What do you think of the "fighting orphans" incident?

How to treat the right and wrong of beating orphans home? Is it "comfortable to eat potatoes" or "bitter to eat beef" Do you acquiesce in the warm and bloody help of the club, or applaud the mythical narrative of saving the orphans in battle? In any case, this group of orphans who have been teased by fate once again fell into the bottomless pit of online public opinion-the binary choice of "bad" and "worse".

How does exposure become a kind of "injury"?

As soon as the video came out, there were many questions about "playing orphans" on the Internet. On the one hand, I am saddened that such a cruel battle has fallen on underage orphans, on the other hand, I am deeply worried about whether I can stand on the society only by fighting.

Indeed, the relief work for orphans cannot stop at the basic problem of food and clothing. Ensuring their quality of life and free development is the key to relief. War orphans are taken in by social organizations and wrapped by commercial interests, and the uncertainty of life is greatly increased.

In the video, although the war orphans are satisfied with the status quo, when the bloody fighting day after day becomes the only life theme of orphans, their rights in health, medical care, education and other aspects are not guaranteed, and whether their future life will be at a loss.

When the video was exposed and orphans were about to be sent back to Liangshan, many netizens said that such "rescue" was actually a kind of "injury". Based solely on moral judgment, rescuing orphans is ostensibly helping them, but I don't know that it will send them back to a worse living environment-eating worse potatoes and doing harder farm work.

However, is this exposure really a kind of "injury"?

We can't give up government assistance just because orphans have a stable foothold. For example, those orphans who wander around with folk performances often hide the experience of blood and tears behind their food, clothing, housing and transportation, and suffer great pain both physically and mentally. If not "exposed", these hidden "rights" will be farther and farther away from these orphans.

In the movie Wrestle! On the father, even if the father's choice goes against the child's wishes, the starting point and soil foundation of his behavior is still the trust of his family, so there is no need to criticize him too much. However, in the fight against orphans, the basis of the club's "good for children" is not sufficient. "Exposure" can at least help the public figure out whether there is a chain of interests, and don't let these underage children suffer from "dumb losses" at the first step into society.

In addition, head coach Bowen said in the video that there are only so many gold belts and first place. If they are not good enough, they can only go back. In this scarce situation, fighting orphans are still looking forward to UFC gold belt. Whether the prospect of this choice is illusory can be imagined. Does the rescue logic of "stay if you play well and go back if you don't play well" violate the initial intention of rescue?

Will it be better to send the orphans back to school than to the battle field?

At present, there are two arguments in the online public opinion field: one is romantic idealism, and the education bureau will eventually give the fighting orphans a better life after intervening in the investigation; One is rational empiricism, which abandons the sonorous truth of legal provisions. What about after the repatriation of battle orphans?

Whether it is the child labor incident in Shenzhen on 20 13 or the child labor incident in Changshu on 20 16, after the media rushed to report, things always evolved in a very routine way. Today, the same is true of fighting orphans: the local education bureau intervened, repatriated orphans, and issued a document condemning the fight club for using minors for commercial interests.

Netizens have questioned: What about after repatriation? What will the life of these orphans be like? Perhaps, this matter will fall into such an embarrassing situation after the online public opinion has subsided.

In such a trend of public opinion in cool thin, the so-called rational "second-choice" has inadvertently become the mainstream of public opinion. People who hold this view think that it is better to stay in the fighting field and have meat to eat than to go back to Liangshan to eat boiled potatoes.

This view has to force us to change the dimension of factual balance into more realistic logic. Although it is hard to say that war orphans live a completely legal and high-risk lifestyle, at least they bid farewell to Liangshan's broken lifestyle and low-quality life of eating only dry food. Once, a primary school student article called "the saddest composition in history" by netizens went viral on the Internet-"The meal was ready, but my mother died", and its author was a typical Liangshan orphan.

What is true? For fighting orphans, the real "iron cage" in the fighting field is more real and easier to follow than the desperate "iron cage" of domestic bears. Lu Xun once put forward the social torture of "what happened after Nora left", and "what happened after the orphans returned to their hometown" is an unfinished question in the current public opinion field.

Talking about the right to education with children who have not solved the problem of food and clothing is both indifferent and extravagant.

What is the key to defocusing in suboptimal selection logic?

One is to hope for the help of the local government in the foreseeable future, and the other is willing to hit the helpless corner of life with his fist. Can war orphans only choose between "bad" and "worse" bourgeois logic?

You can't tell how cruel this forced choice is, but it makes people feel chilling.

"Struggle" and "Orphan", in this path with personal heroism, "Struggle against fate" is excessively bloody to highlight the necessity of saving, while "orphan narrative" is ignored in the spiral of public opinion, and the word "handed over to the government" ends here.

Perhaps, staying and fighting can change your life, but don't forget that this society should never curl up the future of "poor" children in the iron cage of fighting. The bottom line of society is insurmountable and the goodwill of human nature is uncompromising. The second worst option is to fight orphans, which is bound to be another chill flowing to them.

In fact, the binary discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of beating orphans home has gradually shifted the focus of public opinion. Behind the seemingly lively public opinion, the torture about "what measures will the government take after returning to China" is still standing still.

Can't the current pattern and scale of China bear the childhood of these orphans? Abandoning functional responsibility, evading social responsibility, and blindly catching up with battle orphans on the road of "destiny", these children will inevitably have no "poetry and distance".

In this matter, Zhijun doesn't want them to be forgotten in the corner of Daliangshan after the tide of public opinion has passed. Although this expectation is somewhat weak, it always makes people feel bright and work hard for this group of lonely lives.