news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

just now, the latest report on the qingdao "land rover girl incident" came out.

the notification is as follows:

the notice is very long. i will summarize it in the following points:

① the land rover girl is an ordinary villager in the local area. she used to run a tea shop and run individual transportation industries. she currently has no fixed job and does not have a special identity as rumored on the internet.

② the woman driving the land rover did drive in the wrong direction, but after she met lin (the man who was beaten), she also wanted to return to the normal lane, but lin kept pushing her forward, so she could not return to the normal lane.

③ the reason why the land rover woman drove in the wrong direction was because she was in a hurry to go to the hospital for treatment.

④ the land rover woman’s car did scrape the bus next to it, but after negotiation between the bus and the land rover woman, the bus did not ask for compensation from the land rover woman, so the land rover woman was not considered to have committed hit-and-run.

⑤ the land rover woman has been punished to the maximum extent for insulting and beating others.

⑥ the land rover woman has apologized to the man who was beaten.

……

so, what do you think after reading this notice?

i don’t know what you think, but after reading this notice, my first reaction was that it turns out that the problem is not only with the arrogant land rover girl, but also with the man who was beaten...

why was my first reaction like this?

because the notice said that after the woman drove the land rover in the wrong direction, she wanted to go back, but the man who was beaten (lin) kept very close to the front of the land rover, so she couldn't go back, so she got angry.

so here comes the question.

people who drive frequently know that if you are driving against the flow and want to go back, no matter how the car in front of you pushes you, as long as you want to go back, you can do so. and even if you can't go back to the normal lane next to it, you can go back to the end of the normal traffic flow. you are driving against the flow, so why do you still want to get into the normal lane?

even if the other car is very close to you and you can't back off, you can pull over, get off the car in front and the car next to you, and negotiate in a friendly manner, saying that you are in a hurry and hope to be allowed to merge into the normal lane. that's fine, why don't you do it? why do you have to hit someone?

you were in the wrong first, so even if the beaten man's car hit the front of your car, or even if he hit the front of your car to force you to move back, it is still considered normal driving, so why are you so angry?

so, even if the man who was beaten hit the woman's land rover with the front of the car and refused to give way, does it mean that the man who was beaten was also wrong?

one thing was also mentioned in this notice, that is, between august 30 and 31, the land rover woman had expressed remorse and had written an apology letter to the beaten man.

but here comes the problem.

when being interviewed by the media, the man who was beaten said the following about his apology:

one said it apologized, the other said it didn't. why is that? is it because there was a time lag between the media report and the apology letter sent out by the relevant unit?

we don't know.

but when i saw that one said he apologized and the other said he didn't, my first reaction was that the man who was beaten also had a problem. he has apologized, so how could you still tell the media that he didn't apologize?

so this makes people wonder, is the man who was beaten lying?

so, did the man who was beaten really lie?

actually, i don't think the man who was beaten was lying.

because when you look at the time nodes of this incident, you will find that the land rover woman beat people on the 28th, was summoned on the 29th, and the apology letter she wrote was written between the 30th and 31st.

what does that mean?

this actually means that the land rover woman still did not write an apology letter after being summoned. if she did not write an apology letter, it means that at that time, she probably still had no remorse.

therefore, it is very likely that she did not write the apology letter until the media reported that the land rover woman did not apologize. then the relevant units sent the apology letter to the beaten man.

so, after being caught for beating someone, a person did not take the initiative to apologize to the person who was beaten, but waited until the person who was beaten said that she had not apologized, and then she hurriedly wrote an apology letter. do you think that this apology letter she hurriedly wrote at this time really has any substantive significance?

so, does this mean that the man who was beaten was lying? does this mean that there is something wrong with the man who was beaten?

obviously not.

so, in this notice, even if it says that the woman driving the land rover was driving in the wrong direction because she was in a hurry to go to the hospital for treatment; even if it says that the woman driving the land rover hit someone because she was hit by the car in front of her; even if it says that the woman driving the land rover has apologized to the man who was beaten, this cannot actually lead to the conclusion that there is something wrong with the man who was beaten.

if i were to say the only problem with the beaten man, i think it is that after being beaten by a shrew, he did not fight back, nor did he block the beating with his hands, nor did he subdue the shrew and wait for the police to arrive. instead, he just stood there and endured the beating, and only dared to take out his cell phone to collect evidence after being beaten. i think this is the biggest problem of this man.

this is a problem that exists for this man, and it is also a problem that exists for society.

because sometimes in our society, honest people are always bullied, law-abiding people are always bullied, and people always feel angry after being treated unfairly. this is a big problem.

some honest people in our society choose to endure when they are treated unfairly, but what they get in return is only unwarranted humiliation, kicking someone when they are down, being looked down upon and disliked...

if the current attitude of a society towards honest people cannot be changed, then i just want to say one thing to the honest people in this society - never be too honest, and never show your honesty to people who don't understand you, because in the eyes of these people, honesty and cowardice are actually the same concept!

just like the beaten man in the land rover woman incident, he was actually a fierce tiger (a veteran), but because of the constraints of certain social rules, this fierce tiger was forced to live like a little white rabbit!

is this a kind of black humor and a biting irony?