I'm surprised that the virus thing hasn't passed, people seem to forget what happened a few months ago, like these things have been going on for a long time.

From the beginning of the new crown pneumonia to now, we have experienced a variety of emotional baptism, face-to-face contact less, the Internet conflict is more and more obvious, the darkness of human nature from all sides, whether it is the Network or the media, in the process of people to distinguish the facts, violence is also produced! No matter what the outcome, it's not a good thing for the future!

After the outbreak of the new crown outbreak, there have been many articles on the outbreak exposed the problems of human civilization or modern civilization, and called it the "civilization crisis."

I think this is an exaggeration, because the crisis is mainly a modern way of life (e.g. urban living, farming, diet preferences, behavioural habits) rather than human civilization itself.

British writer H. Wells G. Wells, in his novel The Island of The Island, describes the efforts of "orcs" to build their "civilizations": inventing religion, laws, organizing families, maintaining order, punishing different people, but the orc's efforts fail, and when orcism fails, orcs become beasts: blood, crossbreeding and promiscuity, weak flesh, and killing.

In a word, a return to barbarism as a result of the crisis and collapse of civilization.

It is not difficult to see that in today's human world, there is no such crisis of civilization.

Kamran Nayeri, a professor at Berkeley, has an article called The Epidemic of The Corona's Corona as The Civilization Crisis, whose main point is that the new crown virus is not the end of civilization, but it is a test.

If we agree, the question is, what is the test?

The test may be the effectiveness and timeliness of government operations, the superiority of the system, the stability and strength of the economic system, the adequacy and effectiveness of the medical and health care system, the safety of the industrial chain, the harmony between man and nature or the wildlife community, and so on. But I think it's our humanity that's being tested more seriously.

In human history, every civil war, plague or large-scale international conflict has triggered a crisis of testing significance: testing the military and national organizational capacity, the vision or wisdom of leaders, the safe functioning of the whole system, the endurance and solidarity of the people, and so on, but none of them has not tested human nature first: the human nature of leaders and ordinary people.

There is something in common between different crises and special manifestations. In human memory, the global outbreak of the new crown outbreak is probably the first since the world entered the Internet age.

Compared to the past, the current mode of communication has been subverting human perception, and the world to watch together!

The Civil War of Corsila was another extreme situation that distorted human nature as observed by Theus Tsucydides. Cosila is a city-state in ancient Greece, and during the civil war in Corsila, we saw the darkness and decay of human nature similar to today's vicious verbal struggle on the Internet.

The difference is that Before the civil war, Corsila was relatively peaceful and rational, and the Internet was not a place where conspiracies and vicious fights were already growing. But the outbreak has more than ever strengthened and amplified the dark humannature of the Internet.

What happened on the Internet was a civil war without a knife and gun, and if verbal violence could kill people, the Internet would have been bleeding and wailing. Compared with the violence of a knife and a gun, verbal violence, while more "civilized", shows the darkness of human nature.

The civil war in Corsila was fused between "democrats" and "nobility" and left the Corsila people in an extreme situation similar to the Athens plague. Their behaviour changed dramatically, with neighbors, friends and acquaintances of the same city-state, but killed by civil war and each other.

"The Corsilas continue to slaughter what they consider to be enemies among their own citizens. All those killed by them were charged with conspiring to overthrow democracy; There are different ways of dying. "

The civil war plunged the Corsila people into a non-friend-as-enemy mentality, and then developed a consistent strategy of struggle: we must support any enemy who opposes it, and we oppose it whenever the enemy supports it. "As is often the case in this situation, people tend to go to extremes, even worse. There are fathers who kill their sons; some drag them out of the temple, or slaughter them on the altar. "

Similarly, as a result of the civil war on the Internet, the death of father and son, husband and wife, neighbors feud, circle of friends torn, each other blacking out the events continue to occur.

In truth, the Internet should be a place where people can talk and reason. Speaking and reasoning should be rules and rules, the minimum rules of etiquette is and gas, not scolding, not false, not fabricated, not malicious.

In normal circumstances, the average person can follow such a standard of conversation to ask themselves, otherwise there will be indecent, look down on others. People are self-respecting, do not want to let themselves because of unseemly, uneducated behavior shame.

But when there is a civil war or foreign war on the Internet, such norms don't work, and they create a "reverse norm" that goes the other way against the rules.

The role of reverse norms is evident in the Behavior of the Corsila Civil War described by Tweed. "In times of peace and prosperity, city-states and individuals adhere to higher standards because they are not forced by the situation to do what they do not want to do," he said. But war is a harsh teacher... The war reduced the minds of most people to the level of their actual environment. "

There is a natural impulse to transgression in human nature, and transgressions give people the thrill of excitement and excitement. Douglas MacArthur, the American general in World War II, said that "most of the rules are set to be broken" and that a positive understanding of the phrase could be "unbreakable" or "justified".

But from a human perspective, it can be understood as "there are no rules that no one wants to break".

If there is no instinctive impulse to cross the line in human nature, why should there be rules to prevent and limit such impulses? But, on the other hand, if something is limited by the rules, it is not absolutely necessary, nor is it preferred.

For example, whether on the Internet or in everyday life, honesty and truth are the rules of speech, which means that lying and cheating are a natural instinctive impulse that exists in reality, but that people are not liars or cheats, and that lying and deception should not be regarded under any circumstances as "must be so" or "preferably so".

Otherwise, lies and deception will have the effect of snipering in society: since lies and deception can bring more than honesty and truth, let us all lie and cheat together!

In extreme situations of fierce confrontation, hatred, and hostility, the urge to break the rules increases dramatically and therefore does what is not normally the case. Many of the misbehaviours occur in this situation, and this extreme situation is deliberately created by some people.

The irrationality of cyber violence is that I can scold you, but you can never scold me. The scolder is not not without the rules of speech, but only by rules that are in his own interest and defending his right to break other rules. Darken ingress so that the ruse allows people to retaliate against the enemy both safely and effectively.

The more extreme the speech, the more eye-catching it is. Without language, lies don't happen. The knife brought by the language shuttles through every communication.