stand up and take responsibility?
So-called conscience is the judgment of one’s own behavior: what should I do, what should I not do, I should be responsible for myself, I should exercise self-discipline…… those can be the call of conscience. But conscience is by no means the ability to point fingers at other people’s behavior. Saying that intellectuals are the conscience of society means “when the nation prospers or falls, it is my responsibility”; it means shouldering responsibility oneself and bearing the mistakes of the age. Conscience is always for self-reproach, not for cursing others.
“People can only speak on the basis of evidence they already know or can infer (guaranteed knowledge or information)”—so, when you cannot “be responsible” for the evidence you possess, you have no right to defame. The question now is: are any “evidence” concerning the South China tiger affair actually in the hands of netizens like you and me? Who provides “guarantees” for the information we know? Is it ourselves? No. It is the “they,” the people who say this and that, who are providing the “guarantee” for this information; and once someone has to stand up and bear responsibility, the “they” becomes “no such person.”