Just a few words about Black Lives Matter.

This year has been extraordinary. I've been busy since the Spring Festival. Recently, I finally settled on my new job and have some time to write and share my thoughts.

I'll write a separate article about the job market this year and why I left Grab so quickly, once everything has settled down; I won't go into details here. Overall, the market isn't that bad. The number of offers this time has broken records, and there's still a significant shortage of workers at the senior level and above.

Today I want to talk about some recent events in the United States, which are quite sensitive, so I will lock this article depending on the situation. You can message me privately for the password to read it (the same password as before).

As we all know, the BLM (Black Lives Matter) movement in the United States has been in full swing recently. This is actually one of the unexpected events in an election year. No one would believe that there was no political force pushing it behind the scenes. The logic behind the law that unexpected events will inevitably occur in an election year is also easy to understand: a calm environment is conducive to the ruling party to proceed step by step, while a chaotic environment is conducive to the opposition party to take the opportunity to come to power.

politics

As I've mentioned countless times before, humanity still hasn't found a system that truly suits it. Both Western democracy and the Chinese system have their own advantages and disadvantages. The foundation of the Western system is equality for all, with everyone having equal decision-making power. This works very well where elites constitute the majority, as they are capable of rational thinking and decision-making. However, once the number of political elites decreases, or the moral values of those involved decline, many problems arise.

To give an example, in Asia, we often see disputes escalating into fights in various courts, a common occurrence in South Korea, Japan, and some other less-described region. The phenomenon of politicians being non-neutral and spouting nonsense stems from the fact that, driven by power and self-interest, morality has become irrelevant. It has become a matter of: "I have my own stance, and I must blindly adhere to it, even if it's wrong or short-sighted. As long as I can garner a group of supporters to vote for me, I can completely abandon 'neutral morality.'" In this situation, politicians lose their capacity for critical thinking, and debate becomes meaningless because neither side considers the other's perspective or the long-term interests of the public.

In an affluent environment, everyone can have enough to eat, and the Western system can demonstrate its advantages. However, in an austerity environment, interests become particularly important, and the Western system becomes a shackle, restricting progress.

There's a global trend now: young people are tired of politics and uninterested in participating, leading to a talent gap and a shortage of candidates. This forces established figures or those with resources to step in. But are they truly suitable? Look at the last two US elections: a large portion of voters chose one candidate because they disliked another, not because they thought the candidate was good.

The current chaos stems from the stagnation of American development and the depletion of resources, which has led to a fierce power struggle.

BLM

Let's talk about the very sensitive issue of BLM. Many people say it's an American version of the Cultural Revolution, but I personally don't think so. First of all, this behavior was largely an outlet for pent-up emotions, since the pandemic had everyone feeling stifled. Now, people are slowly calming down and reflecting on the meaning of BLM.

So, what was the real trigger behind this incident? Personally, I believe it was an overcorrection of the concept of "fairness." For the past two centuries, human society has been built on the value of fairness, meaning equal rights for all, especially in Western societies where equality is paramount. However, equality is not the primary concern in the eyes of Easterners; we still believe in the principle of "more work, more pay" and the idea that the capable rise to the top. This is evident in the emphasis placed on education in Asian countries.

The foundation of all Earth's civilization is the law of the jungle, where the strong prey on the weak. After World War II, people witnessed the horrors of war caused by this lawlessness and began to correct this, leading to the current social system where even the weakest should be cared for. However, this correction now seems somewhat excessive, especially considering the previously prevalent "Mother Teresa" countries in Europe. Was it truly necessary?

If there is a sufficiently fair environment, people will naturally be divided into different classes based on their efforts and lack thereof. Is there still a need for forced balance? The social system should provide more assistance to the weak, rather than the lazy. The weak are inherently disadvantaged and cannot stand on the same starting line as others in a fair environment, while the lazy are those who start on the same line but do not strive to move forward.

BLM is prevalent in the West, but it hasn't made a ripple in the East. Is it because there's no discrimination in the East? Discrimination in China is arguably no less than in the West, and it's not just about skin color (looking down on white people and black people), but also about region. Yet we haven't seen any provinces organizing such activities. Look at the recent Shandong college entrance exam incident; everyone is indignant, their anger no less than that of BLM. Why? Because the college entrance exam is a universally recognized fair environment. Rural girls are a vulnerable group; they worked hard but lost their opportunities due to dirty deals. Isn't this precisely a sign of compassion for the "weak"?

If we look at it from the other side, what would people's reaction be if a student from a rural family in Shandong was arrested for drug use and counterfeiting, and was mistakenly killed by the police for resisting arrest? Perhaps they would just feel sorry for the young life that had gone astray?

Racial discrimination in the West is a consequence of previous colonialism, but society is already quite fair now. If we were to try to correct it now, the whole society would be dragged down.

If we can create and maintain a level playing field with transparent rules and provide assistance to those who are inherently disadvantaged, that is enough. Society needs different social classes, but as long as there are open channels between these classes, the principle of "fairness" remains intact.

P.S.: Actually, I don't really understand what they mean by "unfairness." What is their idea of fairness?