Summary of the Key Points
This article begins with the internet celebrity Jiang Xiaorou's car accident, which was followed by claims of "karma" as a form of divine retribution. It criticizes the foolish behavior of those who try to force accidental events into a framework of religious punishment. Furthermore, it exposes the widespread phenomenon of "pseudo-objectivity" on the internet—where people claim to be rational and objective, yet use the limitations of science to support superstition, resort to "infinite possibilities" to avoid dealing with real issues, and use statements like "it's not easy for anyone" to suppress criticism. The article argues that this pseudo-objectivity is essentially a manifestation of intellectual laziness and utilitarian philosophy, which not only defames the truth but also stifles individual expression.
1. Internet Celebrity Behavior and Superstitious Believers' "Retribution" Frenzy
Jiang Xiaorou creates content about "paranormal exploration and debunking superstitions," with the primary goal of gaining attention, not truly spreading knowledge. Extreme actions such as destroying statues of Guanyin or wearing funeral clothes at burial grounds are merely tactics to attract viewers. Those who claim her car accident is a form of retribution are simply trying to link random events to religious causes; they lack both logic and cultural understanding. They neither comprehend that car accidents are purely statistical events nor show any respect for the deceased, using the incident as an outlet for their own ignorant fantasies.
2. The Sophistry of Pseudo-Objectivity: Using Scientific Limits to Justify Superstition
Some argue that "attributing things beyond scientific explanation to superstition is her problem." While there are indeed aspects of reality that science cannot explain, this does not mean there is room for superstition. For example, ancient people did not understand lightning as a natural phenomenon and attributed it to divine anger; today, with basic scientific knowledge, we know that the deceased's eyes remaining open after death is due to muscle stiffness (a condition affecting one-third of people), and the heat from gathering around can help relax the muscles—this has nothing to do with unresolved emotional issues. Those who believe in such things are simply too lazy to think scientifically.
3. The Logical Traps of Pseudo-Objectivity: Jumping from "Facts" to "Unverifiable Possibilities"
A common tactic of pseudo-objectivity is to misapply standards of evaluation:
- When discussing traditional martial arts, they ignore the fact that masters have been deceived and instead claim there are hidden masters in the mountains—since these claims cannot be verified, they cannot be refuted.
- In discussing public events, they use statements like "the country is facing tough times" to downplay violations of individual rights, using broader challenges to obscure specific issues and prevent accountability.
This kind of logic is nothing more than a form of dishonesty: it uses the possibility of something being true to avoid addressing real problems that exist in reality.
4. The Essence of Pseudo-Objectivity: An Easy Way Out That Doesn't Require Thinking
Why do so many people resort to pseudo-objectivity? Because it requires little effort: no need to learn or think critically. By adopting a non-partisan stance, one can appear "mature" and "neutral." Phrases like "You're too extreme; be more objective" require no special knowledge and just allow one to act as a "nice person." However, this is a form of intellectual laziness that allows people to avoid delving into the root causes of problems (such as systemic flaws or mistakes in implementation). With a simple sigh of "it's not easy for anyone," one can gain a false sense of moral superiority.
5. The Hazards of Pseudo-Objectivity: Defaming the Truth and Suppressing Voices
The harms of pseudo-objectivity are clear:
- For the deceased, calling a car accident retribution is a despicable form of blasphemy.
- For the truth itself, it uses complexity as an excuse to justify ignorance, giving superstition a semblance of legitimacy.
- For free speech, it uses "objectivity" to suppress criticism—when you point out issues, others accuse you of being unobjective, turning serious analysis into emotional venting and preventing any real progress.
This pseudo-objectivity is more dangerous than outright errors: it does not address problems but instead muddles them, causing society to lose its ability to distinguish right from wrong.
(The entire article is written in plain language, avoiding technical jargon, to ensure that non-professionals can easily understand the nature of the phenomenon, its manifestations, logic, essence, and consequences.)