2024年5月刊

伊藤詩織紀錄片; ban phones from school;土耳其降息打通脹?;not rinse after brushing;主流民意;gender gap among voters;數位監控;eyeglasses improve incomes;是否廢死;trans' parent;哥大校園示威;propaganda war;good health;

伊藤詩織專訪:她笑着回來了,告訴你身為性暴力倖存者的真實生活|端傳媒 Initium Media
講日語的伊藤詩織和講英語的她有什麼不同?「英語直接一些,比如,我可以說fuck off。」
對於那些不堪回憶的,伊藤很多都不記得了。
她嘗試根據記者提問回憶一些過去的感受,卻不好意思地坦白:「我想那是我應對(創傷)的方式,有時找到些什麼,我就像,shit,這,它真的發生過嗎?」她曾失去魂魄般對著鏡頭自語壓力太大,在紀錄片中抱歉地向世界告別,「就連這個片段,也是(發生)一年後才在我手機裏找到的。」
那是她狀態最差的日子,彼時她改以民事訴訟起訴山口敬之已近兩年,正是交叉詢問要開始之前,卻被告知自己的審判結果將會影響日本同類案件(日本法律部分行大陸法系,民法系統下法庭判例將為現實中法律應當如何闡釋提供準則)。伊藤頓時感到有壓力,「如果我輸了,好像別人也會輸⋯⋯我被告知不能這樣說話、不能那樣說話,會影響法官的感受⋯⋯我不知道要怎麼說話了,而我不想影響到別人。」

返過轉頭睇,成為歷史之人好難,好多時其他人會好容易忽略呢一點,其實一開始嘅伊藤詩織只係一個人,事後睇嚟唔算平凡或普通,但都唔係乜嘢大人物有好大嘅力量。佢都同樣會同其他受害者一樣有創傷有壓力,而要承擔創造歷史嘅責任就更大壓力

直到她發現「日本媒體也無法面對和處理我的案子」。分析指,日本媒體對性暴力案件有「集體沉默之牆」,受害人如伊藤等,只有透過日本外國特派員協會召開國際記者會,才令事件具有影響力。東京大學教授林香里曾指,與其他各主要國家相比,日本媒體在處理性別平等相關話題方面表現相當消極。
而記者的操守倫理也一直壓著伊藤,在她的第一本書中,她就全力要求自己保持「客觀中立」,從第三者的視角看自己。做紀錄片導演,她也曾自我懷疑:「拍自己我覺得是很自然的,但倫理上我很猶豫,這是不是最好的方式,是不是ok的?」
直到某一刻,她覺得所有東西都清晰起來,「悲劇總是由別人來講述,但我們(悲劇主角)有用自己的聲音講自己的故事的力量。」「我要承認我越界了」,她想清楚了,「這就是我的單方面敘事,對不起,我不準備在這裏講別人了。」

right,無須求全責備,每個人都有同應有自己嘅聲音,因為唔會有其他人可以完全代表到自己,尤其當社會都傾向沉默嘅時候,就更需要講出嚟

她希望影片會有一些積極意義,但總的來說,「我並不是一個政治家,無法改變世界,我的工作就是講一個純粹的故事。但我希望可以鼓勵別人,或至少呈現出一種真實感——倖存者的生活是什麼樣子。」多年前她形容「讓光照進黑箱」,如今提起,她依然肯定地大聲說「Yes!」,「要看到問題,才能修正問題」。
在另一個訪問中,伊藤說,「關於我是誰,我還在不斷發掘的路上。但是說到底,我感覺自己……誰也不是(I'm just no one),沒有被任何東西所依附,所以也會覺得有點孤獨,但是現在,我真心為自己獲得的力量感到高興。」
在案件仍在起訴、審理,未有結果的階段,伊藤還對自己有「客觀」的要求,「我們還在庭中(in a court)」,她在意自己是否能對事件進行評論、表達個人觀點,因此盡力從記者視角出發。在《黑箱》一書中,她就努力自我抽離,憤怒、恐懼等尖銳情緒只在字裏行間閃爍。
是隨著法庭做出判決,她才漸漸找到餘力,「有了法律決定後,我的討論和表達變得容易多了」。
散文集合在《裸泳》一書中,她寫自己不再是「受害者」,也不再是「記者」,而是「詩織本人」了,終於重新獲得了言語化自己的能力:「我採集了許多詞語,用來描述自己曾經不願正視的心理創痛,終於擁有了將那段經歷拆解、重組、化為日常語言去加以剖析的能力⋯⋯其中最大的轉變,是發覺自己從『倖存』進化到了『活著』。」

實在係太好喇!

WashingtonPost| Joanna Slater|How a Connecticut middle school won the battle against cellphones

“We have these devices which we know are at best habit-forming and at worst addictive that are increasingly linked to depression and loneliness,” said Susan Linn, a psychologist, lecturer at Harvard Medical School and author of “Who’s Raising the Kids?”
“So why would we have them in schools?”
Illing administrators said some of the changes among students have surprised them.
Group vaping sessions where students would coordinate to meet in restrooms to smoke prohibited electronic cigarettes? Finished.
Using AirDrop to share inappropriate photos during class? No more.
Social-media-fueled arguments during school? Over.
When students are in groups, the peer pressure to dislike Yondr remains strong, Dolphin said with a laugh. In one-on-one conversations, though, it’s different. Multiple students have told him they feel like they are making more friends. His gut also tells him that “the angsty intensity kids are living under” — he mimicked a person with head down, lost in a screen — has diminished.
Some students hadn’t realized how much their phones diverted their focus. Nicole Gwiazdowski, 14, followed the earlier rule not to use her cellphone in class. But even in her pocket, it was still a distraction. Her phone would buzz five to 10 times a day with notifications, she said, prompting her to take it out and check it.
Everyone is paying more attention in class these days, she said. And it turns out that being separated from your phone for the day isn’t as big a deal as some students feared.
“People thought, ‘Oh my God, I’m going to miss so much,’” Nicole said. “You don’t miss anything. Nothing important is happening outside school.”

十分之有效!

小Lin說《時勢》:堅信「利率是惡魔的父母」,土耳其總統獨門的「降息打通膨」有效嗎? - The News Lens 關鍵評論網
「小Lin說」是目前最受歡迎的YouTube財經知識頻道之一,創立3年多,迅速衝破167萬訂閱數,平均每部「總體經濟」系列影片,都突破100萬次觀看。在本書中,她將用最精煉的篇幅、最活靈活現的趣味譬喻,解說日、韓、俄、英、歐盟、希臘、土耳其等大國或地區,錯綜複雜的經濟發展歷程;以及美、中、德等重量經濟體如何影響上述國家與全球經濟。
雖然土耳其的經濟發展得很好,但因為貿易逆差嚴重,市場擔心它會出現美元荒,最終像斯里蘭卡一樣因為無法償還外債而破產。所以從2015年開始,土耳其里拉兌美元的匯率持續下跌。
到了2018年,土耳其作為北約(NATO)成員國,卻向俄羅斯購買了戰鬥機,徹底把美國給惹毛,美國時任總統川普因此對土耳其的鋼鐵和鋁施加懲罰性關稅,還直接威脅說:如果土耳其不管好自己,我會徹底毀滅土耳其的經濟(I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey)!
艾爾多安也是人狠話多,一點都不怕川普,還激情澎湃地在國內發表演講:不要管美國,他們有美元,但我們有人民,有我們的神(真主阿拉)!
他演講一時爽,但市場卻不會因此而信服。大家本來就非常擔心土耳其的美元化問題,這下它還和美國對抗,國際投資者紛紛在恐慌中離場。我們可以看到,2018∼2019年間,土耳其的外資減少了將近一半。土耳其里拉兌美元的匯率更是「一瀉千里」。
外資的撤離也導致土耳其很多公司甚至一般人的資金斷鏈。土耳其國內已經沉寂了10年的通膨開始抬頭。

以為關埋門就冇事?一關就出事……

艾爾多安有一套自己的邏輯脈絡:降息會帶動需求和投資的增長→需求和投資的增長會帶動商品供給增加→商品供給增加的幅度如果高於需求增加的幅度,則商品價格會下降→成功壓制通貨膨脹。也就是說,他認為降息既能控制通膨,又能保證經濟的增長。
他的想法並非全無道理,降息確實能促進投資和生產,但經濟學界以往的經驗是,低利率帶來的負面效果(物價上漲)會遠大於上述正面效果,在大多數情況下,低利率會導致原本通膨的經濟體需求增加更明顯,通膨率更高,經濟過熱更嚴重。

但外資走晒,投資少勁多……

除了他特立獨行的經濟學思考,還牽涉到土耳其的宗教信仰。
土耳其是信仰伊斯蘭教的大國,艾爾多安也是穆斯林。在伊斯蘭教的教義中,收取利息被視為用金錢牟利的罪惡行為,因此艾爾多安才會說「利率是惡魔的父母」。正因如此,土耳其銀行的借貸業務也是名不正、言不順,銀行會想盡各種辦法來繞過「罪惡的利率」。比如:假使土耳其人想向銀行貸款買房,銀行不能直接收取房貸利息,而是必須先買下房子,再以更高的價格賣給購屋者,同時向購屋者提供零息貸款。
艾爾多安在「防止資本外流」和「引入外部投資」兩方面,採取了一些措施。
首先,為了防止資本外流,艾爾多安採取了一系列措施,包括一些基本的調控(例如:限制銀行外匯持有比率等);還推出了一種相當創新、受外匯保護的「存款模式」——針對手中持有大量美元的土耳其民眾,只要將美元兌換成里拉,即使之後因里拉暴跌而發生虧損,銀行也會賠償損失,這項政策實際上就是讓銀行替存款者承擔外匯風險。
第二,是積極引入外部投資,或者說拉攏外部同盟。
我們在前文提到,土耳其是極度依賴能源進口的國家。儘管北邊是俄羅斯,南邊是中東,全是盛產能源的地區,但土耳其偏偏化石能源非常稀缺,超過90%的能源消耗都需要進口。艾爾多安也意識到了能源的重要性,一改往日激進強硬的性格,開始和各個能源大國建立友好外交關係。

好在(?)都係揾到其他方法去嘗試解決,但最後會點都只能等時間揭曉

而另一邊廂,藍白合作打算立院強行通過控制電價凍脹,都唔知點講好……你玩飽佢啦,呢啲就係抵,揀咩人上嚟就要承擔相應嘅代價直到做滿任期或彈劾

MSN

Why dentists say you shouldn’t rinse after brushing

Dental experts agree. They recommend brushing at least twice a day with a fluoride-containing toothpaste to help prevent cavities. And they say skipping the rinse after brushing allows the fluoride to stay on the teeth, providing added protection.
Skipping the rinse is not essential for people with healthy teeth, but those who eat a high-sugar diet or are prone to cavities may need extra help from the fluoride, said Margherita Fontana, a professor at the University of Michigan School of Dentistry. “When you rinse, you are basically rinsing away the active ingredients of the toothpaste that you just put on your teeth,” she said.
Another option for those who want to rinse after brushing is to follow up with a mouthwash containing fluoride, Fontana said.

【專欄】為何民眾支持你所討厭者?
與綠營民眾接觸時,很少碰到不罵柯文哲者,各方面都罵,可是柯文哲卻莫名其妙的成長。以前台灣政壇形成兩黨政治,小黨…
人為自己利益而奔走是非常正常的現象,只要不用奸詐或違法手段獲利就屬正常,一個團體常會為利益的分配發生爭執。中國國民黨出身獨裁政黨,掌控國家資源,利益的分配趨向制度化,還形成有利共享的風氣。以前該黨講究倫理,更會念舊,因而形成強而有力的團體。昔日促使該黨屹立不搖的利益共同體目前已經崩解,更嚴重的是回不去,因為利益共同體是以前的獨裁政權所建立,今日的環境沒辦法建立利益共同體。顯然的有很多人寧可支持柯文哲,也不願意再支持中國國民黨。
九0年代初期,民進黨沒甚麼政治版圖,屬運動團體,目標是宣揚政治信仰,因而需要有說客遊說選民,能影響幾個算幾個,不可能影響多數選民。到九0年代中期以後,民進黨逐漸茁壯,乃轉型為民主政黨,以執政為目標,需要多數選民的支持,由以前意圖影響選民轉型為跟著多數選民走,所以要了解民意,跟著主流民意走。可是有人還扮演以前說客的角色,不幫民進黨了解民意,反而幫民進黨解釋政策的正當性,只是主流民意並不認同,只有在同溫層內相互取暖。嚴重的是民進黨誤將說客及同溫層當作主流民意,勇往直前,當然被主流民意唾棄。現在是民主政黨,需要了解主流民意,反而有一大群人扮演「先知」,誤導民進黨的走向。蔡總統強烈主張「溝通」,真正做的卻是「宣導」,後者是單方向,「溝通」則是雙向的。民進黨應該了解主流民意,可是該黨卻想主導民意。
二0二0年大選後,有獨派人士感嘆的說,民眾黨什麼事都沒做,卻可以獨得一百五十萬張政黨票。事實上就是民眾黨什麼事都沒做才獲得同時厭惡兩大黨的民眾,若是做了事,或許也把那些選民趕跑。

不過選舉之後,民眾黨曝光度高咗,會受到更多嘅檢視,冇得繼續乜都唔做,相信好快就會泡沫化。始終都係要了解同埋尊重主流民意,先可以獲得更多嘅支持

Tracking the partisan identification and ideology of 18-to-34-year-olds, the McInturff analyses show that from 2012 to 2023, women became increasingly Democratic, going from 55 percent identifying as Democratic and 29 percent Republican in 2012 to 60 and 22 in 2023. The shift was even more striking in the case of ideology, going from 32 percent liberal and 29 percent conservative to 51 percent liberal and 17 percent conservative in 2023.
Among young men, the Democratic advantage in partisan identification fell from nine points in 2012 to five points in 2023.
I asked the Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, who recently joined the Biden campaign’s polling team, a job she also held in 2020. She sent a detailed reply by email:

Three reasons. First and foremost is the abortion issue and all the aspects of reproductive health, including medication abortion, I.V.F., birth control and criminalizing abortion. Young men are very pro-abortion and birth control, but young women really vote the issue.

Second is style and respect. Young men are not as troubled by the chaotic and divisive style of Trump, while young women want people to be respected, including themselves, want stability and are very concerned about division and the potential for violence. Young women think Trump’s style is an embarrassment abroad, a poor role model for their children and dangerous for the country. Younger men, especially blue-collar, have a grudging respect for his strength and “tell it like it is” attitude.

Third is the economy. Young men, especially blue-collar and people of color, feel left behind in this economy. They do not feel things have been delivered to them. They do not know anything about what this administration has done. Younger women are much more committed to a role for government to help people like themselves as a foundational view. They don’t know much more about the economic programs than young men, but they tend to respond more favorably to Democrats in general on the economy. Younger men also feel more left behind on the economy and more sense of grievance than young women do who are also increasingly dominating college and higher education.
Another likely factor, according to Twenge, is:
Fewer young men get college degrees than young women, and in the last 10 to 15 years the parties have split by education, with more of those without a college degree conservative and Republican. This appears even among high school seniors, where young men who do not plan to attend a four-year college are 30 percent more likely to identify as conservative than young men who are planning to get a college degree.

呢個確實需要注意嘅現象

為了安全,你要讓渡多少自由?專訪《監控國家》作者李肇華談數位監控時代的民主危機 - 報導者 The Reporter
在人工智慧、監控技術不斷進步的年代,我們到底應該如何看待這些技術與人類的關係?是大方擁抱還是應該疑懼?監控技術真的無所不能嗎?如果執行監控的政權不是中共、而是美國或其他民主國家,我們就能安心嗎?
早年在美國學習、工作的錢學森,於1950年代因麥卡錫主義而被迫離美,他回到中國之後,不只幫助中國大力發展長程導彈,也把「控制論」(cybernetics)這個科學理論在中國發揚光大,並將它運用在人類社會上,企圖用過去的數據預測人類未來的行為,因而演變成大數據監控的理論基礎。
換言之,起初孕育社會監控體制的關鍵人物和理論,其實就是中國、美國共同養育出來的產物,很巧合地呼應了中美今日在監控技術上的「隱性互助」(註:《監控國家》書中提及,中國根據維吾爾人族群的居住地、禮拜地點、年齡來進行追蹤的分析法,就是美國情報界於1990年創立,用來追蹤恐怖分子的一種監控技術。)。

幾得意嘅觀點

早期我們約訪也沒什麼困難,因為在這個監控體系剛成形時,大多數人並不認為這是個敏感的議題,只覺得它是個新技術。
這本書最驚人的一點是,監控公司和警方早期其實是很樂意接受外媒記者採訪的,因為他們對這個系統感到很自豪。老實說,當年我們去參觀這些公司的展示間,也覺得那些技術非常厲害、非常有趣。這本書的共同作者林和,當年甚至還能採訪到警察、城管,獲邀進入他們的主控室,認識監控運作的方式。
一直到我們的報導刊出、其他媒體也跟進報導,並在全球各地引起批評聲浪後,那些公司和中國政府才意識到,喔,原來這些不能談,採訪也才開始變得愈來愈困難,尤其是在新疆。我們接觸受訪者的方式,也必須變得更謹慎──很多新疆人都想提供訊息,但你必須找到合適的地點、情境和他們交談,避免他們被追蹤或監聽。

其實係兩套邏輯:

西方民主國家的人民看到中國正在發生的事情時,常常會覺得「喔,就是個歐威爾式(Orwellian)的惡夢,發生在一個遙遠的國家,和我無關」。但在中國,數位監控許諾的安全感和便利,其實比很多人意識到的還要更有吸引力,也正在民主國家擴散。
美國人會傾向於毫不批判地去理想化「自由」這個概念,甚至「為了自由而自由」(freedom for freedom's sake),卻不太會去思考自由的意義、自由帶來的責任,以及為了自由我們必須犧牲什麼──而這就是為什麼,我會在這本書的最末提到「選擇的自由」。
擁有選擇的自由當然是好事,但選擇同時也是困難的。某個意義上來說,監控技術就是在抹除這些選擇,也抹除了選擇這個行為所帶來的責任和負擔──比如書中的杭州,就是某種版本的數位烏托邦,你的生活幾乎都被安排好了,演算法會把它知道你喜歡的東西推送給你,或者為你提供它認為最好的選擇,所以你的生活變得既輕鬆、又方便,有些人會覺得這樣很好,讓我們解脫了選擇的負擔。
所以我個人的立場是,人們需要更多地去思考選擇,以及選擇會帶來的一切後果。

有唔同嘅立場都唔係問題,結合埋後邊提到嘅propaganda war,我都有啲困惑,噉問題係咪雙方都狙擊、批評另一方?似乎又唔係,為自己辯護都好正常嘅。不過用勁多納税人嘅錢去做呢樣嘢又真係唔多合理,同埋散佈假消息、陰謀論嗰啲就好黐線

可以因為便捷同安全而接受加強監控,但可唔可以係一個選擇而唔係安排呢?無論係邊種方向,都有佢嘅負擔同後果㗎

請深入思考我們周遭的各種科技:我們正在面對一個全新的時代,人類和科技的關係正在出現重大的變革,而台灣和中國,就處在這場變革的最前線。
你需要花些時間、退後一步,然後想想那些監視器、那些充斥在你生活中的數據,想想是誰在控制它們,他們的目的為何,然後試著去調整你和這些技術的關係。你還可以思考:為了安全或便利,你讓渡了多少權力和自由?
這不是在叫大家拒絕所有科技,畢竟現代生活是離不開數位監控的,但謹慎一點,總是值得的。

Uncorrected presbyopia, not surprisingly, makes it harder for breadwinners to support their families. That’s the conclusion of a new study which found that garment workers, artisans and tailors in Bangladesh who were provided with free reading glasses experienced a 33 percent increase in income compared to those who were not given glasses.
Overall, the health needs of women in Bangladesh take a back seat to those of men. “In our male-dominated society, when the man has a problem, it requires immediate attention, but women, they can wait,” she said.
But the effects of declining vision can be especially pronounced for women, who are often responsible for earning extra income for their families in addition to the child care and household chores, Ms. Mahjabeen said. “When it takes longer to sew and clean, or you can’t pick out all the stones from the rice, in some households it results in domestic violence,” she said.

it occurs everywhere

在塞滿火藥的價值縫隙處──台灣憲法法庭首度「死刑是否違憲」言詞辯論實錄 - 報導者 The Reporter
我國憲法法庭首次接受37位死囚對死刑違憲的聲請,4月23日進行公開言詞辯論,多方意見陳述再現了倡議者與大眾民意間難以化解的矛盾,以及人權、應報、被害者處境、民意、國安、立法者與政府責任的各種思考⋯⋯

是否廢死係一個長期議題,我哋就嚟睇下雙方嘅觀點,當然最後都係要取得最大嘅社會共識

李宣毅強調,死刑是國家的怠惰,藉此給予被害家屬交代,卻掩蓋行政系統的失敗、逃避處理被害人更深層創傷等問題,無助理解社會為何產生罪大惡極之人。接著論述廢死立場的,為律師父子檔李念祖與李劍非,前者提及一般大眾理解的死刑嚇阻效果,事實上沒有實證依據,並援引釋字第576號解釋早已確認生命無價,而從古代鬧市公開行刑到現代於隱密處執行,其殘酷本質不變,卻因迴避眾人目光更不可能達到嚇阻效果,並舉中國古代孔子、劉邦、梁山好漢,說明傳統的禮教、替天行道已不合時宜,「法官不是神、不是天、不是梁山好漢,民主的憑借不是神權,而是理性。」後者則舉出歷年民調數據,顯示當有配套法案時,近半數人民贊同取代死刑,而從20年來歷任法務部長從陳定南到蔡清祥,都曾公開表示無期徒刑或是較長的有期徒刑,是廢除死刑的有效配套措施;李劍非再舉出德國與英國的案例強調替代方案的可行性,「雨果(Victor Hugo)早在1848年就說過『死刑是人類野蠻的行為標籤』,替代方案足以讓我們撕下這張野蠻的標籤⋯⋯(請大法官)即刻宣告死刑違憲,並要求立法採取可行的替代措施。」
郭永發強調死刑案件審判程序極為嚴謹,又有多種救濟制度,可能避免誤判並確保程序的穩妥,因此法務部認為死刑並沒有違反生命權的保障,也沒有侵犯人性尊嚴,符合平等原則、比例原則而且還有很嚴謹的程序保障,本案所涉及的罪名符合《公政公約》(International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,《公民與政治權利國際公約》)之最嚴重犯行,死刑為不得已的最後手段,請憲法法庭為合憲性的判決。
許家馨認為死刑存廢應由立法機關透過民主審議機制,審慎評估與討論,且保有開放性空間,若非如此,當面臨戰爭或內亂等極端狀況時,國家將難以在無政府狀態之下有自保的手段;再者,「死刑存廢在兩種價值系統衝突的縫隙處,而且這個縫隙還塞滿了火藥,比如人性尊嚴或者殘酷刑罰這樣(牽涉到主觀感受和文化價值)的概念⋯⋯沒有辦法透過解釋就可以得到跨越價值系統讓公眾理性可以廣泛接受的結論。」
謝煜偉則主張, 國家剝奪人民生命權是一種特殊的例外狀態,無法放在《刑法》的脈絡下討論,「這種以隔離排害為目的的類保安處分⋯⋯已經抵觸了刑罰責任原則同時也不符合刑罰的適格性,亦違反《憲法》明顯區隔原則。」他並強調死刑定讞者無止盡在監獄裡收容的「待死」、不知何時被執行的荒謬狀態,已經屬於殘酷不人道的刑罰,「只能夠透過宣告死刑違憲或者是運用合憲性解釋以執行無期徒刑的方式⋯⋯最後本人亦反對停止執行的選項,因為它等於是放任了待決死刑犯的狀態繼續存在。」
在證明社會情勢並未對廢死形成共識,憲法法庭應該尊重自己之前的決定,不應該貿然改變過去一致的見解,死刑爭議應該留給民主機制討論,才符合憲法精神。

As his trans daughter struggles, a father pushes past his prejudice. ‘It was like a wake-up’
Dusty Farr used to be someone else. Before his transgender daughter was suspended after using the girls’ bathroom at her Missouri high school.
Now, though, after everything, he says he wouldn’t much care if his 16-year-old daughter — and he proudly calls her that — told him she was an alien. Because she is alive.
“When it was my child, it just flipped a switch,” says Farr, who is suing the Platte County School District on Kansas City’s outskirts. “And it was like a wake-up.”

因為有關聯,所以願意去打破偏見,係屋企人嘅愛吖

“Given the way I was raised, a conservative fire and brimstone Baptist, LGBTQ is a sin, you’re going to hell. And these were things, unfortunately, that I said to my daughter,” Farr says. “I’m kind of ashamed to say that.”
They bumped heads and argued, their relationship strained. In desperation, he turned to God, poring through the Bible, questioning teachings that he once took at face value that being transgender was an abomination. He prayed on it, too, replaying her childhood in his mind, seeing feminine qualities now that he had missed.
Then it hit him. “She’s a girl.”
“I got peace from God. Like, ‘This is how your daughter was born. I don’t make mistakes as God. So she was made this way. There’s a reason for it.’”

right,其實睇返原文,唔一定係有嗰啲經過闡釋後嘅觀點。當然,都唔係好容易可以轉變到,但一旦發生就會一下搞掂

“There was this electricity in me that was just, it felt like pure joy. Just seeing someone I thought would never support me, just being one of my biggest supporters,” she recalled as she played with her dog, a miniature Jack Russell terrier named Allie, at a park on an unseasonably warm February day. Her father was with her.

如果有屋企人嘅支持,肯定會更開心同滿足

“Being a teenager is hell,” he says. “Being a trans teen is 10 kinds of hell. She’s the brave one. I’m just her voice.”
He feels he has changed enough to fill this role — that being her voice can help other parents and kids avoid what his family endured. “Our kids,” he says, “are dying.” He thinks that because of where he came from, maybe people will listen when he raises alarms. Maybe.
“It’s almost like a transgender person,” he says of his transformation. “There’s the dead me. And then there’s the new me.”

哥倫比亞學潮現場:一場「撤資」行動,與美國高校言論自由的邊界|端傳媒 Initium Media
理想主義的學潮的另一端,是親以的富豪校友,還有自上而下的「反猶主義」排查。
許多教職工自發前往營地周邊保護學生安全,他們穿着熒光橙的馬甲,手挽手站在營地主入口。
我問了幾位不願具名受訪的老師,他們說,自己不是為了支持巴勒斯坦而來,而是為了保護學生。一位歷史系的教職工在營地出入口把手時告訴我,她因為不希望看到學生被暴力傷害,所以要來到現場守護。「我沒有終身教職,就不告訴你名字了吧。」這位老師說。
事實上,哥大比人們想象中更「能賺」。作為私立學校,哥大2023年盈餘高達62億美元,雖然非營利機構盈餘(surplus)不能和私營公司收益(revenue)直接相比,但作為比較,聯想集團(Lenovo)2022/23年的收益也是62億。而根據一份關於哥大財務狀況的報告分析,學費只佔哥大收入的4分1, 而哥大學生只有27%是本科生。
哥倫比亞大學此刻本身也對撤資一事十分敏感。賓州州立大學社會變革與歸屬中心主任Marcelius Braxton在X(推特)指出,80年代後,哥大捐贈基金的投資策略有所改變,從低風險資產逐漸轉向私募股權和房地產對沖基金,導致捐贈資金激增。大型捐贈者有了更多權力,學校也更依賴這些捐贈者,但這筆錢很少用在學生身上,而是用來提高學校排名。同時,因為高校資產與對沖基金相互依存,學校實際用到的前只是捐贈基金裏很小的一部分,所以哥大的選擇讓自己越來越富有,學生的地位卻下降了。
至此,哥大與學生的衝突愈加劇烈。CUAD提出要求校方撤資的要求,在校方這一側很難實現,畢竟校方真正的投資人不會為了學生們放棄以色列和美國在商業、學術甚至軍事等多方面的利益交集。而學生沒有經濟資本優勢,只能通過更加激烈的抗議和示威活動,從而達到自己的訴求。

well,私營學校唔盈利當然就冇辦法繼續辦學,但賺勁多錢為乜?齋名聲好就算?況且而家搞到兩頭唔到岸;之前嘅金主覺得學生反猶考慮唔再資助,而家嘅學生(至少7成)就覺得學校幫兇

她答應開除曾猛烈批評西方社會包庇以色列的,已有終身職的中東研究教授Joseph Massad,並同意哥大抗議中大量使用的口號,「從河流到海洋,巴勒斯坦將獲自由」(From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free)是反猶主義語言。她說,有反猶主義言行的哥大師生會被開除。
如果她不開除這位被扣上「反猶」帽子的教授,或許沙菲克校長就要辭職了。2023年秋天,哈佛大學和賓夕法尼亞大學前校長就參加了類似的聽證會,在這場自上而下的,美國高校排查美國高校「反猶主義」的浪潮裏被逼辭職。實際上,右翼政客時常認為美國高等校園過分保護自由派活動家們,共和黨人在聽證會上集中審查高校對親巴學生抗議者們的處理結果上。

【Hello World】和平衛士或反戰暴民?哥倫比亞大學「加薩團結營地」如何點燃美國學運論戰、衝擊大選? - 報導者 The Reporter
為阻止加薩戰爭擴大,4月中旬美國哥倫比亞大學學生發起占領校園示威活動,30日卻遭鎮暴警察入校清場。過往幾乎不曾衝擊美國國內政情的以巴衝突,為何前所未見地撕裂校園政治與社會輿論?
在聽證會上的壓力與準備不全,卻讓3名校長對眾議員的強勢逼問毫無招架之力──既無法對反猶主義的種族仇視明確說不,也無力堅守大學校園對於言論自由與理性辯論的價值底線──因此在各界猛批的輿論重壓之下,哈佛與賓州大學的校長雙雙黯然而難堪地請辭下台。
但在這波針對頂尖大學校長的「聽證拷問」裡,卻有一所著名大學,在當時以技術性手段巧妙閃過壓力──那即是在4個月後引爆全美大學聲援巴勒斯坦反戰抗爭的常春藤聯盟名校:哥倫比亞大學。
《紐約時報》也注意到這次反戰學運所出現的另一個特殊現象:無論是在大學的抗爭前線還是網路上的學運討論,都有非常高比例的學生選擇「蒙面」,或者拒絕公開可被辨識的學生資料、拒絕對外發言和與記者交談。這是因為從10月7日開戰以來,美國社群網路已多次針對學生運動的聲援者發動「肉搜騷擾」,無論是以色列的支持者、還是巴勒斯坦反戰運動都有年輕學生因為個人發言而被曝光個資、甚至被冒用身分。這種匿名與去辨識的參與風氣,讓雙方的言論與取信公眾的號召力變得更為敏感且充滿顧忌,恐削弱了過往社會運動的溝通、對話、並在不同意見者之間建立基本信任感的功能。

sad,似乎已經無可避免?資訊時代,個資極易被曝光,令到搞運動都好難公開透明化

特勞布表示,儘管在1968年的反戰學運給民主黨帶來很大的分裂壓力,但民主黨倚賴的進步派鐵票選前照常歸隊,而30歲以下最積極參與示威運動的年輕選民,則與過往相同、仍是全年齡層中投票率最低。真正影響結果、並讓民主黨在選舉人團票大敗的原因,是民主黨流失了南方選區的農村與保守派支持──根據當年民調結果,這些南方選民反而支持美國繼續參與越戰,他們對詹森執政的反感主要來自於「民主黨放任反戰運動是社會失序」。
「1968年大選的真正教訓是:雖然煙火總是在『左翼』,但有效的選票總是在『右邊』。」特勞布意有所指地寫道:「拜登或許無法讓年輕選民堅定地站在他這邊,但他仍需要在以巴衝突、國內抗爭現場實現和平與穩定,因為只有社會能平靜對話時,美國選民才有機會聽見他想傳達的政見與訊息。」

true,如果內部都亂埋,噉證明真係治理得唔好,雙方都冇辦法交流。good luck to 民主黨

The New Propaganda War
Autocrats in China, Russia, and elsewhere are now making common cause with MAGA Republicans to discredit liberalism and freedom around the world.
Like the demonstrations against President Vladimir Putin in Russia that began in 2011, the 2014 street protests in Venezuela, and the 2019 Hong Kong protests, the 2022 protests in China help explain something else: why autocratic regimes have slowly turned their repressive mechanisms outward, into the democratic world. If people are naturally drawn to the image of human rights, to the language of democracy, to the dream of freedom, then those concepts have to be poisoned. That requires more than surveillance, more than close observation of the population, more than a political system that defends against liberal ideas. It also requires an offensive plan: a narrative that damages both the idea of democracy everywhere in the world and the tools to deliver it.
Outside this echo chamber, few even know it exists. At a dinner in Munich in February 2023, I found myself seated across from a European diplomat who had just returned from Africa. He had met with some students there and had been shocked to discover how little they knew about the war in Ukraine, and how much of what they did know was wrong. They had repeated the Russian claims that the Ukrainians are Nazis, blamed NATO for the invasion, and generally used the same kind of language that can be heard every night on the Russian evening news. The diplomat was mystified.
it involves China’s systematic efforts to buy or influence both popular and elite audiences around the world; carefully curated Russian propaganda campaigns, some open, some clandestine, some amplified by the American and European far right; and other autocracies using their own networks to promote the same language.
Most don’t offer their fellow citizens a vision of utopia, and don’t inspire them to build a better world. Instead, they teach people to be cynical and passive, apathetic and afraid, because there is no better world to build. Their goal is to persuade their own people to stay out of politics, and above all to convince them that there is no democratic alternative: Our state may be corrupt, but everyone else is corrupt too. You may not like our leader, but the others are worse. You may not like our society, but at least we are strong. The democratic world is weak, degenerate, divided, dying.
Instead of portraying China as the perfect society, modern Chinese propaganda seeks to inculcate nationalist pride, based on China’s real experience of economic development, and to promote a Beijing model of progress through dictatorship and “order” that’s superior to the chaos and violence of democracy.

「天下烏鴉一般黑」……所以就唔好比咁多?

Fear, cynicism, nihilism, and apathy, coupled with disgust and disdain for democracy: This is the formula that modern autocrats, with some variations, sell to their citizens and to foreigners, all with the aim of destroying what they call “American hegemony.”
All they do is amplify existing people and movements—whether anti-LGBTQ, anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-Ukrainian, or, above all, antidemocratic. Sometimes they provide a social-media echo. Sometimes they employ reporters and spokespeople. Sometimes they use the media networks they built for this purpose. And sometimes, they just rely on Americans to do it for them.

唔係簡單地注入新嘅問題,而係放大原有嘅問題……噉先更加攞命,兩者互相增強,成為一個大大大問題

How to Die in Good Health
The average American celebrates just one healthy birthday after the age of sixty-five. Peter Attia argues that it doesn’t have to be this way.
Attia notes that each decade after thirty we lose a meaningful amount of muscle mass and cardiovascular fitness. If we wish to slow that decline, and to complete a “Centenarian Decathlon” of important late-in-life activities—carry groceries, climb stairs, have sex—we need to become “athletes of life.”
If anything, longer lives now appear to include more difficult years. The “compression of morbidity may be as illusory as immortality,” two demographers, Eileen Crimmins and Hiram Beltrán-Sánchez, wrote in 2010. According to the World Health Organization, the average American can expect just one healthy birthday after the age of sixty-five. (Health spans are greater in countries such as Switzerland, Japan, Panama, Turkey, and Sri Lanka.)
When I asked Attia about the longevity movement, he bristled. The term “just smells of snake oil,” he said. “Most of what I see out there is what I think of as sci-fi longevity. We’re going to live to be two hundred, and death is going to become irrelevant.” He handed me my coffee. “The way I talk about it is in a very low-tech way.” Attia has said that he wouldn’t want to live forever, even if he could, and he seems wary of a stereotype of longevity doctors. At parties, he sometimes pretends he’s a race-car driver or a shepherd. “I thought I was going to get skewered for writing ‘Outlive,’ ” he told me. “I thought doctors were going to say, ‘This guy is a grifter. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.’ ” Some do say that—but others have become his followers.

well……所以有時暢銷真係可以打死老師傅,即使原作者唔係呢個意思。呢個都係點解而家流量時代唔點需要常識、案例同科學

“He has always been extreme,” Steven Levitt, the University of Chicago economist and co-author of “Freakonomics,” who is a patient and a friend of Attia’s, told me. “Peter has been wrong a lot, but he changes his view when he runs into evidence that contradicts his theory.” Levitt trusts and admires Attia, but acknowledged that Attia’s fans in the longevity movement could go too far. “Followers often become more extreme than the leaders,” he told me.
Emanuel, the University of Pennsylvania professor, has said that he wants to live to seventy-five. (He is sixty-six.) “Living a long time is not an end in itself,” he told me over Zoom. “If it becomes the focus of your life . . . that is one of the worst mistakes you can make.” It’s not that we shouldn’t exercise or eat well—but “everyone goes through a decline,” Emanuel said. “Spending your life worried about all these tiny things is a waste of time.”

都真,為咗長壽而長壽,幾冇癮

Talking to Attia, I frequently reminded myself that I can’t diet and exercise my way out of many diseases, and there’s no regimen to eradicate uncertainty. Still, I felt the pull of becoming an “athlete of life.” Too often, conversations about life extension devolve into unhelpful abstractions and untestable speculation; one appeal of Attia’s advice is that it’s so tangible. Critics can paint his counsel as blindingly obvious or needlessly complex—but he has, at least, inspired large audiences to imagine what a better approach to aging could look like. “There is actually no such thing as atheism,” David Foster Wallace once said. “The only choice we get is what to worship.” In a society that chases money, power, fame, and beauty, there are worse gods than longevity.

人總會信仰啲乜嘢,似乎無可避免?

As we walked on, I thought about a curious body of psychological research, which suggests that as we age and lose our capacities we tend to grow more content, not less. This finding clashes with popular conceptions of getting older, but seems to hold across continents, cultures, and eras. “I can’t do everything I used to,” a family friend, who is in his eighties and has been married for sixty years, recently told me. “But I wouldn’t say I’m any less happy than I was before.” Lost pleasures, he said, could sometimes be replaced: rounds of golf gave way to brisk walks, and when walking became difficult he spent more time talking to his children and grandchildren. As we grasp that our days are limited, we seem to abdicate our need for control; we may try to close the gap between what we want and what we have. Healthy aging seems to require a shift in mind-set as much as a shift in muscle mass.
“Sometimes I think about all the people who’ve ever lived, and how lucky I am to be alive right now,” Attia told me. “Like, if I died tomorrow, it would be O.K.” We started down a final hill. His house came into view. “But, while I’m here, I want to know that I gave it my all,” he went on. “We have this one shot. Wouldn’t it be a shame if we didn’t make the most of it?”

評論留言区