Quick Summary of the Key Points
This article begins with a seemingly trivial restaurant dispute: A woman who claims to be a self-media creator claims that she was touched on the buttocks by a 4-year-old boy running around. She immediately injured the child by squeezing him, and later refused to mediate, insisting that the boy’s parents issue a written apology for the emotional distress caused. She then used the incident to promote her own online presence under the banner of “women’s rights protection,” which even led to her being hospitalized twice. Despite three attempts by the local police station to resolve the issue, with the assistance of lawyers and women’s federation staff, the situation was not resolved.
However, the article does not dwell on the specifics of who is at fault. Instead, it raises a poignant economic observation: The trend of turning minor issues into big controversies and fitting ordinary disputes into a “rights protection” framework is spreading. Essentially, many people have realized that causing a ruckus is a low-cost, high-profit strategy. If public resources continue to be used without any limits to appease such troublemakers, it will ultimately encourage everyone to abandon good behavior, leading to a society where the rule of the jungle prevails—“the crazy have the right.”
---
A Popular Explanation in Four Dimensions
1. Don’t Treat It as Triviality: This is a Public Display of Resource Misuse
Many people might think the woman is just being excessive, but from a practical perspective, she understands the benefits. Ordinary people facing minor issues, such as someone stepping on their foot or a child bumping into them, would likely have to go through a lengthy process to get help from public officials, possibly waiting for days without any response. This woman, however, leveraged gender-related controversies to mobilize three police responses, two emergency services, and the assistance of three lawyers and women’s federation staff. These resources are intended for those in real distress—women suffering from domestic violence, migrant workers who have not been paid for half a year, or ordinary people in serious accidents. Instead, she used them for a matter that cost her virtually nothing: no need to pay for lawyers or take responsibility for her actions. Even if she achieved nothing, she gained followers on her self-media account, essentially getting thousands of dollars in public services for free, while also increasing her traffic. This demonstration effect is much more effective than any advertising.
2. Everyone Has Thought About “Why Not Cause a Ruckus?”
The reason more and more people resort to causing a ruckus rather than seeking legal channels is simple: it’s more profitable. If you follow the legal process, you might spend weeks and hundreds of dollars with little result. But if you can claim to be a “vulnerable group” and stir up public opinion, you’ll get immediate attention and possibly receive special treatment to avoid further conflict. For example, the woman in this case didn’t suffer any losses; the boy’s parents already paid for the medical expenses, and her account gained followers, allowing her to earn from advertising. In such situations, the cost of causing a ruckus far outweighs the cost of following the rules.
3. The Most Dangerous Thing Is When Everyone Abandons Good Behavior
The author admits to having thought, “What if I caused a ruckus and benefited?” This is the real danger. When people who normally follow the rules start to think, “If I don’t cause a ruckus, I’m a fool,” the entire social order falls apart. Imagine everyone working hard, only to see others gaining advantages through misconduct—someone getting an extra half-month’s salary by causing a scene at work, someone getting a free meal and compensation at a tourist site, or someone occupying a parking spot by being aggressive. In the end, the honest and hardworking become the vulnerable ones, losing out on what’s rightfully theirs. Everyone’s energy is then spent on arguing and causing trouble, reducing the overall wealth of society. This is what the author means by the “domino effect of bad behavior.”
4. Calling for Civility Is Useless; Strict Rules Are the Only Solution
Appealing to people to be civilized is ineffective. People always seek what’s in their best interest, and if the benefits of causing a ruckus outweigh the costs, more will follow suit. The real solution, as mentioned in the article, is to ensure that public resources are allocated according to clear rules, with no room for exploitation. For instance, in this case, if the rules were followed, the 4-year-old boy’s parents would have simply apologized, and the woman who injured the child would have had to pay for the medical expenses and receive appropriate punishment. There would be no need for multiple mediations or lawyers. If causing a ruckus results in no benefits and only costs, no one would bother to do it. Only when everyone realizes that following the rules is the most profitable choice will we stop living in a world where the crazy have the upper hand.