How many people are Nazis?, Reivew on Sai de ke · ba lai: Tai yang qi

The author's original concept: to judge the justice of an act (killing), it can only be viewed from the perspective of the entire human society (not a country or a nation). Any argument is based on the original idea being established. In order to ensure that readers are aware of the subjectivity of the text when reading the article: the author of this article tends to be reformist and elitist.

1. Regarding my definition of indiscriminate killing:

Even considering mediocre evil, assuming that 1w people's cyber violence leads to one person committing suicide, the family of the suicide person kills for revenge, which is called indiscriminate killing, because each person's share of evil is 1/10,000 killing. So even as one of the aggressors, as long as he didn't kill himself, he basically didn't deserve to be killed. You can refer to the Japanese women and children in this film.

2. About blood sacrifice to ancestors:

Gao Xiaosong commented on Guevara in "Xiao Shuo": "Some people say that Guevara cultivated hatred and ruthlessness for lofty ideals, but I personally think so. Human beings have many lofty ideals, and these ideals lead to Has mankind progressed? Or has it caused mankind to regress? So you can’t say that you have lofty ideals, and you can do whatever you want.”

3. About Aboriginal culture:

Religion can also be considered a part of culture. If the aboriginal culture is to kill each other, we must respect this culture. Counter-evidence: The conclusion derived from this logic is that the crusades were just, and the terrorism of today, which is dedicated to religious ideals, is just.

I support the survival of the fittest in culture. Mona Ludao said: "There will be no Seediq in twenty years." Whether or not culture really disappears, it is the people's own choice after comparing civilization with barbarism. If it disappears, it means that the people have chosen civilization, then civilization is superior to barbarism, and barbarism should be eliminated, not that any culture should be preserved.

4. Regarding the definition of aggression:

The aborigines are savage, backward, and take pride in killing, so is the aggression that brought civilization to them justified? In this film, Ichiro Hanaoka discussed with Mona Ludo, but what Mona Ludao said: "their civilization has not made our life better, but let us see our own poverty", indicating that he is against seeing himself of poverty. Counter-evidence: the ostrich policy.

If there is justice, it is no different from the imperialist colonists who said a hundred years ago that the yellow race has no ability to manage themselves; if there is no justice, should they be allowed to be barbaric? According to this logic, those Internet content platforms full of vulgar content do not need to be rectified, but should be left to their own devices? Regarding this point, in the historical facts, the Japanese invaders forbid the Gaoshan people to kill each other, and gave their answer.

This kind of aggression has been repeated in history. Since the slave society, many invaders have brought civilization. After many years, the aborigines have been educated, and after they have the ability to take care of themselves, they have found ways to become independent. I think this is from the perspective of human society. It looks like a virtuous circle. Instead of hitting a stone with an egg when they are still young, ironically, it is shown in this film that the aborigines stepped on the bridge brought by Japan, took Japanese guns, and went to kill the Japanese. Of course, if the locals can get the same treatment as the invaders, then there is no need to be independent. In any case, it is the choice of the people. For example, in Singapore, the quality of the local people must have been poor a few decades ago. Lee Kuan Yew was only able to lead the people to prosperity after receiving a British education from childhood to adulthood.

It can be seen in this film that the Wushe incident was all done by men for glory, not the choice of the tribal people (of course, in their opinion, people = tribal men), which caused great losses to Japan and the aborigines.

5. On the superiority of the aggressor:

Aggressors bring civilization with a sense of superiority. I think superiority cannot be called a reason to be blamed. Instead, it is a necessary link for most people to gain self-identity. Without this link, it may be nihilism and depression. Even if they are born, I guess they have a top-down view of the superiority of people in the world. Maybe they can really get rid of this link and still be able to become immortals and become Buddhas.

6. On "Can man kill animals, can superman kill?":

If you look at it from God's point of view, this inference is valid. However, from the perspective of human society, it is obviously not true.

7. On whether or not it was a Nazi:

In fact, it can be seen in this film that which of the two sides has no Nazis in his bones, only education can make people have the ability to think independently. Otherwise, if you watch an anti-Japanese drama and shout about killing the enemy, and then read a book a few days later and say you want the harmony of mankind, then training a Nazi army will be as easy as the description in "The Tide".

notes:

00:49:17

racism

00:28:10

Is it aggression for a race that glorifies killing, a civilized country to educate them? But if it doesn't count, so do the British who invaded China. In addition, according to this logic, how can we be qualified to judge that the three vulgar content on today's headlines is not good?

00:57:46

Man kills prey, can superman kill?

01:19:05

focus

Why can't the point be invaded?

civilization

01:20:12

Instead of making the natives better, civilization sees its own poverty. But this is not right. The right to know is the most important thing. After knowing it, let people choose for themselves, not without a choice.

01:21:44