在车上有人争吵，若有人说：＂大家都是中国人……＂如何评价这种废话文学？
When a heated argument erupts in a car, and someone chimes in with, "We're all Chinese..." it's a prime example of what's affectionately (or perhaps sarcastically) termed "bullshit literature" in contemporary Chinese online parlance. Let's unpack why this seemingly simple statement can be so loaded and, frankly, so unproductive.
At its core, "bullshit literature" (废话文学) isn't about outright lies, but rather about statements that are technically true but utterly devoid of substance, context, or actionable meaning in a given situation. They're the linguistic equivalent of a placeholder, a linguistic shrug, or a wellintentioned but ultimately useless platitude.
In the context of a car argument, where emotions are likely running high and specific grievances are being aired, the "We're all Chinese" statement serves several purposes, none of them particularly helpful:
1. The Grand Unifier (and Distractor):
The speaker might be attempting to deescalate the situation by appealing to a shared national identity. The idea is to remind everyone of their common ground, hoping it will override whatever petty disagreement is currently boiling over. It’s an attempt to pull people back from the brink of personal conflict by focusing on a larger, collective identity.
However, this approach often backfires. Arguments in a car are usually about immediate, personal issues: who cut whom off, who’s driving too fast or too slow, whose music is too loud, or a disagreement about directions. In such microsituations, a broad appeal to nationality is like trying to put out a house fire with a thimble of water. It simply doesn't address the root of the problem. Instead of acknowledging the specific frustration, it dismisses it with a sweeping generalization.
2. The NonConfrontational CopOut:
For the speaker, this phrase can be a way to avoid taking a stance or getting involved directly. They might not want to pick a side, mediate effectively, or even understand the nuances of the argument. By uttering this, they signal a desire for peace without actually having to do anything to achieve it. It’s a verbal shield, a way to appear like they’re contributing to harmony while remaining safely on the sidelines.
3. The Implicit Scolding:
Sometimes, the phrase carries a subtle undertone of "How can you argue like this, you're embarrassing our nation!" It’s a form of indirect criticism, suggesting that the current behavior is unbefitting of their shared identity. The implication is that civilized Chinese people wouldn't behave this way. This can feel patronizing and add another layer of resentment to the already tense atmosphere.
4. The Emotional Vacuum Cleaner:
This kind of statement often appears when people are struggling to articulate their own feelings or when they feel the argument has spiraled into something too personal and ugly. The "We're all Chinese" is a desperate attempt to pump the brakes, to create a pause, and maybe, just maybe, to inject a sense of shared responsibility for maintaining a certain decorum. But without further elaboration or a concrete suggestion, it’s just noise.
Why it's "Bullshit Literature":
Lack of Specificity: It's the ultimate vague statement. What does "being Chinese" have to do with the immediate conflict at hand? It offers no solution, no insight, no actionable advice.
Oversimplification: It reduces complex interpersonal dynamics to a single, monolithic identity. It ignores the fact that people within any national group have diverse personalities, opinions, and the capacity for disagreement.
Emotional Inappropriateness: In a moment of heightened emotion, such a detached, generalized statement can feel dismissive and invalidating of the feelings being expressed. It's like telling someone who's crying about a lost pet to "think about the billions of people who are hungry."
Performative Harmony: It often sounds like someone trying to be the peacemaker, but without the actual tools or willingness to truly mediate. It’s a performance of goodwill rather than genuine engagement.
In essence, when someone says "We're all Chinese" during an argument in a car, they're likely:
Trying to shut down the conflict with a vague appeal to unity.
Avoiding direct involvement or responsibility.
Expressing a mild disapproval of the intensity of the argument.
Struggling to find more meaningful words to deescalate.
It's a classic piece of "bullshit literature" because it’s a linguistic artifact that exists more to fill a silence, signal an intention, or perform a social function than to convey actual information or facilitate genuine resolution. It’s the verbal equivalent of a polite cough in a room full of shouting. While the intent might be benign, the effect is usually a further muddling of the situation.
At its core, "bullshit literature" (废话文学) isn't about outright lies, but rather about statements that are technically true but utterly devoid of substance, context, or actionable meaning in a given situation. They're the linguistic equivalent of a placeholder, a linguistic shrug, or a wellintentioned but ultimately useless platitude.
In the context of a car argument, where emotions are likely running high and specific grievances are being aired, the "We're all Chinese" statement serves several purposes, none of them particularly helpful:
1. The Grand Unifier (and Distractor):
The speaker might be attempting to deescalate the situation by appealing to a shared national identity. The idea is to remind everyone of their common ground, hoping it will override whatever petty disagreement is currently boiling over. It’s an attempt to pull people back from the brink of personal conflict by focusing on a larger, collective identity.
However, this approach often backfires. Arguments in a car are usually about immediate, personal issues: who cut whom off, who’s driving too fast or too slow, whose music is too loud, or a disagreement about directions. In such microsituations, a broad appeal to nationality is like trying to put out a house fire with a thimble of water. It simply doesn't address the root of the problem. Instead of acknowledging the specific frustration, it dismisses it with a sweeping generalization.
2. The NonConfrontational CopOut:
For the speaker, this phrase can be a way to avoid taking a stance or getting involved directly. They might not want to pick a side, mediate effectively, or even understand the nuances of the argument. By uttering this, they signal a desire for peace without actually having to do anything to achieve it. It’s a verbal shield, a way to appear like they’re contributing to harmony while remaining safely on the sidelines.
3. The Implicit Scolding:
Sometimes, the phrase carries a subtle undertone of "How can you argue like this, you're embarrassing our nation!" It’s a form of indirect criticism, suggesting that the current behavior is unbefitting of their shared identity. The implication is that civilized Chinese people wouldn't behave this way. This can feel patronizing and add another layer of resentment to the already tense atmosphere.
4. The Emotional Vacuum Cleaner:
This kind of statement often appears when people are struggling to articulate their own feelings or when they feel the argument has spiraled into something too personal and ugly. The "We're all Chinese" is a desperate attempt to pump the brakes, to create a pause, and maybe, just maybe, to inject a sense of shared responsibility for maintaining a certain decorum. But without further elaboration or a concrete suggestion, it’s just noise.
Why it's "Bullshit Literature":
Lack of Specificity: It's the ultimate vague statement. What does "being Chinese" have to do with the immediate conflict at hand? It offers no solution, no insight, no actionable advice.
Oversimplification: It reduces complex interpersonal dynamics to a single, monolithic identity. It ignores the fact that people within any national group have diverse personalities, opinions, and the capacity for disagreement.
Emotional Inappropriateness: In a moment of heightened emotion, such a detached, generalized statement can feel dismissive and invalidating of the feelings being expressed. It's like telling someone who's crying about a lost pet to "think about the billions of people who are hungry."
Performative Harmony: It often sounds like someone trying to be the peacemaker, but without the actual tools or willingness to truly mediate. It’s a performance of goodwill rather than genuine engagement.
In essence, when someone says "We're all Chinese" during an argument in a car, they're likely:
Trying to shut down the conflict with a vague appeal to unity.
Avoiding direct involvement or responsibility.
Expressing a mild disapproval of the intensity of the argument.
Struggling to find more meaningful words to deescalate.
It's a classic piece of "bullshit literature" because it’s a linguistic artifact that exists more to fill a silence, signal an intention, or perform a social function than to convey actual information or facilitate genuine resolution. It’s the verbal equivalent of a polite cough in a room full of shouting. While the intent might be benign, the effect is usually a further muddling of the situation.
网友意见
手法没有错，就是标的选的太大。
解决争议的一个最常见手法就是制造共识。寻找共同的身份，共同的目标是制造共识的一个最简单的办法。
如果打鬼子的时候我们起了内讧，说大家都是中国人不要打了，是有用的。因为这时候共同的目标是打鬼子。
但是公交车上，还不如说别吵了，万一把司机师傅吵烦了手一抖 ... ...
类似的话题
-
When a heated argument erupts in a car, and someone chimes in with, "We're all Chinese..." it's a prime example of what's affectionately (or perhaps s.............
本站所有内容均为互联网搜索引擎提供的公开搜索信息，本站不存储任何数据与内容，任何内容与数据均与本站无关，如有需要请联系相关搜索引擎包括但不限于百度，google,bing,sogou 等
© 2025 tinynews.org All Rights Reserved. 百科问答小站 版权所有