Every debate begins with the interpretation of the debate, and this philosophical debate involves many interesting problems in the interpretation of words.
The first word is expression. What is expression? The expression here is not only through language, but also including words, intonation, behavior, expression and so on. After all, thought guides behavior, and behavior reflects thought. Even without language, inner prejudice will still be expressed. Ba Jin: "It is because I am not good at words and can't express my feelings that I turned to paper and pen to vent my love and hate with the scenes of novels. I changed from a reader to a writer." Liu Qing: "The seriously injured can't thank the people's dear with actions. They communicate with their eyes."
Then it will involve the second word, what is prejudice. Word splitting means "prejudice", which means "incorrect and incomplete", while "seeing" means "observing, recognizing and understanding things". Combined with "prejudice", it refers to the incomplete and incorrect observation, understanding and understanding of a thing, which can be an object, an event or a person. Back in English, "prejudge" means "prejudge", that is to say, combined with the understanding of China and foreign countries, the word "prejudice" is a kind of pre-biased judgment of things, which can occur in any process of observing, knowing and understanding things.
The third word to be discussed is freedom. In today's era, it is obviously unreasonable for this society to define freedom as "completely determined by itself, without restrictions and constraints". After all, this is a society ruled by law, and the bottom line of the law is untouchable. That is to say, here we can regard freedom as a legal term, that is, citizens have the right to carry out their own will activities without restriction within the scope prescribed by law.
In fact, the generation of prejudice can be attributed to an instinct of "seeking advantages and avoiding disadvantages". In daily communication, people will get used to making a preset that is beneficial to me, which is right and harmful to me, which is wrong. This is prejudice and inevitable, because everyone lives and grows up in different environments, so they get different horizons. In other words, prejudice cannot be completely eliminated. Look at the nature of prejudice. Social psychologists Kahneman and Tavoschi divide prejudice into hot prejudice and cold prejudice. Thermal prejudice comes from feelings, wishes, interests and interests, and often leads to wrong conclusions due to "hot heads" driven by thermal prejudice. This kind of prejudice is subjective, while cold prejudice is formed in the rational structure of human beings, which means that it will be caused by objective limitations in the process of pure cognitive intelligence. The latter is often used when discussing scientific facts, and the former is often used when discussing humanistic feelings. But no matter which side, it is closely related to thinking and will affect the correct understanding.
Personally, I think this debate can be discussed from two aspects: whether people are free now, whether people should be free, and what is and should be.
The first is reality. In this era of over-developed network information, in our real society, in fact, everyone's thoughts and attitudes are being monitored and audited. In addition to the strictness of the management organs, it is more the spontaneous supervision of "people around". Obviously, this "people around" not only refers to people in real life, but also includes virtual people that we can't see (people who will come into contact with the network). Here, it will be realized. When we want to express Sansheng's prejudice against a person, it may be that our boss, colleagues or passers-by on the street need to "think twice before you act". For your own consideration, you need to worry about whether it will "have ears through the wall" and harm your own interests; Considering others, you need to consider whether the prejudice you want to express is correct, that is, whether your "prejudgment" is biased, and whether what you say is advice to others or just venting. At the same time, in the second world, there is a familiar word called "reporting", and we see people making reactionary remarks and reporting; I saw someone slandering my love beans and reported it; Dating someone ... there are too many things to report. Will you be reported by others if you do too much? That is to say, "publishing" and "reporting" are expressions of prejudice by different parties. We can't publish our own prejudice at will because of being reported; When we see what we think is prejudice, we choose to report it. This endless process obviously greatly limits our freedom to express prejudice, that is to say, even if we don't touch the law, we have no freedom to express prejudice in reality. In the above two cases, there is just no clear right or wrong. In addition, we should also consider established wrong prejudices such as "regional discrimination" and "racial discrimination". If we make such remarks again now, we will be attacked and even punished in many ways. Obviously, we have no freedom to express our prejudice in this respect.
Look at what it should be, just like the analysis just now, no matter what kind of prejudice will have an impact on understanding, and most of them are due to the wrong influence of limitations, that is to say, what we think is right is likely to be wrong, and whether there is a free expression of wrong views has become a problem to be discussed. Of course, we can express wrong views, but at the same time, we should be prepared to be criticized. If you can't do this, you'd better not express it. After all, by that time, your identity has been transformed into a person who thinks he is a victim. This choice of "self-guidance and self-injury" is obviously not worth advocating, which is precisely one of the reasons why you should not have freedom, and it is also aimed at things that have not yet been judged right or wrong. Second, the direction that has been clearly judged is similar to the actual reason, so I won't go into details. It can be seen that from the perspective of necessity, people should not have the freedom to express prejudice.
Well, what I advocate here is that we don't limit your freedom of prejudice, but only limit your freedom to express it. You may not like it, but please don't hurt it. Just like a college student who abused cats on a hot search in Weibo a few days ago, you may not like it, but please don't express your prejudice in any form, let alone bring its negative energy to others.
PS。 The freedom not to express prejudice here means that you can't express prejudice without restriction within the scope permitted by law, not that you can't express prejudice.
At the same time, personally, prejudice cannot be objectively judged by a third party. For example, it is also a prejudice for a person to express his love for beans, but if such remarks are over-published, there may be a situation in which "fans pay for beans". For another example, whether a person's expression of racial discrimination is pushed to the forefront or whether the person being discussed is hurt, that is to say, the influence of free expression of prejudice is immeasurable, and the negative influence is often greater than the positive one.
Of course, this article is purely personal, that is, this article is biased, which means that I am ready to accept criticism when writing, but I still hope to see this article, and people with different opinions can communicate with me in a friendly way.