Chapter 277 Let’s Talk About Definitions Instead of Facts

Yao Yan looked at the captain, Lie Skull.

The moment Lie Skull met Yao Yan's sight, he also realized what he meant.

"I am a reporter, and I was killed when I resisted my colleagues who made false history."

His voice was low but without any ups and downs, and he seemed quite calm.

"Killed for making false history?"

Black Arm's voice was full of laughter, as if it was just a joke.

Lie Skull glanced at him and didn't react.

Yao Yan also glanced at him and didn't say anything.

It's a good material for making rumors.

But why would he say that in front of others?

Assuming that "his behavior is not irrational behavior affected by emotions" and "his actions are all purposeful" -

Under this premise, why would he do this?

Is it because his behavior will not be taken seriously?

The most common way is to use jokes and "entertainment" to dispel the seriousness of a matter.

In his lifetime, such things happened countless times.

Even this behavior itself has been dispelled and become part of a phenomenon.

It is called "stalk".

However, at this time, the voice of the cracked skull sounded:

"At that time, there was an article in the magazine where I worked that mentioned a war between three countries that should have occurred three or four hundred years ago."

"The staff of my magazine described the recovery of the territory of the invaded country in this war as 'territorial increase'."

"Territorial increase?"

This sentence made Black Wrist repeat it involuntarily.

"Well, I raised an objection at the time, because, legally, this territory belongs to the invaded country."

Territorial recovery became territorial increase?

"However, the other party rejected my opinion and used 'increase' as a neutral word, an objective description, and there is no problem."

Hearing this, Yao Yan felt that he should probably smile, but unfortunately he had no emotions.

"Then, he wrote another sentence."

"The increase and decrease of the territory of a feudal country is more objective than recovery and invasion."

"And the invasion of the territory by the invading country that started the war was also described as 'territorial increase', and the land taken back by the other party was described as 'territorial reduction'."

The voice of the cracked skull was flat:

"When I raised my opinion again and thought that this description was not objective, the other party rejected my opinion again and said, 'This is an objective description. The territory of this country was also seized five or six hundred years ago. What's the problem with other countries seizing it?'"

And these words are too familiar to Yao Yan.

Classic lines of historical nihilism.

He encountered a lot in his life.

A country gains territory through violent annexation, which does not mean that it gains legitimacy at the same time as it gains territory.

International relations and political legitimacy, these basic knowledge of legal ownership are not available.

After a country seizes territory, there will be a process of legalization of rule.

To put it in a way that ordinary people are familiar with, it is "digestion".

What you grab is not yours, and what you eat is not yours either. Only when you digest it, it is yours.

Only historical nihilists, and rather superficial ones, would describe history in a way that lacks basic political common sense, such as "anyone can rob, and yours is also robbed."

"Winner takes all, victory is legitimacy" has fewer loopholes than the former.

But only a few.

In the world he lives in, the most important thing about territorial law is international conventions and agreements between countries.

After a certain world war or intercontinental war, the treaty was signed after the victory, and the transfer and solidification of territorial law was obtained.

One country and another country obtained the transfer and solidification of law through the signing of a treaty.

If there is no such treaty agreement, then there is no legal right to rule, unless the ruling regime has been destroyed or weakened.

Many people like to look at territorial issues in terms of property possession, or even not in terms of property ownership.

There is a saying that many people have heard of -

Big things become small and small things become nothing.

Or "diluted".

Invasion, expansion, and recovery are all about increasing territory.

Yes, in the case of leaving aside ownership and territorial law, they are all about increasing territory.

By talking about definitions without considering facts, many people without relevant knowledge can be dragged into a trap.

Yao Yan should not be too familiar with this kind of operation.

However, his memory, Yao Yan before his death, generally took the path of dialectical materialism. This way of thinking of historical nihilism could not fool him before his death, let alone him now.

There is also a word for this trick to be used actively -

substitution of concepts.

People are familiar with the word "substitution of concepts", but it is vague. Without being pointed out, they do not realize that the concepts have been replaced.

The culprit is still the vague judgment mechanism, the human efficiency machine.

If you meet someone who likes to use the description of "exactly the same", you must examine it carefully.

Otherwise, words such as invasion and recovery, which have the common point of "increase in territory", can be replaced quietly.

And the key issues of legal affiliation, legitimacy and legality will be blurred quietly, or even forgotten.

After these judgment standards related to values ​​are blurred and intelligence is missing, people's judgments will be greatly affected.

For xx to invade xx, people will be subconsciously hostile to the former.

Regarding the increase in xx territory and the decrease in xx territory, such dilution will quickly weaken people's tendency.

If you split it into two separate sections and describe it separately, people wouldn't even be able to immediately realize who got the territory from whom.

Even professionals.

Even those who have some understanding of semantic pragmatics often do not immediately realize this kind of method of setting aside reality to talk about definitions.

People know whether a word is neutral or positive by definition.

However, if you replace certain words with neutral words, this seemingly objective behavior has its own problems.

The word used here has a legal basis, but it is not expressed in a clear sentence.

People are not aware of this implicit premise and cannot sensitively detect that the concept has been stolen.

This is a problem that Yaoyan himself could not avoid.

However.

What the truth is, he doesn’t know——

This is a description of a split skull.

He didn't know if what Split Skull said was true.

Try to avoid the influence of judgment caused by the "primacy effect".

Oh, it can also be called first impression, preconception.

At this time, the skull-cracking voice continued to sound:

"Then I was fired."

ps: After watching a few key politics, I feel that many people lack some basic knowledge.

How should I put it? When I was in college, I was in the debate club. The trick of secretly changing concepts was very useful in debate competitions. It was very useful if the other debater did not notice it.

Of course, the best trick to use in a debate is to seize the pain points and bring the opponent into your own rhythm.

Do not respond directly to the other party's questions, or do things that appear to be responses but are quickly bypassed.

The core of arguments that occur on the Internet is often not about reasoning, but about winning and losing.

As long as you win, onlookers will often follow the winner's logic and crush the loser.

And in philosophy, to a certain extent, the same is true.

According to my rough understanding, different philosophies often follow different logics.

Oh, just a crude metaphor. "Logic" itself is also a philosophy.

Of course, this is an inaccurate description. There are more specific differences, and it cannot be applied to all. I don’t even know the scope of application of this statement and how many types of philosophy it can apply to.

Scope of application