Summary of the Core Content
The owner of a store in Qidong County was helping an elderly person who had fainted, only to later be sued by the family for 100,000 yuan. Although the authorities determined that the store owner was not at fault, the family threatened to display the body outside the store, forcing the owner to pay 19,000 yuan as a “humanitarian compensation” (which was more like a ransom). After the incident gained attention, local subsidies were provided, and the store owner deleted the video, revealing the underlying rule of “shying away from conflict” at the grassroots level. The article criticizes this phenomenon as not an isolated case but as a deeply ingrained norm in society—ranging from everyday trivial matters to the enforcement of laws. The root cause lies in the misinterpretation of the concept of “moderation” and the philosophy of self-preservation, which ultimately discourages good people and blurs the lines between right and wrong.
1. The “Ransom” in the Incident: Why Pay When There’s No Fault?
Why did the store owner pay 19,000 yuan when they were clearly not at fault? The essence is that the cost of compromising is lower than the cost of defending one’s rights. The family acted unreasonably, threatening to display the body outside the store, which would have severely damaged the business (the chess and card game parlor relies on customer traffic; with a body displayed, who would dare to come in?). The store owner couldn’t afford the hassle of dealing with the family, as it would have taken time and energy and could have affected their entire family’s life. Local authorities also preferred to avoid the trouble and advised the owner to settle the matter. This payment was neither a compensation nor an acknowledgement of responsibility but more like a ransom to buy peace and avoid further losses.
2. The Prevalence of Avoiding Conflict: From Everyday Trivialities to Serious Incidents
Avoiding conflict is present in many aspects of life:
- Public videos on high-speed trains: Despite being a matter of public morality, some people suggest “just letting it go.”
- Disputes in sleeper cars: Young people who refuse to allow upper berth passengers to sit by their beds are criticized for being “isolated,” ignoring the fact that lower berth passengers have the right to quietness.
- Bullying incidents: A 9-year-old child bullied a classmate severely (sexual assault and humiliation), but only received a warning, and the parents were not severely punished.
- The boy forced to eat feces: The victim’s parents eventually settled the matter out of pressure.
The common theme in these incidents is forcing those who are in the right to compromise in order to maintain superficial harmony.
3. The Cultural Roots of Avoiding Conflict: The Misinterpreted Concept of “Moderation” and “Self-Preservation”
Why do people tend to avoid conflict? The root lies in culture:
- Misinterpretation of moderation: True moderation means finding a balance based on the essence of things (standing by what is right even when the stakes are high), but it has been misinterpreted as “yielding in both cases.”
- Self-preservation: From a young age, people are taught to avoid being stubborn and to endure, fearing retribution. Standing up for principles is seen as being “unreasonable” or “stiff-necked.”
- The pursuit of superficial harmony: Resolving conflicts quickly is considered a sign of maturity, even at the cost of fairness.
4. The Consequences of Avoiding Conflict: Good People Become Disheartened, and Society Loses a Sense of Right and Wrong
While avoiding conflict may seem to solve immediate problems, it has long-term negative effects:
- Good people are deterred from doing good: They fear being taken advantage of for helping others, leading to a colder society.
- Bad people become more aggressive: Those who act unreasonably benefit, encouraging more people to think that causing a ruckus will get them what they want.
- Blurred lines between right and wrong: People gradually believe that as long as issues are resolved, it doesn’t matter if the principles are upheld or not, leading to a continuous erosion of fairness and justice.
For example, after this incident, netizens said, “I’ll be even more afraid to help the elderly in the future”—this is the direct consequence of avoiding conflict: it hurts good people and renders rules ineffective.
5. Why is Avoiding Conflict Difficult to Change?
Grassroots authorities are reluctant to take strong action (for instance, they don’t want the display of a body to disrupt stability), and cultural inertia is a significant barrier. People are taught from a young age that compromising is a sign of maturity, so their first reaction to injustice is to endure rather than fight. When most people compromise, those who stand by principles become outliers. To change this, not only do law enforcement agencies need to be more stringent, but we also need to break the cultural mindset that favors avoiding conflict at all costs. Right and wrong must be clearly defined; those who are in the right should not be bullied, and kindness should not be exploited. Otherwise, the unwritten rule of “the one who causes trouble is considered in the right” will only become more prevalent.